Russell, I'm surprised you're so concerned with land ownership between two arms of government! National government is committed to the 2012 Olympics and has acted to bring that about by creating the ODA etc; LB Hackney is another level of government and shares the same aim.

I favour the substitution of non-renewable energy sources with renewables. But any particular energy-generating proposal must be judged on its merits and de-merits.

The point is, is the proposal reasonably likely to satisfy these questions;
does it make economic sense in the foreseeable energy market?
will it place an unreasonable burden on Hackney rate-payers?
what are the impacts on people's use of Hackney Marsh?
will it impact adversely on the “natural” environment in which it will be located?

Nothing is known of the environmental effects of a proposal such as this (a large turbine) on the flora and fauna of a semi-urbanised area rich in wildlife such as the Marsh - there are no precedents that I can find, either in UK nor in the USA. I don't believe sufficient investigation of environmental impacts preceded the emergence of the proposal; these are adequate reasons to oppose this proposal.

If the proposal were confined to the Olympic site, the same points would apply, though arguably we wouldn't be having this discussion. Arguments on this turbine proposal which focus on the land ownership issue divert us from the actual impacts and are beside the point.