STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Simply NOT True! - A Little Reality Please!
Mr. Wiley at the Cape Vincent JLL blog is making an erroneous claim about CV town officials actions.
Here is part of a comment he (or his friend said) in a recent post on his blog.
"...the Town of Cape Vincent who is fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting and other land use matters."
NO they aren’t. That is inaccurate. Jeeez I just explained this in detail in a recent post based on LAW!.
The idea the Town is fighting for rights to Home Rule is simply a convenient illusion acceptted without question to make the best out of a terrible situation, by believing something that is not reality.
The town may be fighting hard to defend their specific zoning law in Cape Vincent and fighting within a very set of specific and restrictive state rules that have already removed thier Home Rule...and fighting to be reasonable in fear of State preemption…I will give them that, but they ARE NOT fighting for our right to Home Rule. That is a completely different battle and the Town IS NOT engaged in it at present!
Read this from the Art. 10 Law. I don’t know how this can be any clearer!!!
“1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency, municipality or any agency thereof may, except as expressly authorized under this article by the board, require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of a major electric generating facility with respect to which an application for a certificate hereunder has been filed…”
See that "no municipality" part...what do you think that means??? After reading this let me ask you again the questions asked in my previous post.
1. Does the Power NY Act and Art. 10 have the power to preempt our zoning law on behalf of BP? YES, it certainly does!!! Is that Home Rule…NO!!!
2. Who makes the final decision if Cape Vincent’s law will stand as is and be enforceable by the Town? Is it the State or the Town? It is very clear IT IS NOT THE TOWN unless the State says so! Is that Home Rule …NO!!!
3. Do you see anywhere in the above quote from Art. 10 law that says the Town gets to make the final decision on our laws by exercising autonomy through Home Rule on the wind power plant siting issue?
NO you don’t, and in fact it says the complete opposite! That is NOT Home Rule!
4. Now…if Art. X renders a decision on the BP power plant that upholds our zoning law, did the Town make that decision with Home Rule or was it the State? It will be the State!! Is that Home Rule!!! NO!
5. Has the Town done anything to directly and strongly fight against, or strongly oppose the provisions in the Art. X law that allows the removal of Home Rule rights on the wind power plant siting issue?
NO THEY HAVE NOT! If so FIND IT!!!! And post it here!
They didn’t even pass a resolution to oppose Art. 10 like the County and a number of other counties and towns have done, In fact they are going completely along with the Art. X process, which in effect is tacit approval of the State’s local law preemption power, and validates it. Is that fighting for our right to Home Rule?...NO!
In fact can anybody find me anything, anywhere, where the Town has put up a real stink or shown real strong opposition to Art. X. and it’s removal of Home Rule rights on this issue?
NO...Instead they call the Art. X process and its preemption of local law provisions , even handed and balanced , and the rules fair and impartial. Now can somebody please explain to me how the that is fighting for our right to Home Rule????
There is this idea floating around that if the State upholds our law, that will be defending or protecting Home Rule rights , or our Home Rule rights will have been reestablished. NO!!!! ANY decision we get, bad or good, will still be a STATE decision and it will NOT BE THROUGH HOME RULE!!!! And either way the Town will have let that decision happen. That is NOT Home Rule or fighting for it! .
The Town may be defending its law by arguing with a bunch of third party bureaucrats in Albany who are also listening to BP telling them to preempt our law…but THAT IS NOT fighting for our rights to Home Rule!!!
And if we DID have Home Rule and were fighting for it we would NOT be battling and begging a State board to uphold our law. Does it make any sense from a Home Rule defense position that you write a zoning law and then have to ask the State, who has removed your Home Rule for money to defend your law from the very developer you are fighting??? How exactly is that Home Rule or fighting for our Home Rule rights???? A little reality please!!!!
And when the Art. X presiding examiner, Judge Agresta , comes to Town and says he is interested in the parties ( the Town and BP ) reaching a stipulation (agreement) to abide by our zoning law…Oh.... but maybe NOT 100%...is that Home Rule? Good luck finding a way to justify that as Home Rule rights!
So where was at least ONE, just ONE, town officer in the crowd to say to Agresta that we weren’t going to enter into ANY stipulations with anybody over our law because we are fighting for our Home Rule rights? Where were they? Just ONE! They were sitting in the audience trying to be "reasonable" to the Art. X and its preemption power to remove our law and Home Rule rights. That is where they were. Trying to be "reasonable" like they have from the start to the very thing that has already stripped away our Home Rule rights!
You can't claim to be "fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting" when you are appeasing and trying to be "reasonable" and beg money from the very thing that stripped away your Home Rule rights in the first place!
In fact ask any town officer who was deeply involved in the formation of our zoning law if they wrote it with complete reliance on Home Rule or in defiance of Art. 10 taking away our Home Rule rights...or did they write it with the idea of being "reasonable" to Art. 10?
The ones I talked to and all the hoopla about our law on the blogs was all about formulating a law with Art. X's preemption power in mind and being "reasonable".
Not exactly what I would call a spectacular display of fighting for our Home Rule rights???
Money Talks!!!
