Upon reflection I have decided to write a letter, but it is not in the theme of most of the letters you will see on the PSC website and it does NOT mean an acceptance or engagement in the Art X process. I chose a different approach that obviously I would hope others would consider as well. The Art X process in my opinion is an illegitimate process weakly veiled as legitimate law and you can see my argument as to why in the first part of the letter. The second part deals with ethics. You may find you agree with the subjects in this letter but I have not seen these sentiments expressed on the PSC website to this date.
This letter is lengthy so it will not fit on the PSC website. It will be sent to the PSC and Sec. Brilling by registered letter as well as the other parties Cc on the letter. A separate letter will be sent along with this one to NY AG Schneiderman and Gov. Cuomo. I doubt there will be any response but if there is it will be posted on this blog.
I will post the second half of my letter, which is the real point, on the PSC website shortly.
Frankly, I wish the Town of Cape Vincent officials would have written such a letter to the PSC. I think that is what we should expect from our officials considering the questionable ethical circumstances that have been uncovered and the ones that have existed for quite some time, beyond our former local officials wind lease conflicts.
My letter is as follows.
To: Dec. 17, 2012
The Honorable Jaclyn Brilling
Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power Generation Siting and Environment
3 Empire State Plaza
From:
Art Pundt
Seasonal resident, land owner, tax payer, Cape Vincent , NY
Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power
Dear Secretary Brilling,
I am a seasonal resident of Cape Vincent , NY Cape Vincent
First, the reason I am not addressing your agency’s consideration of BP’s proposal, or intend to engage in the Article X process is as follows.
I believe that no NY or American citizen should engage in the system you administer since it has already arbitrarily and illegitimately stripped away NY community’s and their citizen’s rights to home rule and self determination. This violation of American citizen’s rights is intolerable masquerading as legitimate law. This is one of the most important powers any NY community and its citizen process…to determine without inordinate corporate or State political dominance the vision of its own land use, and therefore a future in the best interest of the community and its citizen’s welfare. That is not only my opinion, but one well considered and written by the NY Legislature into the legislative findings and intent of NY Laws.
NY Town Law, Article 16, section 272 (a) and (b) states the following about land use and the powers granted to NY towns and their citizens:
§ 272-a. Town comprehensive plan. 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.
Note that in paragraph (a) the law clearly recognizes that the State’s citizen’s interests and long range protection is best served by decisions made in the hands of local governments exercising home rule rights. The Art. X process allows the removal of those powers and rights and therefore Art. X is completely contradictory to what the Legislature recognizes in law to be not only in the towns’ best interest but in NY State’s best interest as well for its long range protection. The legislature recognizes in it’s very own findings and intent the extremely critical role of local rights and the decisions they empower as critical to the State’s best interest. The very existence of the Art X preemption power over local laws means the State is working against itself by it own findings and legislation and what the Legislature recognizes is in the best interest for the State and it’s citizens.
In paragraph (b) the Legislature also recognizes that one of a town’s most important powers , not just a power, but a most important power, is a town’s authority and responsibility to plan and regulate land use for the protection of it’s citizens and for a future free from arbitrary land use chaos. Art X doesn’t remove just any home rule power, it removes what is arguably THE most important power a town possesses through home rule. How can a town take responsibly or be encouraged to take responsibility for land regulation if that power can simply be removed? This is a significant stripping away of citizen’s rights and powers and to determine their “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, starting at their very own intimate community level, the fundamental place we learn to exercise our democratic rights.
Therefore the State has two badly contradictory laws working completely at odds with each other and the true democratic process. NY Town Law Sec. 272 quoted above that grants significant home rule powers to plan and regulate a community’s own land use, and Art X with it’s preemption powers of local land use regulations removes those rights and powers. And those home rule powers have been removed, not in the best interest of the State, towns and their citizens, but for arbitrary and transient corporate and political agendas under the influence of corporate lobby money. There is no long range protection for any NY citizen in such a reckless legislative scheme that essentially negates previous established power and rights.
Removing such powers granted to NY towns and their citizens also has a dramatic chilling effect on a citizen’s motivation to participate in the local democratic process, if laws they determine locally in their best interest, and the rights to enact those laws can simply be arbitrarily removed. None of this is in the best interest of the State, the towns’, or the State’s citizens, or any American citizen attempting to engage in democracy to protect themselves and determine their futures, especially when it is at the fundamental level of democracy…the very location of our lives and homes.
Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I believe that the Art. X legislation and it’s power to preempt local legislation and subjugate basic citizen’s rights make it a reckless contradiction to well considered responsible pre-existing State laws that grant those rights, and therefore make the Art X laws completely arbitrary and capricious and without merit or legitimacy. NY Town Law recognizes that home rule rights on land use granted to a town are one of the MOST important rights, and any law that removes such important rights and powers, must be denied by the very source of power of any law…the people.
That is why I refuse to participate in this process and highly encourage others to do the same. This letter, however, concerns another critical matter to the welfare of local governments and citizens across NYS.
The Town of Cape Vincent is engaged in the Art X process with BP and the NY PSC. It has come to the attention of the Town of Cape Vincent, and its citizens via a Watertown Daily Times report that a high level NY Public Service Commissioner Maureen Harris is the wife of John S. Harris the attorney of record for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm. The Town has written to you for clarification on this matter. Your agency’s initial official reply to the paper article was inadequate and distorted political cover. The Harris relationship is very questionable even if it is only a matter that a perception of a conflict of interest exists and should be avoided to ensure public confidence in government and it’s public officials. This in fact is what is suggested in numerous NY AG opinions to public officials, and Mrs. Harris should be familiar with these opinions since she was once a litigator in the NY AG’s office under Gov. Cuomo when he was the NY AG.
As I said this letter is not to plead a case for you to save Cape Vincent
This letter is to put you and your agency on notice that I will be contacting the Governor’s Office and the NYS Attorney General’s Office and will encourage others to do the same to investigate this matter, and to investigate for example, whether Mrs. Harris should have officially disclosed, as a high level State PSC Commissioner, the relationship her spouse has with British Petroleum. I will also be demanding to know from the Governor and the NY AG’ Office the status of a precedent setting investigation former NYAG Cuomo announced Aug 13th 2010 of former Cape Vincent town officials, some with BP wind leases. I was part of that investigation providing research to it’s initial stages. That investigation was never completed as far as anyone can tell by Gov. Cuomo or AG Schneiderman.
Gov. Cuomo also has an Agricultural Commissioner, former Sen. Darrel Aubertine who along with his family have BP wind leases in Cape Vincent
All of this questionable activity is directly attached to the Art X process and NONE of this lends itself to the “integrity” in NY government that Gov. Cuomo promised NY citizens, and I am sure you and your agency and ALL its staff endorse as well. Art X is barely off the ground and already it is surrounded by very serious ethical and administrative questions.
I anxiously await your reply as to how your agency will handle these matters.
Sincerely,
Art Pundt
Seasonal resident Cape Vincent , NY
Cc Andrew Cuomo – Gov.- New York State
Eric Schneiderman - Attorney General –NYS
Patty Ritchie – NY State Senator
Addie Russell – NY State Assemblywoman
Kenneth Blankenbush – NY State Assemblyman
Bob Gorman – Editor Watertown Daily Times
Jae Lee – Reporter Watertown
Mike Connor – Editor - Syracuse
.
Excellent letter. We should not be participating in the article X process. It is a process designed to regulate turbines and at best Cape Vincent will have a small voice on where and maybe how many turbines are placed. I have no confidence in a process that BP calls a "one-stop shop".
ReplyDelete