Residents voice opposition to Lake Odessa wind turbine
ODESSA TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WOOD) — The Odessa Township Board voted 2-2 to reject the application permit for a Cordelio Energy temporary testing facility Monday night.
The vote followed more than an hour of public comment in vehement opposition of the eventual that Cordelio has proposed for the community. Most cited the environmental and noise pollution concerns they associate with wind turbines. Others warned of falling property values, possible reductions in population and the spoiling of their beautiful Ionia county landscape.
'This is going to shut the town down,' one commenter said.
Company proposes dozens of wind turbines near Lake Odessa
'This beautiful land is being forfeited so the city can get some more power,' another added.
'The government needs to protect this community,' a third commenter said, referencing the township board.
The testing facility is a necessary data-gathering prerequisite to building wind turbines in any community. But Monday's vote was likely mostly symbolic. The testing tower is already built and functioning.
The tower was built in November 2024, one of three owned and operated by Cordelio in the area. It was approved by the Ionia County Building Department without a permit from the township, as is required in the township's that was passed in 2019.
Cordelio admitted that was an 'oversight' and went to the township this year to get the necessary permitting. The appearance of the vote on the board's agenda attracted the anti-turbine crowd to the meeting.
Now that the township has denied the permit, though, Cordelio will likely go to the Michigan Public Service Commission to get the permit instead, which poses more problems for the township. After the negative vote, Supervisor Gary Secor explained that if the Public Service Commission approves the permit now, it will nullify and void the township's wind ordinance, hampering its ability to dictate the wind turbine project when it reaches fruition.
Consumers Energy purchases 800 acres of farmland in Oceana County
The final curveball, though, is that because of a law passed last year, the state's Public Service Commission has the power to override local ordinances when planning and advancing 'utility level renewable energy projects.'
That had Lake Odessa's State Representative Gina Johnsen, a Republican, fired up at Monday night's meeting — calling for the community to continue its fight as the convoluted process continues.
'The state voted that you don't have the authority to make the decision for what the people want,' Johnsen said to the board. 'It's your time to stand up and defend your turf … not with violence like others do … but with intelligence and with organization. … It might be a stall tactic. It might be putting your foot in the door so it doesn't slam shut. But it shows us how important it is to be engaged. You cannot be quiet.'
The next steps in the process are uncertain but the community found unified resolve at Monday night's meeting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Raise the debt ceiling by $24 trillion — or kill the bill
Wendy Edelberg, a former chief economist at the Congressional Budget Office, is a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Should Congress enact the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the House (formally titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), the tax and spending policies set in motion over the next decade would require roughly $24 trillion in cumulative borrowing, pushing debt as a share of gross domestic product to about 124 percent. Yet Congress appears on track to raise the debt ceiling by only $4 trillion or perhaps $5 trillion or, if Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has his way, $500 billion. What this means is that the Republican-controlled Congress is deliberately choosing a future for the country in which tax revenue falls well short of federal spending year after year — but in which the treasury is prohibited from making up the difference by borrowing.