On the blog Pandora’s Box of Rocks you can see a press release from Gov. Cuomo granting more funds to support renewable energy in NYS, including wind projects.
http://pandorasboxofrocks.blogspot.com/
At many of these events Cuomo marches out the comments of at least two faithful and important state agency leaders. The NYPSC and NYSERDA. You can see their obedient comments below on behalf of Cuomo and renewable energy.
Below are some quotes from the article.
Governor Cuomo Announces $191 Million in Project Awards to Increase Renewable Energy in New York State
" Governor Cuomo said. "New York has one of the most ambitious and responsible renewable energy targets in the nation: 30 percent by 2015.
With this ambitious target do you think Cuomo is just going to set a precedent that any town with a tough wind zoning law just walks away free? Especially when he could be getting 200+ megawatts of wind energy from BP or some other wind player if BP sells…and especially when he came to NNY and told communities that we have to be “reasonable”!!!
Then a quote from NYSERDA!
Francis J. Murray Jr., President and CEO of NYSERDA said, "The RPS has been instrumental in attracting private investment in renewable energy and supporting the state's clean energy agenda. Thanks to Governor Cuomo's commitment to clean-energy investment, we will help create jobs, improve our environment and strengthen our energy security in New York."
Why is Francis Murray important to Cape Vincent? He or someone he designates sits on the Art. X siting board that will determine CV’s future with BP’s wind farm!
Garry Brown, Chairman of the PSC said, "The generation of electricity from renewable sources increases energy diversity and promotes a better environment for us all. Renewable energy, along with our energy efficiency efforts, provides our best hope toward ending dependency on fossil fuels, improving regional economies, and reducing harmful emissions."
Why is Garry Brown important to CV? Well he is the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that will determine CV’s future with BP’s wind farm!
This sure doesn’t make me feel real comfortable that playing in the Art. X game that all these guys control is going to turn out real well for Cape Vincent!!!
Thursday, May 30, 2013
We Have NO Home Rule On The Wind Issue - Not Now And Not Later - A Response To Comments By Dave Lamora
My readers may have missed a debate between Cape Vincent citizen Dave Lamora and myself in the comment section of one of my posts. Although I think Dave and I agree on many of the big wind issues we have some differences that I think are very important to examine. Dave is a person who I believe carefully examines his arguments, and has shown siginificant commitment to the community since he volunteered a great deal of time to the formulation of our comprehensive plan.
But before we go on, Dave you have to understand that because I disagree with you or the town does not mean I am attempting to belittle anyone.
Here are Dave’s last comment. as posted in the comment section of my blog. I apologize for the format of the comments. The copy and paste was not working well.
“I have been deservedly accused many times of being an idealist .If I were the DEC representative on the ART.10 review panel, I would find it virtually impossible to justify issuing a permit to BP for a project in Cape Vincent ,considering the language in the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan, and considering the above stated DEC policy. Particularly when the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, specifies that a community has the authority to protect and preserve its physical (visual) character, and the default position of the ART.10 rules is to follow local law.
I believe this element of the Home Rule is just as defendable as public health and safety, perhaps even more so because aesthetics does not require justification. The original SEQR law stated (in my words) that visual character, and value only need be defined by the community itself, it is not subject to interpretation or contradiction by others. It cannot be challenged by studies or research, or even need to be qualified. It has legal status.
As you know I was dissatisfied with the lack of stronger specific protections for scenic quality in the revised Zoning Law, but even as written it provides more than ample justification for precluding industrial turbines.
If the DEC representative has any sense of integrity for his agency's "raison d'etre" he would deny a permit. I certainly do think the Town and their attorney should press this point.
If you genuinely are confused, I would venture to say it is because you continue to view this entire process from a perspective that allows no alternative interpretation.
Consider this if you will.
In the larger context, New York State has legislatively taken complete autonomy on land use from local municipalities, by exercising its authority to pre-empt local laws. Collectively, by refusing to challenge this abrogation of control, the local municipal governing system has conceded this control. Like you ,I am appalled both by the legislation and the local level response. Nevertheless, it is law and townships are following it.
In the practical , applicable context, what I see is a municipality(Cape Vincent) who has conceded autonomy but not Home Rule. In effect, if pre-emption does not take place and our local laws prevail and are applied to the project application, we do not lose Home Rule. You can argue the logic of this, belittle anyone who espouses to it, and continue to advocate for a rebellion to reclaim complete autonomy, but I will repeat again-to what end?
It is not my interpretation or the course of action I would have chosen to take, but the fray has been entered and resources devoted to its conclusions.
Think carefully if the accusations/protestations that you make are beneficial or detrimental to their and our eventual cause.”
I will focus on the part o Dave's comment about losing or nor losing Home Rule because I think it gets to the crux of the matter and is a belief (I believe erroneous) held by many in our community concerning Art. X’s preemption power.
I strongly disagree with the argument that if the State doesn't preempt our law, then we retain Home Rule. Here is why.
First you can not split Home Rule from autonomy as Dave suggests. . Home Rule IS autonomy. You can’t become just a little bit pregnant on this issue! Consider what the National League of Cities says as a legal opinion on Home Rule.
“Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation, but home rule creates local autonomy and limits the degree of state interference in local affairs.”
