For the sake of argument let’s go with an alternative view that NY Assemblywoman Addie Russell is absolutely right, that no industrial wind turbines will be allowed in Cape Vincent and we should all be ecstatic.
OK… Let me see if I can get this logic straight, because frankly it escapes me and seems a bit screwy.
According to Russell, she apparently is convinced the State doesn’t want industrial wind turbines in the town of Cape Vincent
OK…So let’s see. We don’t want turbines in CV right? And the State also doesn’t want turbines in CV right? And the new Town Board doesn’t want turbines in Cape Vincent
town." Well, burdensome to WHOM. Well the damn wind developers of course, that‘s who!!! Well what is the result of a wind law that is not “too burdensome” to the wind developers. Ahhh… I think that is a no brainer…you get turbines.!!! This isn’t rocket surgery as a friend of mine likes to say!
town." Well, burdensome to WHOM. Well the damn wind developers of course, that‘s who!!! Well what is the result of a wind law that is not “too burdensome” to the wind developers. Ahhh… I think that is a no brainer…you get turbines.!!! This isn’t rocket surgery as a friend of mine likes to say!
Again let me see if I have this right! We don’t want industrial wind development here, and they the state doesn’t want industrial wind development here, and the Cape Board Cape Vincent
What the hell is wrong with this picture!!!!!
So Russell is essentially saying, "I don’t want wind turbines, I know you don’t want wind turbines, the State doesn’t want wind turbines in your town…but do a law that might actually allow wind turbines in your town, so the court will see this as all perfectly logical, even though I am positive turbines are not coming to your town anyhow."
Man, I am getting a real headache trying to sort this one out! But this is government, so I guess it would make sense!!!
Art, I think it revolves around the anticipated law suit by the wind developers. Hammond is being sued now for being arbitrary and capricious in revising their Zoning law to restrict wind turbines in an effort to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. The wind company says the law is too restrictive and that the town officials have been arbitrary and capricious. To avoid some screwy judge agreeing with the wind company after the wind company has invested bundles of money in their project the law should not be totally restrictive, but have good reasons why reasonable set backs (like 1 1/2 mile from residences) are necessary in order to protect the peeps. What's wrong with this logic?
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with this logic, in fact, it is spot on. The only problem is it wasn’t Art’s idea, and since he has taken a solid stand on banning turbines, he can’t back down.
ReplyDeleteMy friend Art can’t back down, because he is a lot like the TV character Arthur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli, who can’t say I am wrwrwrooong.
Art’s heart is the right place, he is also dead right in saying industrial wind doesn’t belong in the Thousand Islands or any place else for that matter.
He just has a terrible time admitting that someone else’s ideas on stopping wind might be better than his position.
Like I said, Art is a friend and I look forward to debating this subject with him over a beer. Art isn’t near as scary in person as he is on the blogs. In fact, he is a real decent guy. I guess I’ll need to buy a case of beer though because I am sure it will be a very long debate and in the end all we will have accomplished is drinking the beer!
5:35. Thanks for your input. I was not aware that Hammond was being sued. That will be VERY intersting to see the outcome of that. Please keep us informed.
ReplyDeleteBut here is what is wrong with the logic and where it breaks down completely as I see it.
In CV for example if you required a 1/12 mile set back or even 2 mile set back as I have also heard suggested, then what is the end result? In CV it would be NO turbines, or so little room that the developer can't economically develop. So in the end what have you done? You have basically prohibited turbines just like an outright prohibition would do. Different approach same exact outcome.
And you are right...some screwy judge will probably look at this and what do you think his conclusion is going to be? It's going to be "Hey you essentially banned turbines through too restrictive setbacks"!!! He is very likely to come to the same conclusion if we prohibit them or if we prohibit them through setbacks. Do you really think a judge is going to be that stupid and be fooled by a restrictive wind law? And what is happening in Hammond, the developer at least is making my argument, that setbacks even based on good responsible criteria is not making them happy. So it appears that no matter which approach you take to responsibly control turbines is going to go to court! So your logic that we can prevent that by restrictive setbacks doesn't hold up. As I see it if you are going to fight, you might as well prohibit them anyhow and fight.
