Near the end of June, when it comes time to make comments and you listen to any comments from Voters for Wind, keep in mind that British Petroleum has already complained to the PSC that Cape Vincent has the audacity to abide by New York State's constitution that declares that Cape Vincent has the right to home rule and has recently developed new laws. British Petroleum is saying it wants the right to take all home rule away from the citizens of Cape Vincent in the matter of local zoning and the protection of its citizens.
The underlining emphasis is mine.
That statement about Cape Vincent as a town and it's rights under the NY Constitution may not be completely accurate, so let's examine it a bit further. This is not an attack on Wiley or his blog, but additional information needs to be looked at here...so let's do that. If you are going to try to deal with this issue accurately we need to look at the realities.
In the wind battle when it comes to finding out what the State says about their laws and proceedures I have always found the NY Dept. Of State's technical papers series very instructive and easy to understand. This is where I learned a great deal about how badly our previous wind conflicted govt. as puppets of the wind developers were distorting our laws to meet their wind conflicted ends. Probably the same stuff our town officers are required to read...or should. Any zoning law we pass will ultimately have to be sent and filed with the NY Dept of State.
Here is what one of the NY Dept. of State papers says about home rule and its restrictions, and preempting local laws. It's called the "Local Government Handbook."
You can find it at the link below.
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf
Local law power is restricted where the subject of the local law is one considered to be of “state concern.” “Matters of state concern” is a phrase born in judicial opinions rather than in the Constitution or statutes. It is a term used by the courts to define what local governments may not accomplish by local law – in other words, what is not within their “property, affairs or government.” Matters of state concern are those of sufficient importance to require State legislation. If the matter is to a substantial degree a matter of State interest, it is considered a matter of State concern, even if local concerns are intermingled with the State concerns. Court cases construing the home rule grants have indicated that “state concern” includes such matters as taxation, incurring of indebtedness, education, water supply, transportation and highways, health, social services, aspects of civil service and banking. As a general principle, a local
government may not adopt a local law relating to a “matter of state concern” unless the Legislature has specifically granted such power by law; and Local law power is restricted where the subject of proposed local law action has been preempted by the state. Preemption occurs when the State Legislature specifically declares its intent to preempt the subject matter, or when the Legislature enacts sufficient legislation and regulation so as to indicate an intent to exclude regulation by any other governmental entity. The courts have termed such indication intent to “occupy the field.”
Now you can damn well bet that "Powering NY" is a "Matter of State Concern". And you can damn well bet that since the wind developers have poured money into Cuomo's pocket and that of other state politicians, the wind industry's and BP's corporate concerns to be able to freely rape our communities for profit is now also a "State Concern" requiring a limitation on home rule. So much for our home rule "rights" under the NY Constitution!!!
Now you can damn well bet that "Powering NY" is a "Matter of State Concern". And you can damn well bet that since the wind developers have poured money into Cuomo's pocket and that of other state politicians, the wind industry's and BP's corporate concerns to be able to freely rape our communities for profit is now also a "State Concern" requiring a limitation on home rule. So much for our home rule "rights" under the NY Constitution!!!
In addition is a paper by Mr. Joe Stinson of Pace Law School on the same matter of home rule powers and restrictions. You can find it at the link below.
http://www.celdf.org/downloads/New%20York%20State%20-The%20Home%20Rule%20Authority%20of%20Municipalities%20in%20Land%20Use%20Context.pdf
http://www.celdf.org/downloads/New%20York%20State%20-The%20Home%20Rule%20Authority%20of%20Municipalities%20in%20Land%20Use%20Context.pdf
Interestingly enough it appears Stinson now is working at Osterman Whiteman and Hanna, the old Albany lawyers that Edsall found to rape our community. But Stinson's evaluation follows the NY DOS explanations.