And note something important that I will get into later. This opinion does not say that Home Rule is applied differently by a State from one municipality to the next. The application is uniformly applied.
Home Rule IS autonomy, and they can not be separated.
So here are two questions to consider.
1. Why do the Art. X regulations allow pre-emption or local laws? What is the point of at? How do they legally come about?
2. No matter what the Art. X decision is in terms of our zoning law, WHO determines the final outcome of our law. Is it the town or the State?
Dave, and many others supporting our town govt. make the assertion that if the State lets our local laws prevail, then we have not lost Home Rule. I disagree!
If the process is entirely set by the State and within that process from it’s inception is the power to remove Home Rule with an expressed intent to preempting local laws, then it should be obvious you have NO Home Rule no matter what the final decision is.
I believe the fatal flaw in thinking is that the final outcome is the determining factor in whether we retain Home Rule or not. I believe that is incorrect, and that the original intent and how the process is carried out is what determines your Home Rule status, not the final outcome. In terms of actual Home Rule or not, that final outcome has been rendered mostly irrelevant. Even the NY State Constitution, and Municipal Home Rule Laws recognize this expressed intent up front idea.
Here is why I believe this.
They state that one way for the State constitutionally override Home Rule on issues they feel are of critical importance is by deliberately expressing the “intent” to remove Home Rule in a general State law on an issue and occupy that field of legislation. They do not say that Home Rule will be determined later on a community by community basis as a result of whether the State agrees with each law or not.
Therefore I believe based in part on this that it is incorrect to imply that a later decision under this regime has granted you back Home Rule or that you have protected or defended it.
Legally and Constitutionally if the State removes your Home Rule…then it is GONE, and no decision later brings it back to life. That would be like the State preempting itself in its own law.
Next, whether you have Home Rule or not is not a vague sliding scale based of a final decision. You either have it or you don’t.
If you are going to rely on the final State decision as the determinant factor as to whether you have Home Rule or not, then what is the standard for determining your Home Rule? This becomes a real slippery slope and the State has wisely avoided it by not letting it rest on a final decision later. It is probably why the State has recognized they will express an intent upfront that home rule is removed in its entirety on an issue by law. Not on a negotiated piece meal basis for each community. They aren’t going to play that game even though you believe you can.
Do you only have Home Rule if the State agrees absolutely 100% with every regulation in your zoning? What if the State says… “well we agree completely with you Cape Vincent EXCEPT on this one little setback and we would like liberalized by 10 ft.! Is that us retaining Home Rule ? Would the State’s decision to allow for one turbine placed well into the CV interior be a victory for retaining Home Rule? Are five turbines retaining Home Rule? Ten, twenty, or Sixty? Is an agreement to an alternative to our law that is not necessarily 100% in compliance like Judge Agresta suggests…is that retaining Home Rule? If you use the final decision as determining Home Rule…then where and who decides when Home Rule is being protected and when it is not, or if we have lost it or not?
It becomes an absurd slippery slope vague opinions, and that is why the State has removed Home Rule up front…not let it rest on the final decision for interpretation from one community to the next. You don’t have Home Rule…It was taken away by right up front by expressed intent in the Power NY 2011 legislation…period!!! You don’t suddenly get it back just because the State agrees with your law. That is defending your law alone…not Home Rule which has already been removed!
Then there is the need for a uniform application of Home Rule up front to not be arbitrary.
In NY Town Law Article 16, Sec. 272 on comp planning, the State encourages communities to comp plan and zone and that is uniformly applied to every community in NYS. It doesn’t say Lyme gets to comp plan and we don’t. Nor does it say… make your comp plan and then we will decide on a case by case basis after the fact if it will be valid. In addition in the legislature’s intent and findings in Sec. 272 the State expresses how crucial local comp planning and zoning is to the community and State’s well being.
Yet Art. X does just the opposite and insidiously rips apart this intent and let’s every community fend only for themselves and their zoning and their specific interests as warring parties. It applies comp planning and zoning on an absurd… contrary to other NY laws…. arbitrary piece meal basis. For example the State could say…
“OK CV your experts did an excellent job defending your law. So we will uphold your laws as is, and the applicant must comply. We aren’t giving you Home Rule…just allowing your law to stand. But Lyme and Orleans, your experts didn’t do so well and your community has more interior, so even though you have a law and comp plan just like CV’s and you don’t want turbines…we rule your law too burdensome and you get X number of turbines!”
Again the point is there is no Home Rule and any uniformity to apply it is gone in either case when the final decision is what you think you can consider Home Rule or not.
Home Rule has to be uniformly applied across the board State wide to be valid on the issue at hand. Piece meal decisions from one community to another is NOT HOME RULE! And why is that… because like I said the State removed Home Rule upfront with an expressed intent in law to take it away on this issue. That is a legally binding requirement. So their final decision is invalid and irrelevant as a criteria for whether you retain Home Rule or not…you don’t and the State removed it up front, and it is flawed analysis to believe they are somehow arbitrarily giving it back because they may agree with you later.
Now what significantly disturbs me is that a fair number of people including our important town leaders are willing to accept this final decision as protection of Home Rule premise in lieu of what IS ACTUALLY HOME RULE as defined in the NYS Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Laws instead of protesting and fighting what is obviously terrible public policy and an insidious system THAT HAS REMOVED HOME RULE, and by following and validating it will have terrible consequences in precedent !!! And because “ it exists” and because the Town has chosen to follow, means we must follow too is very weak reasoning in my opinion.
So what does this imply? In my opinion it implies that the town and many of their supporters are participating in Art. X on a completely false premise. They erroneously believe they can retain or reestablish Home Rule based on a fully committed approach to chase a final decision that they believe validates Home Rule. When in fact the State has already removed Home Rule legally by an expressed intend in the Power NY 2011 legislation. The town is chasing something that has constitutionally and legally already been REMOVED no matter what is decided later.
Now they can try to defend their specific law in isolation, and hope the State will agree with them. I get that. However, that is not comprehensive for regional protection. That is a narrow defense of just our community, but is certainly NOT defending or retaining Home Rule for us or other communities in a combined effort to save our region from corporate and industrial and State political control.
Let me explain this.
There was a previous time in the wind battle when this flawed analysis to accept the condition and go along with it as we are doing with Art. X was also the norm. Some of our current town leaders and anti wind advocates were so intent on getting any wind law that they would have gone along and allowed badly wind conflicted former town board members to vote on a wind law if it was close to what we wanted and conformed to what they considered a “good” result.
Yet some of us didn’t accept this and fought like hell against what appeared to be overwhelming odds to change this condition and in many way we did!!! I guess that would be in part the answer to Dave’s question as to what my end game is.
From our perspective now I think you can see what a terrible frightening idea that would have been, to allow these town officers to take control of our community with ANY vote no matter what it resulted in. This appeasement would have very likely left them still in power. You should not use and validate a terribly flawed and insidious and reckless system just because you think it will ultimately meet your ends or because everyone wants to go along with it…especially when the analysis is flawed that you are somehow retaining home rule, when clearly you aren’t. That is the case with our following of Art. X and trying to rationalize that if it comes out our way it is ok because we erroneously believe we have retained or reestablished Home Rule.
The previous go along thinking was badly flawed especially when you consider these same conflicted town board members later agreed to participate in the attempted illegal removal of certain citizens voting rights, and challenged the very essence of free speech by suing the bloggers or legal cameras from meetings!!! Yet at the time we would have allowed them to determine our community’s future with that badly flawed insidious condition…just like we are doing with participation I Art. 10…as long as we believe a final favorable decision will be an “acceptable thing” and preserve Home Rule, which it doesn’t! Home Rule that has already been taken away on this issue and doesn’t even exist…and even the State Constitution and Home Rule Laws legally say so, yet we are in a chase as if we can get it back with a final decision.
So what are my ends? Dave implies that my ends may be detrimental to the town’s and our cause. I doubt it can be any more detrimental than enabling a system that is so arbitrary, insidious, and piece meal and flies directly in the face of other NYS laws granting Home Rule and has removed our rights and even has many now believing the final decision determines if we have Home Rule when clearly we DON’T and State laws support my claim.
My ends are just like this post, that despite the town’s insistence to follow the insidious Art. X system I will protest to try to get the community to understand the possible implications of what we are doing, and because the “crowd” is going one way…one that I think is based on a false premise, does not convince me to support the town or be quiet. I believe that is still my democratic right. Some of us either spent money or gave moral support on defending the bloggers on free speech. It seems rather contrary to now ask someone to suppress there ideas because the crowd believes otherwise.
As a result of the insidious arbitrary and terrible policy wrapped up in Art. X and the extremely negative implications it has for our community and region and its power to remove our critical rights, I can not support the town’s decision to follow and enable it. nor will I simply choose to be quiet about it.
But before we go on, Dave you have to understand that because I disagree with you or the town does not mean I am attempting to belittle anyone.
Here are Dave’s last comment. as posted in the comment section of my blog. I apologize for the format of the comments. The copy and paste was not working well.
“I have been deservedly accused many times of being an idealist .If I were the DEC representative on the ART.10 review panel, I would find it virtually impossible to justify issuing a permit to BP for a project in Cape Vincent ,considering the language in the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan, and considering the above stated DEC policy. Particularly when the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, specifies that a community has the authority to protect and preserve its physical (visual) character, and the default position of the ART.10 rules is to follow local law.
I believe this element of the Home Rule is just as defendable as public health and safety, perhaps even more so because aesthetics does not require justification. The original SEQR law stated (in my words) that visual character, and value only need be defined by the community itself, it is not subject to interpretation or contradiction by others. It cannot be challenged by studies or research, or even need to be qualified. It has legal status.
As you know I was dissatisfied with the lack of stronger specific protections for scenic quality in the revised Zoning Law, but even as written it provides more than ample justification for precluding industrial turbines.
If the DEC representative has any sense of integrity for his agency's "raison d'etre" he would deny a permit. I certainly do think the Town and their attorney should press this point.
If you genuinely are confused, I would venture to say it is because you continue to view this entire process from a perspective that allows no alternative interpretation.
Consider this if you will.
In the larger context, New York State has legislatively taken complete autonomy on land use from local municipalities, by exercising its authority to pre-empt local laws. Collectively, by refusing to challenge this abrogation of control, the local municipal governing system has conceded this control. Like you ,I am appalled both by the legislation and the local level response. Nevertheless, it is law and townships are following it.
In the practical , applicable context, what I see is a municipality(Cape Vincent) who has conceded autonomy but not Home Rule. In effect, if pre-emption does not take place and our local laws prevail and are applied to the project application, we do not lose Home Rule. You can argue the logic of this, belittle anyone who espouses to it, and continue to advocate for a rebellion to reclaim complete autonomy, but I will repeat again-to what end?
It is not my interpretation or the course of action I would have chosen to take, but the fray has been entered and resources devoted to its conclusions.
Think carefully if the accusations/protestations that you make are beneficial or detrimental to their and our eventual cause.”
I will focus on the part o Dave's comment about losing or nor losing Home Rule because I think it gets to the crux of the matter and is a belief (I believe erroneous) held by many in our community concerning Art. X’s preemption power.
I strongly disagree with the argument that if the State doesn't preempt our law, then we retain Home Rule. Here is why.
First you can not split Home Rule from autonomy as Dave suggests. . Home Rule IS autonomy. You can’t become just a little bit pregnant on this issue! Consider what the National League of Cities says as a legal opinion on Home Rule.
“Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation, but home rule creates local autonomy and limits the degree of state interference in local affairs.”
And note something important that I will get into later. This opinion does not say that Home Rule is applied differently by a State from one municipality to the next. The application is uniformly applied.
Home Rule IS autonomy, and they can not be separated.
So here are two questions to consider.
1. Why do the Art. X regulations allow pre-emption or local laws? What is the point of at? How do they legally come about?
2. No matter what the Art. X decision is in terms of our zoning law, WHO determines the final outcome of our law. Is it the town or the State?
Dave, and many others supporting our town govt. make the assertion that if the State lets our local laws prevail, then we have not lost Home Rule. I disagree!
If the process is entirely set by the State and within that process from it’s inception is the power to remove Home Rule with an expressed intent to preempting local laws, then it should be obvious you have NO Home Rule no matter what the final decision is.
I believe the fatal flaw in thinking is that the final outcome is the determining factor in whether we retain Home Rule or not. I believe that is incorrect, and that the original intent and how the process is carried out is what determines your Home Rule status, not the final outcome. In terms of actual Home Rule or not, that final outcome has been rendered mostly irrelevant. Even the NY State Constitution, and Municipal Home Rule Laws recognize this expressed intent up front idea.
Here is why I believe this.
They state that one way for the State constitutionally override Home Rule on issues they feel are of critical importance is by deliberately expressing the “intent” to remove Home Rule in a general State law on an issue and occupy that field of legislation. They do not say that Home Rule will be determined later on a community by community basis as a result of whether the State agrees with each law or not.
Therefore I believe based in part on this that it is incorrect to imply that a later decision under this regime has granted you back Home Rule or that you have protected or defended it.
Legally and Constitutionally if the State removes your Home Rule…then it is GONE, and no decision later brings it back to life. That would be like the State preempting itself in its own law.
Next, whether you have Home Rule or not is not a vague sliding scale based of a final decision. You either have it or you don’t.
If you are going to rely on the final State decision as the determinant factor as to whether you have Home Rule or not, then what is the standard for determining your Home Rule? This becomes a real slippery slope and the State has wisely avoided it by not letting it rest on a final decision later. It is probably why the State has recognized they will express an intent upfront that home rule is removed in its entirety on an issue by law. Not on a negotiated piece meal basis for each community. They aren’t going to play that game even though you believe you can.
Do you only have Home Rule if the State agrees absolutely 100% with every regulation in your zoning? What if the State says… “well we agree completely with you Cape Vincent EXCEPT on this one little setback and we would like liberalized by 10 ft.! Is that us retaining Home Rule ? Would the State’s decision to allow for one turbine placed well into the CV interior be a victory for retaining Home Rule? Are five turbines retaining Home Rule? Ten, twenty, or Sixty? Is an agreement to an alternative to our law that is not necessarily 100% in compliance like Judge Agresta suggests…is that retaining Home Rule? If you use the final decision as determining Home Rule…then where and who decides when Home Rule is being protected and when it is not, or if we have lost it or not?
It becomes an absurd slippery slope vague opinions, and that is why the State has removed Home Rule up front…not let it rest on the final decision for interpretation from one community to the next. You don’t have Home Rule…It was taken away by right up front by expressed intent in the Power NY 2011 legislation…period!!! You don’t suddenly get it back just because the State agrees with your law. That is defending your law alone…not Home Rule which has already been removed!
Then there is the need for a uniform application of Home Rule up front to not be arbitrary.
In NY Town Law Article 16, Sec. 272 on comp planning, the State encourages communities to comp plan and zone and that is uniformly applied to every community in NYS. It doesn’t say Lyme gets to comp plan and we don’t. Nor does it say… make your comp plan and then we will decide on a case by case basis after the fact if it will be valid. In addition in the legislature’s intent and findings in Sec. 272 the State expresses how crucial local comp planning and zoning is to the community and State’s well being.
Yet Art. X does just the opposite and insidiously rips apart this intent and let’s every community fend only for themselves and their zoning and their specific interests as warring parties. It applies comp planning and zoning on an absurd… contrary to other NY laws…. arbitrary piece meal basis. For example the State could say…
“OK CV your experts did an excellent job defending your law. So we will uphold your laws as is, and the applicant must comply. We aren’t giving you Home Rule…just allowing your law to stand. But Lyme and Orleans, your experts didn’t do so well and your community has more interior, so even though you have a law and comp plan just like CV’s and you don’t want turbines…we rule your law too burdensome and you get X number of turbines!”
Again the point is there is no Home Rule and any uniformity to apply it is gone in either case when the final decision is what you think you can consider Home Rule or not.
Home Rule has to be uniformly applied across the board State wide to be valid on the issue at hand. Piece meal decisions from one community to another is NOT HOME RULE! And why is that… because like I said the State removed Home Rule upfront with an expressed intent in law to take it away on this issue. That is a legally binding requirement. So their final decision is invalid and irrelevant as a criteria for whether you retain Home Rule or not…you don’t and the State removed it up front, and it is flawed analysis to believe they are somehow arbitrarily giving it back because they may agree with you later.
Now what significantly disturbs me is that a fair number of people including our important town leaders are willing to accept this final decision as protection of Home Rule premise in lieu of what IS ACTUALLY HOME RULE as defined in the NYS Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Laws instead of protesting and fighting what is obviously terrible public policy and an insidious system THAT HAS REMOVED HOME RULE, and by following and validating it will have terrible consequences in precedent !!! And because “ it exists” and because the Town has chosen to follow, means we must follow too is very weak reasoning in my opinion.
So what does this imply? In my opinion it implies that the town and many of their supporters are participating in Art. X on a completely false premise. They erroneously believe they can retain or reestablish Home Rule based on a fully committed approach to chase a final decision that they believe validates Home Rule. When in fact the State has already removed Home Rule legally by an expressed intend in the Power NY 2011 legislation. The town is chasing something that has constitutionally and legally already been REMOVED no matter what is decided later.
Now they can try to defend their specific law in isolation, and hope the State will agree with them. I get that. However, that is not comprehensive for regional protection. That is a narrow defense of just our community, but is certainly NOT defending or retaining Home Rule for us or other communities in a combined effort to save our region from corporate and industrial and State political control.
Let me explain this.
There was a previous time in the wind battle when this flawed analysis to accept the condition and go along with it as we are doing with Art. X was also the norm. Some of our current town leaders and anti wind advocates were so intent on getting any wind law that they would have gone along and allowed badly wind conflicted former town board members to vote on a wind law if it was close to what we wanted and conformed to what they considered a “good” result.
Yet some of us didn’t accept this and fought like hell against what appeared to be overwhelming odds to change this condition and in many way we did!!! I guess that would be in part the answer to Dave’s question as to what my end game is.
From our perspective now I think you can see what a terrible frightening idea that would have been, to allow these town officers to take control of our community with ANY vote no matter what it resulted in. This appeasement would have very likely left them still in power. You should not use and validate a terribly flawed and insidious and reckless system just because you think it will ultimately meet your ends or because everyone wants to go along with it…especially when the analysis is flawed that you are somehow retaining home rule, when clearly you aren’t. That is the case with our following of Art. X and trying to rationalize that if it comes out our way it is ok because we erroneously believe we have retained or reestablished Home Rule.
The previous go along thinking was badly flawed especially when you consider these same conflicted town board members later agreed to participate in the attempted illegal removal of certain citizens voting rights, and challenged the very essence of free speech by suing the bloggers or legal cameras from meetings!!! Yet at the time we would have allowed them to determine our community’s future with that badly flawed insidious condition…just like we are doing with participation I Art. 10…as long as we believe a final favorable decision will be an “acceptable thing” and preserve Home Rule, which it doesn’t! Home Rule that has already been taken away on this issue and doesn’t even exist…and even the State Constitution and Home Rule Laws legally say so, yet we are in a chase as if we can get it back with a final decision.
So what are my ends? Dave implies that my ends may be detrimental to the town’s and our cause. I doubt it can be any more detrimental than enabling a system that is so arbitrary, insidious, and piece meal and flies directly in the face of other NYS laws granting Home Rule and has removed our rights and even has many now believing the final decision determines if we have Home Rule when clearly we DON’T and State laws support my claim.
My ends are just like this post, that despite the town’s insistence to follow the insidious Art. X system I will protest to try to get the community to understand the possible implications of what we are doing, and because the “crowd” is going one way…one that I think is based on a false premise, does not convince me to support the town or be quiet. I believe that is still my democratic right. Some of us either spent money or gave moral support on defending the bloggers on free speech. It seems rather contrary to now ask someone to suppress there ideas because the crowd believes otherwise.
As a result of the insidious arbitrary and terrible policy wrapped up in Art. X and the extremely negative implications it has for our community and region and its power to remove our critical rights, I can not support the town’s decision to follow and enable it. nor will I simply choose to be quiet about it.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Shadow Flicker? - OK Let's Look At Shadow Flicker For Real!
