OK...If we don't prohibit turbines, what's next???

I wonder if these home owners on Wolfe Is. might be thinking that

a more "overly burdensome" wind law might have been a good idea?

So What's Next?????

Now I have been talking to a number of people about the idea of prohibition industrial wind turbines in Cape Vincent.  They are convinced this board and the zoning committee simply aren’t even going to explore that option; it is DOA, so why beat your head on the wall?  Well why I do that is another matter. But in reality I do agree with them on that point. A law to prohibit turbines is not going to happen.  That is still what I believe is the right solution, and you can read all the reasons in previous posts and comments on my blog and others. That hasn’t changed.

 Like the first Rienbeck wind committee of 2008 which was stacked pro wind, I believe these committees with a few refreshing exceptions have been stacked as well toward a certain outcome, and I think that is evidenced by the fact they won’t even consider prohibiting turbines as an alternative. So what’s that outcome?

So with that in mind let’s look at what is left.  Because if you are not going to prohibit  turbines, then what’s left is some type of compromise or accommodation to appease the dreaded Article X and the legal system. When the prohibit route is abandon, then everything else is a method of letting turbines into Cape Vincent in some form, even if that is trying to restrict the developer so much he goes away.  Even in that approach you are still allowing the development into your town and it is up to the developer, not the community to make the choice, because your law will basically put him in control.
 Then attached is the wild gamble that the developer will go away and won’t sue, or your law will hold up in court even though it is a defacto ban, or that the A-10 board won’t pre-empt your defacto ban.  And please let me know if I am wrong that the “rational restrictive zoning” approach is not a defacto ban, because if that is not where we are headed then we are much further down the road to accommodate and appease the wind developers and now we are in the realm of talking larger turbine numbers and where. 

Now everybody gets this right?  Once you drop prohibition you are now solidly on the developer’s playing field using laws and systems that the developer has control over.  This needs to be clear, because the laws and the legislature, the DEC, the AG the A-10 siting board and the system and SEQR and permits etc etc etc  are not there to protect you.  They in fact were basically designed by the corporations and lobbies for the corporations. Any bets how that is going to turn out???   That is a critical point to understand as you buy into the “not to burdensome legally defensible approach”.  If you don’t get this then go to the previous post and listen to the video by Richard Grossman, so you know what you are dealing with.  You must understand that you are dealing with BP, the 4^th largest overall corporation on the planet and the 3^rd largest oil company on the planet.  So who do think owns and makes the rules in this rational legally defensible wind law game? What do you think it actually means when BP project manger Peter Gross says they are going to “educate” the county and town board?  Yeah I bet they will!  That is a threat, not a debate.

So what is left? Basically a supposed “legally defensible wind law” which is actually a defacto ban, OR you start appeasing by allowing some number of turbines somewhere in the town to which BP won’t cry foul and sue you..  I am told the town board and committees are run by smart people.  I would agree.  In fact I think they are smart enough to know that the defacto ban looks good on paper but will not hold up in court either against BP and a rabid pro wind State since the end result is NO turbines just like a ban.  And I am guessing they are smart enough to know that BP (who is actually the entity that matters here, not the State) is not going to be happy with anything unless it approaches something akin to the full project proposal currently on the table so it’s a financially viable project in their eyes.  Oh they might hedge some turbines here or there to look like they are being warm and fuzzy to community public input and concerns. Like I said the board and the committees are smart, and this is not rocket science.

So that is what you have left if you are truly worried about a legal challenge is basically appease the developer so he won’t go ballistic, and as far as I am concerned and what would seem rational to appease BP is going to mean many more turbines than you are banking on…which may have been ZERO for some of you.  Well just as a prohibition is not going to happen neither is the ZERO number no mater how you try to fool people to reach it, so we better stop talking ZERO and start seriously discussing numbers, and where.  Once you step away from the NO line you are now somewhere on the compromise side no matter how much you try to disguise it.  Once you are there you can’t just get a little bit pregnant! You start thinking differently with a
”we can’t win” attitude, and you are done!  From there it is just a matter of slick negotiation and leverage and suddenly you are all the way pregnant! It’s compromise creep, once you give in you have a completely different mind set.  So what’s the compromise that in reality ACTUALLY keeps BP and the State off our backs legally? Keeping in mind it is clear they both want a lot of turbines to meet their goals.  That is the number that our board and our zoning committee are probably figuring out on their own but not telling you?  I have had discussions with a very educated and in touch person on these matters and when pushed and squeezed for a number they say very reluctantly maybe 25 or so could be the magic number.  I say more like 40 to 60 and pushed back as far from the CV shore as is feasible. You don’t see many small wind farms.  I seriously doubt 5 to 10 turbines is going to fly, or even 20. Supervisor Hirschey is after all on an industrial development board.  He is not clueless to the reality of how this will ultimately have to work, just like his associate former NY Senator Jim Wright who sat on the NY senate energy committee, and whose campaign donation list reads like the who’s who of wind energy including Enron!!! 

  Well I could be wrong, but I think we are headed for a lot more turbines than ZERO.  Why?  Because the town and the zoning committee can claim a great carefully considered compromise by saying they did their best and it was all they could do with Article X.  We had over 200 + turbines proposed for the immediate CV Lyme area at one time.  Then it became 138 as both developers reduced their projects, and that number has stuck for a couple years now.  If the committee does a law that allows 40 to 60 turbines pushed well back from all CV shorelines it can be claimed they reduced the last project number by over 60%!!! How could anybody be unreasonable and ask for more than that.  The projects have been more than halved for God sakes!!!   They give protections to the rest with a property value assurance guarantee.  I think that is why all the hoopla over a  PVA.  And those Acciona lease holders that got thrown under the bus??? Well don’t worry maybe BP will throw you a bone in a modest yearly payment to keep you happy and quiet since you are now effectively in a river and lake conservation district to protect the prime tax base of the town. Not only that, it can be claimed that the town is going to get a great PILOT deal for this compromise too!! Maybe we even could get community participation in the BP project for a few more allowed turbines.  Man this is a sweet deal!!!!

Hey, if we are not going to talk prohibiting turbines , then we have to get real and start talking about other options, you can’t have it both ways, and this is where I think this could be going if the prohibit route is already DOA…which it apparently is.

                                               So let's start talking numbers and places.

                               If we aren't going to prohibit them then where do you think

                         industrial wind turbines should go in Cape Vincent, and how many???