To the editor:

Maybe I've missed it, but why must the City's wind turbines be erected specifically on these landowners property? In a State with the rich wind resources that Minnesota enjoys, why is it that these specific landowners own the only land where the City can reasonably erect wind turbines? There must be landowners in the same radius from New Ulm with comparable wind resource that would gladly contract with the City for wind turbines on their land. Isn't there real estate along the summit of the Minnesota River valley where turbines could be located?

Disputes arising from wind turbine location are splitting communities across the nation. The issues include more than just the turbine. Roads that are built across fields to provide access to the turbine cut up fields and make tilling the land more difficult. Health concerns, esthetics and the landowners' conveyance to developers of virtually all right to use their land for anything other than farming are just some of the issues underlying these disputes.

In his letter to the Journal on Friday about the landowners refusal to voluntarily allow the City of New Ulm to erect wind turbines on their land, Judge Rosenbloom could have said ". . . it seems their opposition is subject to their individual will without restriction" (i.e. arbitrarily), but that would have been self-evident. I respect Judge Rosenbloom and understand his frustration at the obstacles that we face as a society to build renewable energy facilities, but words like "good sense" and "arbitrary" do not help us resolve these issues.

We would all do well to acknowledge and respect our own frustration with the costs, inconvenience and difficulty of weaning our society from fossil fuels, while also acknowledging the frustrations of those upon whom those costs are imposed disproportionately to the rest of us, like these landowners for example. In this setting, it seems to me that the first rule should be to avoid the imposition of costs on unwilling participants.

The local, state and federal governments that we create are the only entities whose actions are subject to legal criticism of acting arbitrarily. If there are comparable sites where willing participants will work with the City, then the City is acting arbitrarily in its insistence that turbines must be erected specifically on the property of these landowners.

If these landowners possess the only land where the turbines can be erected, then the City should get on with its condemnation power. Yes, the landowners who refuse to voluntarily allow the City of New Ulm to erect wind turbines are arbitrary, but that is their right. Most of us would say "no" to the erection of a wind turbine in our back yards. Farmers are no different just because they have more land than the average New Ulm resident. It is still all their land, not ours. Let's preserve the landowners' dignity and right to say "no" without restriction (i.e. arbitrarily), while honoring the City's power to do what's best for the City.

Yes, some will complain about the cost of engaging the legal process to condemn the land and obtain control of it (assuming this is the only land in the area where the turbines can be located). That process, however, mitigate other costs, like tearing down the dignity and good sense of our fellow citizens just because the disagree with and will not bend to the majority's will.

Joel Dahlgren

New Ulm