The article below (see link) is an interesting case we're following on the subject of property values. 

The huge Spanish wind company, Iberdrola, has proposed a wind farm around Hammond, New York.   As of December 2010, the town is considering an ordinance that would require the wind company to compensate people living near their wind turbines if they are unable to sell their home for its fair market value due to the turbines.  The ordinance would also require the wind company to purchase the homes of anyone near the turbines who, as a result of having their home surrounded by the company's wind farm, wants to move out.

The article explains that Iberdrola has threatened to pull out of that development if the town enacts the ordinance; saying that they cannot take on the risk of having to pay for homes near their turbines (innocent non-participants are supposed to take on that risk instead).

One town official makes the point that if wind developments do not harm property values, as the company claims, than there should be no harm done to the company by "guaranteeing" the property values of non-participant, involuntary neighbors to their turbines.  Even if the company does have to purchase a home, it should be able to resell it for full value, assuming their claim is true that their turbines will not harm the value of those homes.   

This company's threat to pull out if they have to pay for the property value impacts makes it appear that they do believe their development is likely to cause a significant amount of financial damage to property values--enough that it might prevent their development from being profitable if they have to pay the bill themselves for the damage they are about to cause other people.   

Arguing that property value guarantees are not needed because wind turbines do not harm property values is logically contradictory.  Worse, it is simply not fair for anyone to be willing to inflict innocent non-participants with a risk they themselves won't take.  

Here's the article: