It would seem the proposal to have a 1.25 mile setback is really a request to eliminate the wind turbines completely. However, it still makes one wonder why the company cannot contain the windmills to property already owned. That would make service work and maintenance and power distribution much more economical.

This is a known and proven effect of these wind turbines. An effect that was not mentioned once by the guys who came to my door wanting me to sign on so they could use my land if they wanted. I did not, knowing that anything like that hanging over a property would do nothing but drive the property value down, and in a case like the house in the above video, make it virtually unmarketable. Now I have to sit back and hope for the best, that one of these towers isn't actually built in one of the locations I saw on the perspective placement map that would be near my house. Can anyone say "class-action lawsuit"?

Watched video actually made my stomach upset from the flicker

One has to note the current zoning policy in Mason County has setbacks of 1.5 times the height of the turbine to the property line, a little over 700 ft. so that the power company can plant one less than 800 ft. from your house. The Wisconsin wind farm is at 1000 ft. so many here might get worse flicker effects than the video. Likewise, the noise level 1000 ft. from some of these Wisconsin towers regularly exceeds 60 decibels, a bit beyond the 'nuisance level' that Mason County has set (55 decibels). Zoning is meant to address such real concerns the Riverton group brings up, not to provide funds for the County coffers.