Note the part above about "Dillon's Rule". It is explained below by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. (CELDF) These are actually the lawyers we should be working with if we are in any way serious about maintaining our rights as a community against corporate dominance. Not some land lawyer from Syracuse who won't defend our scenic resources and whose firm has large corporate real estate developers as clients, then writing zoning laws on his advice!
"Dillon’s Rule," not a law but an opinion that bears its inventor’s name, has come to define the legal relationship between American municipal and state governments. It is derived from one of the judge’s decisions (Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R. R., 24 Iowa 455), handed down in 1868, and expanded upon in his 1872 book A Treatise on the Law of Municipal Corporations. (The book, which lays out the fundamental arguments for usurpation of community self-government by the Corporate State, is today all but unavailable to the public).
Dillon’s Rule maintains that each county, city, borough, town, and all political subdivisions of a state are connected to the state as a child is connected to a parent. Under this usurping concept, community governments are administrative extensions of the state and not elective bodies representing the right of the people to local self-governance. The Rule was fully adopted for nationwide application to local governments by the U.S. Supreme Court, by reference to Dillon’s book, in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents into one."
So what does it all mean???? It appears that the State can legally preempt local laws especially when they deem it a matter of "State Concern," or clearly state they intend to prempt local laws on an issue. And this Dillon's Rule decision plays into that. CELDF also says this at the beginning of their paper on Dillon's Rule."Under today’s system of federal government in the United States, community self-government can fairly be said not to exist. After the American Revolution, a gradual legal redefinition of local government was begun that eventually consigned citizens living in their communities to the status of tenants within non-sovereign municipal corporations."
In essence we don't have the home rule control we may think we have, or Mr. Wiley implies we have.
Also"Corporations are today’s institutionalized embodiment of propertied privilege. For this reason, we need to understand that the emasculated governing authority of municipal corporations is equally important to the preservation and expansion of propertied privilege as are the judicially granted constitutional protections bestowed on private corporations (see CELDF’s Model Brief to Eliminate Corporate Rights on our web site). "
The bottom line here is what do we do about it? Change the NY Constitution on home rule so we actually do have unlimited home rule? That's not going to happen especially when the Supreme Court has recognized Dillon's Rule anyhow. Besides even if you could change the NY Constitution it would be far too late to deflect the wind mess in CV.
No it's not the time for a law solution, it needs a raw political one. We should be raising holy hell for ever single State politicain that supported this A-10 nonsense and ensure they PAY for their approval of Article X. The same applies Cuomo, especially if he runs for President. We need to stand up and
What we should NOT be doing is writing letters that give endorsement to the A-10 process as if it is somehow valid and acceptable and give the impression we will play nice and play along, and give tacit approval to a process that has taken away our rights as a community. What we should NOT be doing is writing zoning or wind zoning in fear and panic over A-10, and hope the State an PSC don't spank us for standing up for the future of our communities. I say SCREW THEM!!!!!
If we don't fight this we stand to lose BIG TIME!
But we won't fight it because from our early education we have not been wired to fight in battles like this of corporate dominace. We have been taught to play nice and write letters, and attend hearings, and speak politely at town meetings etc etc etc, most of which are completely pointless in the face of power like BP to take whatever it wants.
Take a lesson. Why did the origninal NYPA proposals from wind turbines in the lake fail? Because community and county after county along the lake said NO with resolutions. That meant VOTES, and that made politicians watching very nervous because one thing they do real well is COUNT THE DAMN VOTES!!!! Same should apply now for us to protect our communities against the wind ouslaught on land.
If you want to write a letter write a letter DEMANDING the REPEAL of Article X.
Cape Vincent and the NNY towns, especially thiose facing the wind onslaught should be the poster children for a nasty political fight to oppose Artilce X. We should be the focus of the opposition for that battle.
