Albert Bowers recently wrote a letter to the Times claiming several issues with the lawsuit against the town of Lyme wind law. He claimed the law isn't arbitrary. It might have been better if he, as well as the board members who voted in favor of it, had read the final draft to see what they voted on and sent to the state before Bowers made that statement.

If they had, they would have read on page 20, and I quote, "At the work meeting, A&B were removed below; however, I did not remove it as this should be our way of getting sound data for ambient sound levels." This should have been found before it was voted on and sent to the state. This addition to the law by a single person is just one of several reasons the law is arbitrary. Not to mention obviously self-serving.

Another claim Mr. Bowers makes is that during public hearings, the public was in favor of the 4,500-foot setbacks. If that was the case, how does he explain 149 people wrote in or signed a petition to lower the setbacks but only 65 were in favor of leaving the setbacks at 4,500 feet. I never went to college, but to me that is more than two to one in favor of lower setbacks.

Another statement was that the pro-wind group is mainly comprised of landowners who would personally benefit by having turbines on their property. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of the 149 people in favor of lowered setbacks very few will actually qualify for turbines on their property. He would have known this if he had taken the time to learn more about taxpayers in the town of Lyme.

Included in his letter were statements about the "infamous" survey where he states a majority of the residents of the town of Lyme said they wanted a 4,500-foot setback in the zoning law. How can he claim this? If this survey had been interpreted by an objective panel, there is no way these results would statistically read the same.

Up to this point the anti-wind group has stretched all credibility in their desire to stop wind turbines in the town of Lyme any way they can (you ever hear of a NIMBY? Not in My Back Yard). To them this is more important than what is good for the taxpayers, the community as a whole or the environment.

Donald Bourquin

Chaumont