I have an idea. Before any Art. X board member makes a decision on the BP wind farm in Cape Vincent, we should rent a movie threater and let them view these shadow flicker videos on the big screen for a couple hours! Enlarge your screen view for maximum effect.
Shadow flicker from Maple Ridge
Shadow flicker from Maple Ridge
Shadow flicker from Palm Springs Ca.
Areas around Palm Springs are the wind
industry run amuck! Note the old
small 1980's defunct turbines not running.
Let's Take Break From The Wind Issue - Come On An Adventure!
Flagstaff, AZ where I live 8 months of the year is a gateway tourist city to the Grand Canyon as well as a lot of other spectacular AZ wonders. As a result things get a bit crazy in and around town on Memorial Day weekend. Also people like to come here to the cool pines to escape the desert heat which is pushing into the 100's now.
Unfortunately things don't always go as planned for outdoor enthusiasts, and I spent much of the weekend with my SAR team on search missions, and unfortunately one body recovery.
Last year about this time we had a large complex search for a missing hiker in the remote west end of Grand Canyon. So join me for a video and eagles eye view of Grand Canyon and an inside view of a search mission aboard the AZ Dept. of Public Saftey Air Rescue Helicopter...Ranger 52, as they shuttle us to the remote search area inside Grand Canyon.
Three videos after these pictures.
After our drop off.
Guiding the helicopter in for our pick up at the end of the day.
Take off from the SAR Incident Comand Post.
Sadly this hiker was never found after several weeks of searching and is still missing today.
Then talking about Memorial Day ...and those who have given their lives in service to country, a couple weeks ago we had another search for another overdue hiker in Grand Canyon. This one started at night. We were very fortunate to work closely with the elite Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJ's) from Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas. They do combat search and rescue for downed pilots, and injured soldiers behind enenmy lines. They also assist civilian search and rescue units,like ours which helps them in training. Their motto is "So Others May Live" They currently have a program on the Nat. Geo Channel about the PJs. The two PJs we briefed looked like real impressive dudes with some neat equipment!
In the video if you expand the view and look closely you will see them being winched up into their big Pave Hawl rescue helicopter, capable of operating 24/7 in all kinds of weather and terrain. Similar to the Black Hawk helos we see flying around Cape Vincent from Ft. Drum but more sophisticated for rescue work. The pics and video taken through our night vision googles.
They had winched down to us to set up communications and have us brief
them on the search area and search subject.
The lone female hiker was found the next morning safe, but dehydrated and exhausted.
One video after this picture.
Air Force PJs on a dirt 4wd road on a starry starry
N. AZ night waiting for their helicopter to winch them up.
Didn't The NYPSC Skip A Step????
In the matter of Art. 10 and the siting of BP's wind project. BP has submitted it's PSS. There have been comments on it by various stakeholders and agencies. BP has made its summary of those comments and commented back. We now have the intervenors fund distributed, and the stipulation phase of Art. X is now open.
But my question is...why are we where we are???? Why are we here??? Seems we skipped a big step!
What happened to BP's Public Information Program (PIP) that everyone was saying was an inadequate disaster? Was that it...its a done deal? Sure seems we have moved dramatically forward in the process with no accounting for the inadequacy of BP's PIP.
The Town of Cape Vincent a number of times complained to the NYPSC about the PIP being very inadequate and not addressing many of the important issues and questions they raised during that PIP phase of Art. X.
So did the NYPSC and DEC just say...OK good enough and blow it off??? Did they say...OK you attempted your PIP...good enought for us, move on! Why did they just let it go and allow BP to move forward with addition significant steps with no apparent accountability despite the Town's repeated complaints?
I doubt the Town of Cape Vincent feels the PIP process was well done or complete. In fact in comments to BP's PSS the Town was making many of the exact same complaints they did about the PIP. Then in fact the PSC has told the Town the Art. 10 presiding examiner Judge Agresta can not force BP to include studies in the PSS as the town is asking.
But my question is...if the Town and others have repeatedly complained that the BP PIP was terribly inadequate and a number of the Town's requests for information from BP were not answered, and this is supposed to be a balanced system ...then why did the NYPSC just allow BP to move forward? Why didn't they tell BP that since their PIP was very inadequate and lacking critical information, that they would not be allowed to proceed in the process, they would not accept the PSS, or allow intervenor funding, or open the stipulation phase until BP provided the information theTown and other parties requested and made their PIP process adequate?
Does this imply how NYPSC and the Art. X siting board will handle the rest of the Art. X process?
Doesn't make me feel real confident about the process. Has the Town and other stakeholders just accepted this glaring inadequacy in the system and are willing to just move on?
I looks a lot like Art. X is just another hoop jumping process with a bunch of boxes to check off to make us all feel good and involved!
But my question is...why are we where we are???? Why are we here??? Seems we skipped a big step!
What happened to BP's Public Information Program (PIP) that everyone was saying was an inadequate disaster? Was that it...its a done deal? Sure seems we have moved dramatically forward in the process with no accounting for the inadequacy of BP's PIP.
The Town of Cape Vincent a number of times complained to the NYPSC about the PIP being very inadequate and not addressing many of the important issues and questions they raised during that PIP phase of Art. X.