We should not be beggng for mercy under the process of Artilce X which is quickly taking our community rights away. as unified communities locally and throughout NY in passing resolutions outright opposing Article X, and stating will not abide by any A-10 siting board decision, and that our local laws will apply, and for any attempt to preempt our laws we will fight it and make it an overiding nasty political issue and there will be political hell to pay as a result. Engage lots and lots of PR. We should be hiring CELDF to assit us in forming a law to PROHIBIT industrial wind in our community. Some communities have banned gas hydrofracking and they appear to have won those battles in the early going and we should join forces behind them related to wind power and home rule.
Dillon’s Rule maintains that each county, city, borough, town, and all political subdivisions of a state are connected to the state as a child is connected to a parent. Under this usurping concept, community governments are administrative extensions of the state and not elective bodies representing the right of the people to local self-governance. The Rule was fully adopted for nationwide application to local governments by the U.S. Supreme Court, by reference to Dillon’s book, in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents into one."
So what does it all mean???? It appears that the State can legally preempt local laws especially when they deem it a matter of "State Concern," or clearly state they intend to prempt local laws on an issue. And this Dillon's Rule decision plays into that. CELDF also says this at the beginning of their paper on Dillon's Rule."Under today’s system of federal government in the United States, community self-government can fairly be said not to exist. After the American Revolution, a gradual legal redefinition of local government was begun that eventually consigned citizens living in their communities to the status of tenants within non-sovereign municipal corporations."
In essence we don't have the home rule control we may think we have, or Mr. Wiley implies we have.
Also"Corporations are today’s institutionalized embodiment of propertied privilege. For this reason, we need to understand that the emasculated governing authority of municipal corporations is equally important to the preservation and expansion of propertied privilege as are the judicially granted constitutional protections bestowed on private corporations (see CELDF’s Model Brief to Eliminate Corporate Rights on our web site). "
The bottom line here is what do we do about it? Change the NY Constitution on home rule so we actually do have unlimited home rule? That's not going to happen especially when the Supreme Court has recognized Dillon's Rule anyhow. Besides even if you could change the NY Constitution it would be far too late to deflect the wind mess in CV.
No it's not the time for a law solution, it needs a raw political one. We should be raising holy hell for ever single State politicain that supported this A-10 nonsense and ensure they PAY for their approval of Article X. The same applies Cuomo, especially if he runs for President. We need to stand up and
What we should NOT be doing is writing letters that give endorsement to the A-10 process as if it is somehow valid and acceptable and give the impression we will play nice and play along, and give tacit approval to a process that has taken away our rights as a community. What we should NOT be doing is writing zoning or wind zoning in fear and panic over A-10, and hope the State an PSC don't spank us for standing up for the future of our communities. I say SCREW THEM!!!!!
If we don't fight this we stand to lose BIG TIME!
But we won't fight it because from our early education we have not been wired to fight in battles like this of corporate dominace. We have been taught to play nice and write letters, and attend hearings, and speak politely at town meetings etc etc etc, most of which are completely pointless in the face of power like BP to take whatever it wants.
Take a lesson. Why did the origninal NYPA proposals from wind turbines in the lake fail? Because community and county after county along the lake said NO with resolutions. That meant VOTES, and that made politicians watching very nervous because one thing they do real well is COUNT THE DAMN VOTES!!!! Same should apply now for us to protect our communities against the wind ouslaught on land.
If you want to write a letter write a letter DEMANDING the REPEAL of Article X.
Cape Vincent and the NNY towns, especially thiose facing the wind onslaught should be the poster children for a nasty political fight to oppose Artilce X. We should be the focus of the opposition for that battle.
We should not be beggng for mercy under the process of Artilce X which is quickly taking our community rights away. as unified communities locally and throughout NY in passing resolutions outright opposing Article X, and stating will not abide by any A-10 siting board decision, and that our local laws will apply, and for any attempt to preempt our laws we will fight it and make it an overiding nasty political issue and there will be political hell to pay as a result. Engage lots and lots of PR. We should be hiring CELDF to assit us in forming a law to PROHIBIT industrial wind in our community. Some communities have banned gas hydrofracking and they appear to have won those battles in the early going and we should join forces behind them related to wind power and home rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment