AS MUCH AS WE SYMPATHIZE with persons who see modern developments

as threatening their lifestyles, we have to wonder what it is precisely that some Amaranth residents object to in their fight against wind farms.

We don't doubt the honesty of aviators who want adequate setbacks of the turbines from their airfields. But we have to wonder whether their assertions are red herrings, given that their opposition goes well beyond that single issue.

Last week, a delegate to Amaranth Council insisted that the township should adhere to a 10-kilometre setback.

That's about six miles or nearly half the distance between the edges of Orangeville and Shelburne, whereas Transport Canada recommends a 4,000-metre clearance.

If setbacks go six miles in every direction from every grass airstrip in Amaranth, we would guess most of the township would be off

limits for turbines. The delegate said something might have been worked out if Canadian Hydro Developers had negotiated with the aviators. According to the Environmental Screening Report, they did. And, according to other documentation, as outlined by the delegate, they agreed voluntarily to accept setbacks more in keeping with the recommended 4,000 metres.

Voluntarily? From our reading of regulations, we have to question whether the township has the authority to rule on setbacks from aerodromes -whether you prefer to call them "airstrips" or "airports." All such things appear to be regulated by Transport Canada. This is not to say that the township does not have the authority to rule on its Official Plan. It does. But surely the final decision should be based on the greater good.

We would like to see a voluntary compromise solution to setbacks, such that everyone might discuss other issues on their own merits.