CLINTON – Opponents to the development of a DeWitt County wind farm have dropped two lawsuits that were seeking to stop the project from moving forward.
The DeWitt County board voted 6-5 last July to approve a special use permit for Enel Energy to build 66 wind turbines, up to 599 feet tall on 12,000 acres in three northwestern townships near Waynesville and Wapella. It would be DeWitt County’s first wind farm.
Brought by 69 constituents in October, one lawsuit was filed against DeWitt County, the DeWitt County Board and its 12 individual members at the time; Tradewind Energy; and its parent company Enel Green Power North America, owner of Alta Farms II.
Audience members in opposition to a wind farm in DeWitt County listen as the county's board holds an outdoor meeting Tuesday, July 14, 2020, at the square in downtown Clinton to discuss the Alta Farms II project.
A second lawsuit was filed later in October by the Village of Wapella and its mayor Sherry Mears, arguing that the county board lacked the authority to enact the special-use permit because the vote did not occur within 30 days of the public meeting conducted by the Zoning Board of Appeals as required by the Illinois Counties Code.
It remains unclear why the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case, as well as what it means for planned construction beginning this spring.
Prosecuting attorney Keegan Madden, of Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP, did not return a message seeking comment, while defense attorney Joseph Kincaid, of the same law firm, said he could not comment on the dismissed litigation as of Friday.
A spokesperson for Enel Green Power Energy declined to comment.
Eight of the 12 county board members who were named in the lawsuit and who still sit on the board also could not be reached for comment. DeWitt County District D board member Nate Ennis said he had “No comment.”
A group of citizens has been fighting the $300 million project for several years after it was proposed about 10 years ago.
The wind turbines are planned to be constructed in DeWitt County board district A, where two of its three members who voted in favor of the project and who were listed in the lawsuit – Lance Reece and Camille Redman – lost their seats in the 2020 general election.
The third board member in that district, Cole Ritter, lost his bid to retain his seat in the 2020 primary election. He did not vote in any of the proposals because of a conflict of interest.
Two advisory boards to the DeWitt County board, the Regional Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals, had been presented with 54 hours of testimony from residents and experts. Both committees voted in 2019 to not recommend approval of the special use permit application.
U.S. consumer spending fell by the most in 10 months in February as a cold snap gripped many parts of the country and the boost from a second round of stimulus checks to middle- and lower-income households faded, though the decline is likely temporary. Fred Katayama reports.
The county board later voted against Tradewind Energy’s first application after board members criticized the plan for being incomplete.
However, after some minor additions to the proposal, the DeWitt County board approved the project last summer, prompting opponents to consider legal action.
What to know about the coronavirus relief funding coming your way
What to know about the coronavirus relief funding coming your way
LIMITED SPENDING
Much of $1,200 checks issued in the first round, as part of the CARES Act, did not generate spending sprees. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that almost 60% of the money went to pay down debt or into savings.
Researchers at the University of Chicago found that households on average spent 40% of the first check, mostly for food, beauty items and other products that people hoarded in the early days of the pandemic. Little went to purchases like cars or appliances.
Economists reasoned that with lockdowns in place last spring, there were far fewer options for spending the money.
One other factor to watch this time, given the size of the checks: Economists say that the greater the check, the less likely people are to spend it.
BILL PAYING
A survey in early January by Bankrate.com found that 71% of people said the second-round $600 checks they expected to receive for every adult and dependent child in a household would only sustain their financial well-being for less than a month. Four in 10 people surveyed said they would put the funds toward monthly bills such as rent or mortgage payments and utility bills.
ERASING DEBT
Almost 5 million people in Illinois age 18 and older said someone in their house received a relief payment in the previous seven days, according to data collected by the Census Bureau between Feb. 17 and March 1. Of those who detailed their plans, almost 2.4 million said it would be mostly be used to pay off debt.
BUYING STOCKS
Some recipients have their eye on the stock market. A survey of 430 retail investors by Deutsche Bank last month found that half of those surveyed between the ages of 25 and 34 plan to buy stocks with half of their checks.
SAVING
With the third round of relief payments, Bank of America anticipates more of the funds will be saved in one way or another, not spent. In its survey of 3,000 people in late February, only 36% of respondents said they planned to spend the money. The rest had other plans: 9% planned to invest it, 25% would save it and 30% would use it to pay off debts.
It’s not good news for sellers of food, clothing and other necessities. Planned use of the money in those categories is anticipated to be down almost 5% from what people planned to do with the payments last year. One bright spot is vacation and travel, which saw big gains compared with earlier surveys but it was still a small part of overall picture.
Bank of America found that every household income group planned to save much more than normal. Among high earners, people with household incomes of more than $120,000, 79% said they either planned to save it, pay off debts or invest it. That same sentiment was echoed by 53% of people surveyed who had household incomes of less than $30,000. The lower-income group also reported the highest intentions of spending it on food, clothing and other needed purchasers.