Vox
27 minutes ago
- Vox
Trump's big, beautiful bill, explained in 5 charts
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. President Donald Trump, joined by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, speaks to members of the media as he arrives for a House Republican meeting at the Capitol on May 20, fight over President Donald Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill is turning ugly. After passing the GOP-controlled House, the bill has moved to the Senate, where Republicans are facing a bitter divide over how to balance their competing priorities. They want to extend and expand Trump's tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit the rich and come at a steep price tag, as well as bolster immigration enforcement and defense spending. However, some are reluctant to do so while increasing the national debt by almost $2.6 trillion and slashing Medicaid benefits. Republicans want to pass the bill by July 4 through a complex process known as budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to pass. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, but it's unclear whether they will be able to resolve their disagreements in time. Some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson (R-WI.) and Rand Paul (R-KY), have criticized the current version of the bill as unreasonable. Trump megadonor (and newly sworn enemy) Elon Musk has called on lawmakers to rework the legislation, which he dubbed a 'disgusting abomination.' 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL,' Musk said in a post on X Wednesday. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that Musk is 'flat wrong' about the bill and that there is not enough time to go back to the drawing board. So, what exactly is in the bill, and what does it mean — for the deficit and for Americans? We break it down, in charts. The bill would cause the US deficit to skyrocket This spending bill is expensive, and short of truly drastic cuts to nearly all social programs (and perhaps not even with such cuts), it's not clear that the government could feasibly pass it without increasing the national debt. The version that passed the House would raise the deficit by trillions of dollars over the next decade, not accounting for the potential effects the bill would have on the US economy. That spending is concentrated between 2025 and 2028, coinciding with the next presidential election. Republicans once campaigned against raising the national debt during the Obama administration, framing it as a national security threat and a burden to future generations. But it's no longer the rallying cry it once was. There are reasons to be concerned about a growing national debt. As my colleague Dylan Matthews writes, the bond market is already bristling at the prospect of such a significant increase in the deficit, a warning of potential economic downturn or even further increasing debt due to higher servicing costs if the bill becomes law. Tax cuts are what make the bill so expensive Trump wants to build on the tax cuts he passed during his first term. They are set to expire this year if Congress does not act, and the spending bill would keep them in place. It would also add some new ones, including the elimination of taxes on tips. That is going to cost the US government. A breakdown of the bill's budgetary effects published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the House Ways and Means Committee, which presides over tax policy, would be permitted to contribute an additional $3.8 trillion to the deficit — far more than any other House committee. That's at least in part because tax revenue would be lower under the bill. Meanwhile, the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees are the only others where Trump is seeking significant increases in spending as he seeks to deliver on his campaign promise of 'mass deportations' with assistance from the military. Any spending cuts in other areas aren't nearly enough to counterbalance the resulting increase in the US deficit. That would likely require Republicans to slash public benefits even further than they already have in this bill. While they haven't gone so far as to touch Social Security benefits, they have gone after Medicaid and insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. Millions could become uninsured under the spending bill Republicans have also included measures in the bill that would greatly increase the number of people without health insurance, according to a CBO estimate. One provision allows enhanced premium tax credits for ACA insurance plans to lapse, which would increase premiums for millions of Americans who rely on them. After the Covid-19 stimulus bill was signed in 2021, these tax credits became available to anyone whose premiums were over 8.5 percent of their household income — not just people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Enrollment in ACA plans subsequently doubled to 24.3 million people between 2020 and 2025. The House bill would allow those expanded tax credits to expire this year, effectively driving people out of the ACA marketplaces with higher costs. Another provision would significantly decrease Medicaid enrollment by creating a work requirement for people under the age of 64 who do not have a dependent under 7 years old. While not directly slashing Medicaid benefits, the work requirement would create additional barriers to Medicaid access, including administrative hurdles that could result in lower enrollment even among people who do work. (It's worth noting that most nondisabled Medicaid recipients already work.) Some states have already implemented similar work requirements with disappointing results. Arkansas and Georgia saw Medicaid enrollments plummet thereafter, with a court eventually overturning the Arkansas requirements on the basis that they violated federal Medicaid law. The spending bill disproportionately benefits the rich Under the tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, the top 1 percent of earners saw the most significant gains, both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of their incomes. This time is no different. Top earners will again profit significantly from the House spending bill, according to the CBO. The lowest earners, meanwhile, will see their household resources shrink, primarily due to reduced access to public benefits programs such as Medicaid and SNAP and higher ACA insurance premiums. The bill could have a big impact on immigrant populations and their families abroad The House bill advances numerous provisions targeting immigrants and undermining their US-citizen relatives, from restricting access to public benefits for families in which at least one person is undocumented to imposing new fees on asylum-seekers. However, there is one that would have a sizable impact well beyond America's borders: a new tax on remittances, the payments that immigrants typically send to their families in their home countries. The US is the largest source of remittances worldwide. Some of the top receiving countries include America's neighbors in Central and South America — countries that have produced high numbers of migrants in recent years. That's significant because remittances have historically accounted for much larger sums than any foreign aid provided by the US and represent efficient, direct payments to individuals who can spend that money on what they need, mitigating economic incentives for them to migrate.
