Confused and Still Is!!!

Our former town supervisor Tom Rienbeck submitted a letter to the NYPSC.  You can read it below. Then my commentary is below it.  Like many of the other moves he has made on behalf of the wind developers this is also confusing.

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power Generation Siting and Environment Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350


RE: Case-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Secretary Cohen,

RECEIVED
PUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION
EXEC-FILES-ALBANY
2013 APR I 6 PH 2: Olt

I direct your attention to the marked passages in the letter dated April 4, 2013 from the Cape Vincent Town Board. It was approved at a Town Board meeting on April 3, 2013. Several statements in the letter are misleading

10Th ere would not be any leaseholders for the project if the project was "thoroughly unwelcome".

2.
Landowners were first approached by BP's predecessor Greenlight Energy in the
second half of-2005. "overwhelming opposition over almost a decade "is a
misstatement .

3.
a community survey in 2007 showed that 600/0 of the respondents supported
wind energy, a May 2011 Zogby survey showed 41 % opposed.

Hardly a "voice of the clear majority" nor has the community of Cape Vincent
"spoken in near harmony"

4.
The elections in 2012 had an approximately 700/0 voter turnout, the last Town
Board member was elected in a 52/480/0 split, hardly a "clear majority".

5.
The appointed officials who also signed the letter, with the possible exception of
one, have all been appointed by the anti-wind Town Board.

This only addresses one letter. What else have they misled you about?

Please understand that this Town Board does not represent all the citizens of Cape Vincent. They lobby very well for the opposition to wind turbines in our area. There is another side that supports this project. The Town Board does not acknowledge nor support this other side. 

  To me Tom Rienbeck is a very tragic character in this Cape Vincent wind mess.  Mind you I am not excusing his behavior, but I think he got snookered by the wind developers, his lease holding friends, and probably by Richie Edsall our former planning board chair as well.  And then once he was in the trap his behavior became more irrational, desperate, and entrenched. 

  If Mr. Rienbeck had taken another more measured path to listen to all the community, even if he was rabidly in favor of wind development, and not suckered into the idea of marginalizing his seasonal community, which brings in much of the town's taxes and income, maybe the turbines would be up and running and he might still be town supervisor.  He even went so far as to alienate many of the permanent residents as well. His apparent willingness to marginalize and wage war on the seasonal community on behalf of wind development was irrational and cost him dearly in many ways.   

The pro wind side likes to blame Mr. Hirschey and the "wealthy" anti wind seasonals for their troubles and Rienebeck's and his former govt's removal from office.  They will NEVER get it that Rienbeck's downfall and the problems it has brought them, like losing political control of their community were not anyone else's fault but Rienbeck's and his absurd political and leadership actions.  

  One prime example.  When you are handed a 800 + name petition, with both local and seasonal names on it asking for a 1 year wind moratorium, and even some lease holder names on it...you have to be out of your freakin political mind to just ignore it.

Gee why not in a small town where every vote matters just piss off 800 potential voters!!!  That's politically real smart!    

I wonder if Rienbeck, his board  and the pro wind side ever had a CLUE that such a list of names as a public record at a minimum could be used as a prime list of voters unhappy with Rienbeck's and the boards's actions. 

Geee do ya think!!!   It was a political and pro wind development disaster.  And the pro wind side just keeps up this absurd behavior, like still calling the seasonals "wealthy anti wind seasonal voters", or suing the bloggers, or trying to pass illegal voter laws. 

 THEY JUST DO NOT GET IT HOW THEY KEEP BURYING THEMSELVES!!!!   

  I believe in the end Tom Rienbeck was a very confused man significantly overwhelmed by circumstances brought to his town.    Let me give you an amusing example.   In 2006 Rienbeck and crew started down the road on a wind law. After a while they decided to scrap that wind law probably figuring out most likely  with the advice of the wind developers, and then Edsall  that it was too restrictive on sound and would have killed any wind project. 

Also in the process of amending our zoning for wind this would have required a full state SEQR environmental study.  This would have been costly and mainly time consuming and inconvenient for the developer trying to ram rod a project through, and for the lease holders.   Also the law after all did have two restrictive key provisions.   

So they decided to try to skirt these issues by simply trying to call wind turbines utilities which could then be allowed in any CV zoning district, and means they could just be shoved under our current zoning at that time.   Then the planning board under the control of Edsall, a BP lease holder, and his wind conflicted PB would completely control any wind project site plan review and would be in charge of the individual SEQR's for the projects and could ram rod the projects.  It would be out of the town boards control.  

Two of the provisions among others in the old draft 2006 wind law law were:.   Wind turbines were NOT to be considered as utilities.   And the sound restrictions were to be 5dba above ambient at the property line of non participating owners.  

For an interesting historical reference I have posted the draft law below from 2006 were you can see these provisions.  

But here is the amusing yet sad  part of all this that demonstrated Rienbeck's deep confusion in his rabid haste to assist the wind developers, and his lease holder friends.  

In 2006 there was a vote taken whether to move forward with wind zoning and the SEQR studies. Actually and very ironically that vote failed and the wind law efforts should have proceeded (that is another story) but in the end the effect was that all attempts at a new wind law and the SEQR studies were scrapped, despite a vote that officially failed in it's attempt to stop the wind law /SEQR process. Rienbeck's town board just scrapped that democratic vote too, and instead went on to calling turbines utilities under our current laws, and let Edsall and his planning board control it all. How convenient!!!  

Problem is that Rienbeck then told Edsall and the planning board to "adopt"  the old draft 2006 wind law that had just officially been scrapped as "guidelines" for the planning board's site plan review of the wind projects!   Really???? 

And guess what those "guidelines" said????  That's right!  Turbines are NOT utilities, and the sound restriction should be 5dba measured at the property line !!!   The sound restriction we now know would have been a project killer!!! 

 And here is where it becomes a real hoot!    Basically what Rienbeck did in his confused entrenched state of mind, and Edsall initially accepted in his quest for control of the wind projects, was to tell Edsall and the  PB to follow "guidelines" (the scrapped 2006 draft law) that were completely contrary to their wind agenda  They wanted to just call turbines utilities, and the "guidelines" that Rienbeck instructed Edsall and the PB to adopt for site plan review, said they WERE NOT to be considered urtilities!!!  These guys couldn't even get their own agenda scheme straight! 

 I remember in Aug 2006 before all this utilities thing surfaced, I had a conversation with Edsall on the street after a WPEG wind informational meeting. He was already struting around all puffed up that we weren't going to get a wind law because they thought they could just call turbines utilities under the current zoning law with no changes.  

Problem is that legally the PB can't "adopt " anything like the scrapped law as "guidelines" as a "defacto law", since they have no authority to do so.  Only the town board can pass laws. 

But during the site review process Acciona like fools actually agreeded to abide by these "guidelines" which Rienbeck told Edsdall to adopt and Edsall then forced on Acciona.   Guidelines that would have killed their project!!!  And once you force Acciona to abide by the "guidelines, to not be arbitrary you would have to make BP abide by the same guidelines.  Edsall was in effect killikng his own leases!!! 

 Duuuuh!  Do ya think there is any confusion here!  And these are the pro wind people along with their buddies that tell us how smart they are and how we should go along and trust their judgement.   And now like Rienbeck they are trying to convince the NYPSC with their same "genius" judgement they should listen as well...YIKES!!! 

 Of course once Rienbeck, Edsall, and the wind developers actually got a clue  what a screw up they had made with this wind law "guidelines' BS, they then started stepping all over themselves in denial.  Edsall at one meeting even tried to deny the guidlines were ever adopted to which I held up PB minutes that clearly showed they had been and the vote was unanimous.  CALL THE COPS MICKEY, MEETING ADJOURNED!!!  

Like I said, not to defend him, but Rienbeck was a confused man overwhelmed by circumstances out of his control. 

 But there is a sad follow up to all this.  One member of the planning board that followed and vote yes on virtually every Edsall /Rienbeck move was Karen Bourcy.  She was critical in conflcited votes she should not have taken that thrust this town into complete legal, zoning and social chaos, yet our current town board thought it was appropriate to re-appoint her to the PB as an alternate.   I guess the confusion continues!  Go figure! 

 Below is the old draft 2006 wind  law.  It's interesting that this thing ever made it before the old 2006 pro wind town board. Note the two key restrictions mentioned above.  Note also the ridiculous setbacks and how much we have learned since 2006. 

 Really what we should have learned and apparently haven't was to BAN this zoning disaster all  together.  the other major problem I got onto early on in 2006 was that this 2006 law would have NO WAY been in accordance to our 2003 comp plan, which the old board was trying to bury and ignore.  I believe it would have been a strong legal path to defeat that old law had it passed.    

  Just like I believe our current law to allow any wind development at all is not in compliance with our current comp plan.  

Guess we haven't leaned all that much!