A shamefully inappropriate site for a large-scale industrial installation...

Your report on the GLOW guidelines is misleading. Despite what Mr. Dirdal claims, the report indicates a buffer of 6 miles from the shoreline described as "the fringe of land at the edge of a Great Lake (accounts for viewsheds, as well as historic and ceremonial use properties , and near-shore activities, e.g., recreational boating). The GLOW report also makes note of a University of Delaware study showing greater public acceptance of developments that BEGAN at 6 miles offshore and that British guidelines include a precautionary coastal exclusion ranging from 5 to 8 miles offshore. A Danish siting committee recommended areas that were ALL at least 8 miles offshore. The proposed Cape Wind project is between 5.2 and 13 miles offshore and other companies have proposed wind projects in the middle of Lake Michigan. Havgul, unlike many other offshore developers, apparently won't make enough profit if they put this project farther offshore. Tne proximity to shore they are proposing has everything to do with profit and nothing to do with what is feasible.

I really hope they dont ruin our lakes with this trash!

How will tourism and all the jobs it brings survive in West Michigan if the windfarm becomes reality? If tourists come once to see the largest windfarm in the world will they ever return because it has spoiled our beautiful lake views and sunsets? Why do people visit West Michigan now? I believe it is because it is unspoiled and has some of the most beautiful natural lake and dune scenery in the world! Families come to vacation. They fish, boat, camp, and hike. They spend a lot of money in our motels, restaurants, stores and other businesses which cater to tourists. Many return year after year to our beautiful lake front communities. Can you imagine putting windmills on the brink of Niagara Falls or on the rim of the Grand Canyon? Lake Michigan should be preserved not turned into a money maker for a private company!

Are there any positives to this project? What do the residents of this area (full and part-time) benefit from this project? Lower electicity rates? Lower taxes? More reliable power?

The comment above is dead-on. Warner/ Dirdal attempted to muddy the waters, but the recommendations are clear: DO NOT put this where it will cause harm, either to recreation, property values, fish, birds or anything else. It is common sense, really not to build in a space already occupied. This is not the only respect in which the proposal is in violation of GLOW recommendations. This will be plainly visible from at least 5 parks, including two state parks and a national lakeshore. They would like to use a county park as a staging area for construction. In essence, they will turn the area into a construction site for 2-3 years. For what? for 3500 temp jobs, the majority of which will be filled be out-of-towners? This space is already being used! to get these temp jobs you will have to lose construction jobs aplenty elsewhere here , as the region falls out of favor as a retirement, recreation and resort area. Not a good trade!