By Default NYS Will Help Us Defend Against Their Own Article X Legislation. They Shot Themselves In The Foot!!!

Since before the 2011 Cape Vincent elections and with the new CV comp plan and zoning efforts there has been considerable talk and debate about the CV comp plan and the comp plan process and what it means to our community.  More importantly now,  how does this all relate to our zoning defense and fight against NY’s Article X power plant sighting legislation which could preempt our zoning on industrial wind siting?  I am guessing that still more than 90% of the CV voting public really doesn’t have a good grasp on how this all applies, other than the comp plan sets the overall land use goals for our community. We can all rant against Article X and loss of home rule, but we better clearly understand what it means in the context of comp planning and zoning and how it critically applies to the  approaches we are using right here in Cape Vincent to protect ourselves.

Ask yourself, do you really know the power the comp plan process has and where those powers come from and what are the implications of all that interaction against Article X  in particular?  That is the critical question now before it is too late!  The State is going to actually help us defend against their own Article X.  Please read on.

Let’s look first at what NY State says about the comp plan process.  This comes from Article 16, Sec. 272-a of the NY Town Laws about zoning. The underlining emphasis is mine.

You can read more on the comp plan in NY Town Law at this link below:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/TWN/16/272-a

1.  “Legislative findings and intent.

  The legislature hereby finds and determines that:

    (a) Significant decisions and  actions  affecting  the  immediate  and

  long-range  protection, enhancement, growth and development of the state

  and its communities are made by local governments.

    (b) Among  the  most  important  powers  and  duties  granted  by  the

  legislature  to a town government is the authority and responsibility to

  undertake town comprehensive planning and to regulate land use  for  the

  purpose  of  protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of

  its citizens.

    (c) The development and enactment by the town  government  of  a  town

  comprehensive plan which can be readily identified, and is available for

  use by the public, is in the best interest of the people of each town.”

The immediate question that should come to mind on reading just this part of the NY Town Law on comp planning is, why would NY want to preempt with its Article X legislation an already existing significant power granted to the towns where  they clearly recognize and  have decisively supported the LOCAL home rule power  to comp plan?  They clearly recognize that LOCAL comp planning  is in the best interest of the people of the town...AND the entire State?  It is a significant and critically important contradiction. The State through Article X has taken away a significant power that in essence they recognize by law is good for the State’s own well being and interests. Does that legal term arbitrary and capricious come to mind!!!  

Especially when this contradictory endorsement of Article X is based on nothing more that political pandering to corporate wind lobbyists, and has no  relevance to the health safety and welfare of any community, as dictated in the comp planning language.  In addition this would be hard to related to the legislative preemption powers of Article 9 of the NY Constitution where the State can dominate the field of legislation if they determine there is an overriding area of State interest.  They have yet to concretely or scientifically define why renewables such as wind energy with all its negative impacts and unreliable power output has suddenly become  an interest or concern that would justify the preemption of the most important legislative powers granted to the towns in the comp planning process.   Now are you starting to get the picture how important the comp plan process is in a defense against Article X.  The comp plan in this context is far more than just saying we want scenic views for Cape Vincent!  It is a powerful tool on many levels…especially now that it is under direct threat. 

Here is where it gets real interesting in my mind in the comp planning,  local zoning, home rule, debate.  This is where we get beyond the surface of comp planning that most people are vaguely familiar with.   It appears NYS in its  political zeal to endorse the corporate green agenda with an  Article X clause of zoning preemption has shot themselves right square in the foot with a major major unexplainable, unjustifiable, blatant  inconsistency in their very own laws. One law is in clear defiance of the other! 

So think on this one carefully  for a minute. This comp planning language in  NY Town Law did not go away with the advent of Article X regulations.  They exist in an extremely  inconsistent legal tandem. Out of one side of their mouths the State is saying they grant the towns significant powers to determine their own land use issues and highly endorses that process and which is supported by reams of actual case law, while at the very same time they have formulated legislation where unelected representatives of the State could take it all away and make the first law irrelevant.   It would be like telling the NYS State Troopers to strictly enforce one state law,  the  65 mph speed limit on the NYS Thruway, then telling them their arrest will not be valid by another state law that allows an 80 mph speed limit to be decided later.  So which way is it NY????  This is the insane political atmosphere under which we are formulating our comp plan and zoning laws, and we should not be endorsing it or buying into this badly inconsistent  legislative absurdity, and giving it any validity whatsoever.

And herein lies one of the critical defenses against Article X if you begin to understand the comp planning issue at this deeper level as it also applies to home rule preemption. We are walking right into a legislative trap.

The State has become lost and absurd and completely contradictory  in its very own legislation.  The State has left us in a legal no man’s land where it is now actually up to us to exert responsible control over a process run amuck.  It really leaves us only one responsible choice as citizens defending a reasonable democratic  process of home rule. We can’t have it both ways. So which law do we follow and endorse in this state legislative circus where the legislative process has become unglued at the hand of large corporate interests where  laws directly contradict themselves?  It seems very rational to follow the only long standing and precedent setting one backed  by case law, and vehemently defend this one that grants us the significant power to regulate our own future and aligns most with home rule control.  If you are speaking the home rule mantra then essentially you  have no other choice.  Why in God’s name would we or should we endorse or appease the one law that pits itself fully  against the very thing we are trying to defend? Why validate it and give it any power whatsoever? If you want home rule why are we caving in with appeasement to the very law that takes it away.  Every letter written to the NYPSC about Article X regulations essentially says we agree with your preemption of home rule and the negation of the significant powers of the comp planning process. Each letter essentially validates the absurd legislative inconsistencies between Article X and the comp planning laws in NY Town Law.  That is why I won’t write them and validate the process that is attempting to take away the very essence of home rule power granted to us by the State…the comp plan! 

If you truly endorse home rule rights we have no other choice than to solidly establish what WE see as our Cape Vincent land use future in our comp plan and zoning and validate it and give it strength, with no apologies and appeasement to a State that is run amuck irrationally contradicting itself legally and trying to convince us we have to follow along and be enablers of their dangerous run amuck scheme. Why give them that validation. We voted for “good govt in the last CV elections. So why are we enabling and following an example of absolutely terrible and destructive govt policy.  That in essence would make our own elections and what they stood for  nearly irrelevant.   That is where our current zoning approach to appease an irrational and irresponsible State legislative Article X scheme has come off the rails and may invalidate what we have worked so hard for locally.  This is actually a severe test of whether the 2009 and 2011 CV elections and democratic process touted so heavily by many as a solution will in the end have any lasting meaning at all.  A lot is riding on what we are willing to do to really defend home rule and against the corporate wind invasion.

I have heard over and over again in the zoning / Article X debate  we. must absolutely be “reasonable” and not overly burdensome.  But what the hell are we being reasonable with?  Are we being reasonable with the Article X devil himself?   What have we bought into with this A-10 forced reasonable zoning approach? Why should we buy into being reasonable with a State that has set a completely unreasonable example  in its significant contradiction of its very own laws. 

By not fully using the powerful comp planning process and  structuring our comp plan and zoning for what we want as a community completely outside of the insidious Article X influence, it is unimaginable what we are actually doing and giving away.

This makes absolutely no sense and sets a extremely dangerous precedent! These are the immediate changes that need to be made to our new comp plan and zoning to rid it completely of the Article X contradictory influence, and  to fully protect our community and home rule rights.