And why is it that some people somehow think that the prohibit approach is arbitrary? If you do a restrictive wind law you are going to have to make a case based on research, sound, birds, health or whatever, that turbines should be so restricted that the developer basically can't develop. If you prohibit them out right you don't do it hysterically, you use the SAME research that time and time again shows turbines should not be in CV or anywhere for that matter to make a solid case. If Russell says the state is going to prohibit turbines in our region, then they will have to build a solid case. And we will be sending our local reps to help them make that case on an A-10 board, Why can't we do the same? And who are we fooling here? You don't think the BP will go to court against the state to get a prime wind resource? Everybody is trying to avoid a fight, and essentially if you want to protect your community responsibly. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A FIGHT!!!
Let me give you an analogy. You murder a guy by shooting him point blank in the head with an unregistered gun. Or you murder a guy with a registered gun from 100 ft away. You think the court is going to rule differently? You still murdered the guy!!!
Now in my comments I am making an assumption that you are leaning toward wanting no turbines in CV. If not then please tell us where you think the town should put turbines and how many to be "reasonable", or not "too burdensome" to appease the developer and the court. You can't have it both ways by saying we really don't want wind, but we will have to allow a little to be responsible, and not have an opinion where they should go. This is where no one on that side of the argument is being honest in my view. That is not fair to the people that will have to suffer with turbines, or like a DR. telling you to not catch a cold but suggesting no preventions to not catch the cold. I have been asking this question for several years and nobody will answer it in detail. last i looked people live in the CV interior away from the River and Lake too!!
Well good morning my good friend John.
ReplyDeleteMaybe after a few beers you will understand that Art is not the only one that has been standing his ground and won't say "I'm wrong" That is evidenced by the number of times YOU debate me on the issue and won't admit you could be wrong. Pot calling the kettle black...eh!
And then you said this:
"Art’s heart is the right place, he is also dead right in saying industrial wind doesn’t belong in the Thousand Islands or any place else for that matter."
Well thank you for that...honestly. But if you think I am "dead right", then I guess I will continue to stand my ground. Thanks!!!!
And you say I am "dead right" that turbines don't belong here, but then you are aligned with a philosophy that very like allow some turbines to be placed here. Can't make everybody happy John It won't work.
Like I said to the anon above. Please be fair and tell us where those few turbines are going to go to make us look "reasonable" in our approach. Maybe if somebody on your side would tell us that I could actually get a real handle on what you are proposing, and maybe say well "gee that sounds reasonable" You know as well as I do that to be "reasonable in the developers eyes and in the eyes of a lot of people in CV that 10 or 20 (pick your number) turbines shoved into the interior is still not going to make a LOT of people happy. So if you want me to see it your way, stop being elusive and let's get down to real numbers and where!!!
And John there are very responsible people with much more experience on these matters than you and I(who I can't name) that are thinking exactly as I do on this matter. And after all if you believe Russell the state itself will be saying that they will "prohibit" turbines in CV and the 1000 Islands, so it looks like I am in very good company!!!!
Oh and thanks for the compliments.
Oh and John...my wife says not to be too hard on you..you remember her right? She points out that at least you are willing to have a discussion and debate on a very inportant issue in our community, and I too applaud you for that. That would be unlike the other blogs Pandoras, and JLL that bolt from the discussion and block and censor the debate when the heat is turned up on them. I know you have a hell of a lot more integrity than that, or I wouldn't waste my time on you.
ReplyDeleteSo I would say if you want people to see it your way in the debate, it isn't going to help when the people who see it your way shut down the free flow of ideas that might enlighten people.
And I will make an offer to you. Write a post for my blog. But do it in such a form and detail that we can truly understand what you are proposing other than some vague "plan". Give us your argument, but back it with numbers of turbines, and where they will go and why.
A lot of us honestly want to know what "reasonable" and "unburdensome" to the developer means in specifics. If you think it means 20 or 40 turbines on the Lyme town line, or whatever then say that and stand your ground on it. By not doing that, that is where your side loses credibilty.
I look forward to it.
Art, what planet are you on today? How many times have I told you I don't want turbines. Not 20, not 10, not 1.
ReplyDeleteI want to keep them out of Cape Vincent via the zoning. This isn't a discussion about how many turbines, it's a discussion about how to stop them.
I have already explained my position very cleary. There is nothing vague about what I have said.
John
ReplyDeleteOk fair enough we both want ZERO turbines. But Russell and the state are telling us don't be too burdensome on the developers, and our town board and planning board are listening to that mantra as are some who are advising them. But actually if Russell is right that no turbines are coming here, then it's a moot point as to what we do in zoning, because they will prohibit them anyhow...you know exactly like I want to do.
So keep this simple and in steps.
Question one...is your idea to prohibit turbines through a zoning so restrictive, no matter what criteria you use to get there, sound visual etc, that the developer won't develop? Because if you don't prohibit outright then you gotta do SOMETHING that will get us to our mutual stance of ZERO turbines. And does a wind overlay district play a part in your plan?
Art,
ReplyDeleteYou are asking me questions like I have some say in or knowledge of what is being worked on by the zoning and comprehensive plan committees. For the record, I don’t. My comments on your blog are my opinion only.
To your Russell point, I didn’t see anywhere that she said our laws shouldn’t be too burdensome on the wind developers. Those are your words, not hers. What I heard was an outright ban might not hold up in court and it would be better to handle it in the zoning laws.
Now back to my opinions. I think we need a fair and safe setback for siting a turbine from a neighboring property, which I would say is a minimum of 1.5 miles. The setbacks are needed for both safety and noise.
Secondly, and as you already know, I believe there needs to be a well thought out PVA backed up by bonding.
Thirdly, and if legally possible I think we need to address the bird fly way in our zoning document. Possibly by limiting the height of towers, or stating that towers cannot have any moving parts that could cause harm to protect birds and bats. Again, not sure of the legal precedence for this to go into the zoning laws, but it is something I would run by the lawyers if I were on the committee.
With regards to any wind overlay district, I am not really in favor of one. However, if the above items can be addressed in the zoning laws or comprehensive plan I don’t think it matters much if there is a wind overlay district, because there isn’t enough land in the Cape to stick turbines if we get the right setbacks.
John
John
OK John fair enough and good for you, and frankly it really does matter what you think because it is in all our hands if nothing else than by public opinion and political pressure. I do not buy into that our boards shold not be examned in what they do and get a free ride. I know that is not what you are saying but that is how I feel.
ReplyDeleteNow I am sure you are aware that the setbacks and PVA you propose essentially preclude any wind development in CV. So in essence your proposal will have the same on the ground result as a ban...do you agree to that because this is a critical point. Not talking about court yet, just the practical results on the ground of what you propose?
BTW if your plan elimnates turbines, and tell me if you think it won't then why do we need a PVA. Is there a glitch in the paln that might allow some turbines or are you suggesting the court might deny you too and thus we get more turbines and thus we need a PVA?
As to Russells comments ...you may be right on what she said but the word burdensome did come up maybe by Cahill. But regardless, many many people who pose your argument have said that we can 't be to burdensome, or restrictive, or punative, or pick on one industry etc. because we will lose in court. So my question over and over is...what zoning would prevent us from being any of those restrictive things???? If you do a wind law like your that eliminates turbines (does it eliminate them) then you certainly aren't being unrestrictive. That is fact.
Art I am getting bored with this exchange. Read everything I have written in the last few days, it answers ALL of the questions you continue to pose.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my opinion that a good comprehensive plan and zoning laws are the best way to approach this. It may very well get to the same conclusion you seek by just saying no, but it is done based on specific issues that require zoning restrictions, and not just by NO, which I believe would be challenged in court. The comprehensive plan and zoning laws may well be challenged too, but they will have been written using very good supporting data which can be used for defense. If we just say no, how do we defend it? Oh yeah, we could just say to the judge Art has been in this fight for a long time and he said so, so it must be legally correct.
Okay Art, like I said, I am getting bored with repeating myself for you when it is clear you will never accept my suggestions as a good solution.
Let’s give the committees some time and see what they publish before you get too carried away trying to challenge them.
Seems to me, as we stand today we are a lot better off than we were before the last election, so they must be doing something right.
I agree we are probably beating a dead horse but I want you to read what you just said. Because this is where YOU really don't get itand are so far off base!!!
ReplyDelete"It may very well get to the same conclusion you seek by just saying no, but it is done based on specific issues that require zoning restrictions, and not just by NO, which I believe would be challenged in court. The comprehensive plan and zoning laws may well be challenged too, but they will have been written using very good supporting data which can be used for defense. If we just say no, how do we defend it? Oh yeah, we could just say to the judge Art has been in this fight for a long time and he said so, so it must be legally correct."
So John...What YOU don't get and don't want to admit or see is that I want to use THE EXACT SAME CRITERIA AND DATA YOU ARE SUGGESTING, comp plan zoning, birds, bats sound, health, visual etc etc etc. ALL the EXACT critical issues,data to reinforce that turbines don't belong here and as a result of all this evidence we should say NO to wind development on a rational researched basis.
WHY DON"T YOU GET THIS.. It is NOT just my opinion and running wildly into court or a committee or a town meeting screaming NO. I see day after day all this research about the negative impacts of wind, and have seen it for the last 7 years and frankly John I was looking at this stuff long before you entered the fight. I get it.
But you have this mind block that anybody who says NO is simply doing it becuase they are radical and hysterical and have not rationally thought it through. Why does being object mean i have to come to a different conclusion. The 1st and many stuff I have read is from PRO WIND sources!!! Sorry buddy that isn't the case with me and you KNOW IT! I would be more than happy to send you
the reams and reams of material and computer files that brought me to this conclusion. And it seems to me if you do this much in depth research, and including the AG investigation, that actually the rational, reasonable responsible conclusion IS NO!! How many wind farms you been to John? I have researched and personally been to at least 10 on both sides of ther country, and have fought against 3. I wrote 2 long papers that I submitted to our committees and our board, and others including YOU. Those papers were after 7 years of researching our complan and zoning and how they preclude wind development. I was the 1st one in a public hearing in 2006 to bring up the comp plan issue and the importance.
My NO conclusion has been reached by very very careful consideration, and it appears I am right if the State is saying now the same thing that we should prohibit turbines in CV if Russell is right. In case you hadn't notice that IS a NO conclusion. And a number of your town baord memebers who we elected have in fact benefited in one way or another from my research and ideas as well as WPEG. And in fact I told WPEG and the players in the last court case on the FEIS that based on what i had leanred there approach would loose...and guess what happened. I was thrown out.
Do you really think my plan is to go hysterically to a board or judge and just say NO. And when he asks me why I would say, "well I have no real reasons, I just think we should say NO. Oh come on John!!!! If that is what you think then we better start drinking a lot more beers together because you completely missed where I am comimng from!
Art
Okay Art this is my last post on this subject and then you can have the last word.
ReplyDeleteI get it, I truly do! I would love to just say no and I am sure so would everyone else.
But here is where a little life experience comes into play. I have been to court more times then I care to count during my business career and one thing I know for sure, you never know how fickle the judge is going to be!!!
My life experience tells me most Judges would resonate with the approach I have suggested. It might not be as forceful as yours, but it will likely end up providing the same conclusion.
For the record, I have been fortunate enough to come out on the winning side of every lawsuit I have faced. This isn’t because my opinions or insights are correct, the reason I have prevailed is because I had good attorneys who advised me in advance of all of my major business decisions. Their proactive advice allowed my company to take the high road and in the end win the challenges that were brought against us.
Keep in mind, just because it seems logical or that you believe you are absolutely right, it doesn’t mean it will withstand a legal challenge.
If I thought for a minute that just saying no would win the day we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Good night Art.
You said:
ReplyDelete"Keep in mind, just because it seems logical or that you believe you are absolutely right, it doesn’t mean it will withstand a legal challenge."
And every argument you just made on this point would equally apply to your 'reasonable" zoning approach as well. Essentially it all a gamble...except for one thing. Yet the ironic thing is that no matter what the court says about our zoning...according to Addie Russell the State is going to prohibit turbines anyhow.
Good nite!!!