2009 Wind History - "One Dimensional Dribble"

                                                  Remember this 2009 WDT Ad???

Under my post “More Comments – Same Stuff  " this comment below was left in my email.

“I can’t believe that I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your dribble only to see that you are stuck in the same dimension you were stuck in back in 2009 when you told us that Hirschey and other running for Cape Town government was a waste of time. You and Dave were wrong then and I believe you are still wrong”.

OK fair enough, if this reader wants to take on this issue then let’s go back and really examine exactly what “dimension and dribble ” I was into in 2009.   Let’s look at the ENTIRE picture of 2009 not just this little comment bite.

But before we do that let’s look at the big picture today. I believe that performance and outcomes matter. Where are we in 2013,  a full 11 years since the wind met towers arrived in Cape Vincent!

2009 - we were under the very large and frightening threat that our town could be covered with giant wind turbines from giant energy corporations. We DID have home rule then.

2013 - We are under the very large frightening threat that our town could be covered with giant wind turbines from a giant energy corporation…except NOW in 2013 extremely powerful political forces are assisting one energy giant corporation that gobbled up the other, by stripping away our home rule, and our town govt’s approach to all of this is to be “reasonable” and “appease” those forces AND declare that rules that stripped away our home rule are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL!!!

Yet astonishingly enough considering our plight which appears to be getting worse...the entire focus of the debate over the past 4 days here is whether  I  will apologize in the future on pure speculation.  Honestly, look where we are...is that really important considering  BP may crush our community? No it is completely absurd!

I guess you could make the case we are actually worse off!!! Oh but we have  new wind regulations and comp plan!  Yup and it will be up to the State led by a green zealot Gov. that determines what happens to them since we no longer have any control over the issue and the town officers think that  is fair and impartial!!!!!!

However,  as you can see  this commenter above is another person not addressing the issue of the Hirschey govt. saying the Art X rules are fair and impartial!

So where were YOU in 2009?   Do you remember ad above in the WDT?  You should, it was very controversial at the time. Imagine that…controversial!   Seriously?  This is some of the “dribble” I was involved in in 2009.

 Could you possibly fathom today opposing this ad since ethics was THE main root of our problems and two elections focused directly on ethics???? 

OK, so let’s flash back to 2009. Now let me ask my readers who are “anti wind” and support this current CV govt who ran almost exclusively on ethics, if you would have supported the ad above, or opposed it?

Well some of the same influential officers running your town govt right this second opposed it!!! And others  had to be shoved real hard to understand its importance and suppiort it!

Back then  I had been pushing very hard on WPEG and Mr. Hirschey to do something aggressive about the REAL issue and that was the wind conflicts of interest of some town officers back then. And to keep things in the proper perspective this was early 2009 before the elections that year. It was a real long shot that WPEG candidates would make it on the board and if they did it would not matter since they wouldn’t have the votes needed for a majority to do anything. I said that right up front and was right.   We HAD to do something else in addition.    And you also have to understand that in 2009  wind development looked  imminent and another election in 2011 would be too late. Either way I thought we should  go after the conflicts, even if we won in the elections…it certainly would not hurt our cause to fully attack the conflicts.

But Mr. Hirschey ( head of WPEG then ) and some WPEG members were dragging their feet.  So this ended in a very contentious WPEG meeting, where some people I won’t name, aggressively confronted Hirschey on the conflict issue and told him he better get on the stick because a legal attack on the conflicts might be our only chance and would not hurt the election anyhow.  It was Jan. and I could not be there in person but was definitely part of that push and discussion.

After all ... these conflicts had existed for at least four years and no one in WPEG wanted to go after them aggressively even though it was our entire problem ! You can make  great arguments in sceince why wind shouldn't be here if they go before a conflicted board that ignores that input..then you get nowhere and are defeated.   Hirschey, Schneider, Byrne and many others in WPEG couldn't seem to grasp this really funadmantal concept.  They were going to do studies...all kinds of studies, birds, sound, economics, etc.  All of which would go NOWHERE and went NOWHERE with these conflicted officers in place! It is not rocket science, but it didn't matter...studies and research and a wind laws that would go nowhere was THE absolute answer.  Did the old planning board take all this input and then recommend a "good" wind law to the conflicted board...of course not just as I told them it wouldn't.  Oh no... but they had the "experts"!!!
So a WPEG legal committee was fianlly formed and I was on it, and one of the first things we did was develop and publish this ad in the WDT. I designed the ad and its wording and we all had input to the final product. It was the first time the conflicts had been exposed in such vivid detail so people could really see just how terrible our situation was. I thought it was just exposure of the truth and made perfect sense as a tactic. But it turned out to be controversial to people on our side!  This was some of the one dimensional dribble I was involved with in 2009!

However, at least two current influential town officers thought this ad was way over the top and opposed it, And they were not WPEG members. They couldn’t even see the point of it, and were asking if my entire point was just to PISS OFF the town board?  Once again I was ther 'radical" who didn't know what he was doing!

To this day it boggles my mind these two could NOT comprehend what this ad was intended to do and the importance. All they could think of was that WPEG and I were  putting it out there for no other reason than to piss off Reinbeck and the old board. Apparently they couldn’t fathom that their govt was RUN AMUCK with a cesspool off conflicts and ethics issues, and that had to be exposed and highly visible as a critical tactic if we were ever going to break down this govt and move forward. 
These two current town officers  thought this ad would piss off Rienbeck and the town board and they wouldn’t get the wind law they were working on. A wind law that to get it would have required the votes of a couple conflicted officers on that board!!!! They were willing to give a PASS to conflicted town officers that were the deep route of our entire problem AND one of these people later ran against these former town officers with a platform of ethics and conflicts!!!! AND they had watched the conflicts destroy our govt at this point for FOUR YEARS!!!!  Yet this ad was not appropriate???

We wasted  9 months of yada, yada, yada, with Rienbeck's 2008 / 2009 pro wind loaded BS wind committee on a BS law that was NEVER going to happen.  And it was obvious it was not going to happen, and history proves it was not going to happen.  When the wind committee was announced I wrote a letter to the WDT predicting it was a complete sham designed by the new fancy Albany wind lawyers and would go nowhere.  Yet these two town officers got taken in, and month after month got so embedded and over committed stand  convinced of the process that they reached the irrational point of considering allowing any law they had worked on to pass, requiring rabid conflicts of interest to do so. See anything similar to the board's blind obedience to appease Art X, and calling it fair and impartial?  Differnt year...same thought process...rather scary if you ask me!!!

Are these town officers getting sucked in again and taking the town with them this time.  Better think this over real careful because this time this is not a bullshit wind committee sham, this time there is one hell of a lot riding on the outcome of what these same officers do!!!

GO FIGURE!!!!!!!! And  people wonder why I question them!

And BTW folks I have this ALL documented. I ain’t making it up! And of course back then my approach to actually take on and expose these run amuck conflicts was just like NOW, too radical, too fringe, and a “rant” , one dimensional!!!

Now you have these SAME two current people in our town govt. in influential positions signing documents saying they think the Art. X rules are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.  They think rules that removed YOUR RIGHTS are fair and impartial.  And instead of explaining  what they are doing or mean, their supporters go on the immediate attack on any one who questions this statement  See any similarities to the 2009 ad issue?
And people wonder why I keep a close eye on what is going on in this CV govt. and question their actions.

 There is PLENTY of justification for me to question these people when they appear to be doing much the same they did back in 2009!!!  They were into appeasement of our conflicted town board back then, and now they are wiloing to appease the State and a run amuck governor!

OK…now do you remember this???? It was much more than one dimensional dribble in 2009!

Well if you have been around in the CV wind battle in 2009 you probably signed it. Those two irrelevant no account people Art Pundt and Dave Lamora started it. This  is more of the “dribble” they were into in  2009! 

Soon we were joined by numerous WPEG volunteers and others who did an incredible job helping us get the now famous 800+ signatures on this moratorium. And I still contend this, and the ad above, had a direct and positive result on eventually getting the WPEG candidates in 2009 and 2011 into office.  It wasn't the only thing...that is NOT my claim, but it sure helped!
 Rienbeck pissed off A LOT of VOTERS that went  to Hirschey when he and the board refused to do anything about this moratorium petition. Then you had the previous ad in the WDT that was circulating all around to show the raw truth of WHY this conflicted board would not accept a moratorium petition on wind.

Oh yes and WHO used this petition in their voting efforts. Oh that would be one Mr. Urban Hirschey and the WPEG candidates who DEMANDED they see a private research version we established with a lot more detailed and collated information . So how much effort did Mr. Hirschey put into this petition? ZERO!!! He didn’t even show up the night we presented it to support it.

That would be the same night Reinbeck tried to throw out John Byrne and his camera…and one influential current town officer agreed with Rienbeck!!! And people wonder why I question the judgment of some of these town officers and their current direction when some who are in influential places now directing policy where so wrong several times before!!!  Appease back in 2009...appease now in 2013!

And yes I did say I thought voting for Mr. Hirschey and the WPEG candidates in 2009 was a waste of time.  I thought that because they had already demonstrated some significant bad judgment on very critical issues and strategies, and with far too much willingness to compromise and appease.

How exactly do you think letting conflicted town officials voting on a weak wind law, that will be passed on to a badly conflicted planning board to administer is a good and responsible judgment ???? How could they be so out of touch to oppose an ad that exposes the ethics cesspool you are fighting that has caused your town govt to run amuck...how can you think opposing that is a good idea???  You bet I had an unwillingness to support this judgment in 2009!!!

When you consider that…it becomes absurd NOT to have some doubts and questions. And then we see this astonishing  statement by them that the Art X rules are ” fair and impartial!!!!  Looks  like more of the same inherent imbedded trend with these people that has existed since 2006 - through 2009 to 2013.  And history PROVES it was VERY WRONG at times in the past.   And people wonder why I question?

And when in office ALL the attempts of  Hirschey and this board on wind moratoriums were for 6 months…not one year as 800 people in this town wanted.  So it was not OK for Rienbeck and his board to ignore it but OK for Hirschey and his board to ignore the one year request?   That would be after Clif Schneider, also a current board member, who actually was very influential in the Save the River position of a THREE year moratorium to study bird impacts would not support that position or even a YEAR moratorium!

How do you spend a great deal of time and research on drafting a moratorium on such a critical matter as the bird impacts that he and everyone are screaming about, and when you get the prime chance to go after a moratorium several times to actually protect the birds they  just drop the opportunity and pass it off to  6 or 7 months?  Clif had the opportunity to support his very own organization Save the River, right in his hands and he dropped it.   Go Figure!!!  had they passed a three year STR sponsered n moratorium, thinj=k of the press tand credibility that would have brought to the Save the River bird study position!

And as I remember ALL the current town board officer signed this 2009 wind moratorium petition, yet when it was THEIR responsibility they dropped the ball!

I will give Councilwoman Michelle Oswald a pass since she was not on the board when these moratorium questions came up. But she DID run on a public anti wind platform, and claiming to want to reinstate or at least support home rule.  So it is beyond me why she would sign a letter saying the very thing that is significantly helping big wind and DID stip  away our home rule rights ...is fair and impartial!  Really Michelle?

And talking about Michelle...I have it from  very credible sources that some on the current town board were really not happy to have Michelle and her anti wind stance on the board.  IN FACT I was told at one time some on the board were willing to appoint her opponent Paul Aubertine...Why?  Well of course to appear  FAIR and IMPATIAL!!!   Geee any similarities their????

Wow... there is spectacular judgment!  More of the same trend of compromise and appeasement from 2006 to 2013  Talk about dribble!!!.  And people wonder why I question?????

 Of course to question any of this means you are just “stuck in one dimension with your dribble!!!

Oh geees I almost forgot this in 2009.

That dimension and dribble I was stuck in in 2009 was also the year that the NY AG's office  started to pay serious attention to our ethics complaints and I was deeply involved in that along with others. That led eventually to an investigation.

People will say “yeah but it didn’t go anywhere…yeah that is true, and you could say that this board recently passed a comp plan and wind law that the NYPSC will make the final determination on since the State took our home rule and now the board thinks those rules are fair and impartial, so that hasn’t really gone anywhere yet either!

But we got tremendous PR leverage from this AG action for our cause!

If you were  a WPEG / Hirschey candidate running for a town office and mainly on ethics, it certainly doesn’t hurt that in 2009 everyone knows the AG is in town and in 2011 your entire town govt is under a precedent setting and very embarrassing investigation by the State’s top legal agency and that is splashed all over the State news media AND carried by some national wind opposition sites.

Of course none of this is relevant right…as my commenter points out. Just dribble!

"I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your dribble only to see that you are stuck in the same dimension you were stuck in back in 2009"

That dimension brought the AG to town!!!

I don’t know…I would say  2009 was a pretty good year all in all, and because of the things that happened that year and my dribble and one dimension probably had at least some direct influence on why some of these current town officials are where they are today IN OFFICE!!!  I obviously can not, nor will claim full responsibility, but it certainly had some impact and was NOT dribble!

So in the end, one way or the other, even though I won’t answer the apology question based on a false premise argument…I really don’t have anything to apologize for.

Some of these Hirschey and current govt supporters have damnconvenient short memories and a rather distorted view of the ACTUAL wind history and how it unfolded when it comes to making their case.

When as I outline above some of them were inadvertently working AGAINST the main anti wind cause through bad judgment on critical wind issues and how to address them effectively.   A cause they would now like you to believe any gains of which are exclusively theirs and Hirschey’s and everyone else is just nuts!

The actual FACTS say something else. And it certainly wasn't dibble.  That is a wild distortion this person and the other commenter need to try to make you get behind an on going case to marginalize my questions of these town officials.

Think about it. Can you imagine being opposed to the ad above AND thinking it would be OK to let some badly conflicted town officers like Marty and Don Mason vote on ANYTHING wind related? THAT is exactly were several of your most influential town officers running current Art X policy were in  2009!!! 

AND as if that isn't bad enough if that wind law was passed...guess where it would go to be carried out in site plan review and SEQR environmental studies.  It would have gone to Edsall and his wind conflicted planning board.  How smart of a decision would that have been when to get your wind law and personal accomplishment  you would have effectively left in place the entire conflicted town govt to administer it???  Somebody want to show me the logic and good judgment in that?  And people wonder why I question this board and town officials
So my commenter friend...you  have the very luxury of the govt. you now have and ability to defend them at least in some part because of the "one dimensional dribble"  some of us were dedicated to in that 2009 year!!! And this is just PART of the story!

What is worse is that at least one town board officer I refer to who realized these lapses in judgment and I  tried to discuss them in light or future decisions, absolutely refuses to analyze the mistakes. Not interested, we just move on and look forward.  The trouble is he moved on to other similar mistakes in the past showing the exact same faulty trend in thinking!  Never learns.  This person right now is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN the current approach to appease Art X AND call it fair and impartial is the correct thing to do. The history of his actions are NOT on his or our side on that analysis!  And people wonder why I question!

To my commenter above... Maybe you should just shut your mouth and be grateful!!! Because some of your current town govt officers got way off the rails ON REALLY CRITICAL ISSUES AT REALLY CRITICAL POINTS, and had to be jerked back onto  the rails at times!!! 

One town official told me point blank not long ago that in the past they would have negotiated the town away to the wind developers as the appropriate thing to do. I give this person credit for that admission yet  today, that person's name is right there on the letter to BP that claims the Art. X rules are fair and impartial.  Are we now going to negotiate the town away to Art. X , Cuomo and BP???

And after watching this history you better damn well hope they are right now!!!

And based on all this I am certainly NOT going to answer some inane apology question framed as a trap in many false arguments. 

When you consider the history above, and where these officers might lead us based on past faulty decisions proven in history...do you really think that my apology and this soap opera on some speculated outcome way in the future is really an issue of critical importance?  

The commenter above says the other commenter  I argued with ate my lunch.  You better hope the direction of our town officers who are want to  appease the State and think Art. X is fair and impartial, don't eat ALL OUR LUNCHES!!!