So did the NYPSC and DEC just say...OK good enough and blow it off??? Did they say...OK you attempted your PIP...good enought for us, move on! Why did they just let it go and allow BP to move forward with addition significant steps with no apparent accountability despite the Town's repeated complaints?
I doubt the Town of Cape Vincent feels the PIP process was well done or complete. In fact in comments to BP's PSS the Town was making many of the exact same complaints they did about the PIP. Then in fact the PSC has told the Town the Art. 10 presiding examiner Judge Agresta can not force BP to include studies in the PSS as the town is asking.
But my question is...if the Town and others have repeatedly complained that the BP PIP was terribly inadequate and a number of the Town's requests for information from BP were not answered, and this is supposed to be a balanced system ...then why did the NYPSC just allow BP to move forward? Why didn't they tell BP that since their PIP was very inadequate and lacking critical information, that they would not be allowed to proceed in the process, they would not accept the PSS, or allow intervenor funding, or open the stipulation phase until BP provided the information theTown and other parties requested and made their PIP process adequate?
Does this imply how NYPSC and the Art. X siting board will handle the rest of the Art. X process?
Doesn't make me feel real confident about the process. Has the Town and other stakeholders just accepted this glaring inadequacy in the system and are willing to just move on?
I looks a lot like Art. X is just another hoop jumping process with a bunch of boxes to check off to make us all feel good and involved!
Saturday, May 25, 2013
The Town's Entire Strategy Depends on the NYPSC and the NYDEC Denying BP's Wind Project - Is That Expectation Realistic???
The Town Board of Cape Vincent’s strategy to defeat the BP wind project. ( and I mean I have been repeatedly been told by their supporters that is their goal)…well that strategy with their new zoning law will be in part extremely dependent on two important NYS agencies. The NYSDEC and the NYPSC. Both these powerful NYS agencies will be represented on the Art. 10 siting board along with others and the town hopes they will deny BP's wind porject and defend our zoning law. So what can we expect from these state agencies...is there any history in all of NYS of them doing what the town is desperately hoping for?
So let me ask you a question. We have about 1400MW of wind power operational in NYS today in various large industrial wind complexes. Can anyone tell me if either the NYDEC or the NYDPSC has ever recommended the complete denial of a major wind project on any grounds as the Town is banking on here in CV? That could be a criticasl question!
I will let you ponder that for a while!
At the end of my comments you will see a very interesting (chilling) press release from the NYSPSC, and Chairman Garry Brown who will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board on the BP project decsion in Cape Vincent. It ought to make your blood run cold!!!
As you ponder, let’s look at some evidence of how these agencies feel about industrial wind energy. First here is a link to the NYDEC where they talk about wind power.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
I’ll be damned, it sounds like the wind developers themselves wrote this little wind promo for the NYDEC!!!
And unlike before where the NYDEC was only involved in the SEQR environmental study process, but could not deny a wind farm…now under Art. X they have a more direct power to make a decision that could deny a wind project. That is what the entire CV Town strategy is based on. Add to that the power of the “green” NY Governor behind these agencies and the State RPS to achieve some very aggressive renewable energy targets!
Read the DEC promo on wind power and consider the Town’s strategy. How do you think that will work out???? Doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy that a wind farm will be denied in CV!
So then let’s look at the NYSPSC. Here is a press release from them. And this one is real scary because it sounds much like what BP is proposing in CV and the same reasoning about those giant nearly 500 ft. turbines. And what about that Garry Brown, the Chairmnan of the NYPSC ? He will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that determines CV’s fate on wind energy and our laws and comp plan.
Again, this doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy about a BP wind farm being denied in CV by the PSC!
Oh…and that Garry Brown…he sits on the NYSPSC with fellow commissioner Maureen Harris. And who is she? She is the wife of John Harris, BP’s CV Wind Farm attorney.
Now after you absorb all this information…try to get your head around the fact that Judge Agresta who is with the NYPSC is the head examiner for the Art. X process between CV and BP, and he just said last week right here in CV that he would be very interested in the Town and BP working out stipulations (agreements) on BP project alternatives that would comply to our zoning law to the degree possible, and not necessarily 100%! And Mr. Agresta is very familiar with Mr. Brown and Mrs. Harris, because you can look up and see that he regularly presents before the NYPSC commissioners. He may even know the BP lawyer John Harris personally. Who knows???
But carefully note what PSC Chairman Brown says about this Marble River wind project and those huge 500. ft turbines…oh excuse me, I must be accurate here…only 492 ft. There, you should feel better! Can we learn something important here???
Here are Brown’s comments:
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown."
…to the maximum extent practicable!!! And what did Judge Agresta say in CV the other night about BP complying to our zoning?
…to the degree possible, maybe not 100%!
See any theme here?
Agresta - To the degree possible, maybe not 100%
Brown - To the maximum extent practicable
It appears they have a political code language book they are both working from that tells them how to make you feel better about how they are going to screw you!!!
And this is what our Town Board is banking on, hoping these two agencies will deny BP a wind project in Cape Vincent??????
Here is the full press release from Brown and the NYPSC
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us
518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
http://twitter.com/NYSDPS 11051/07-E-1343
NORTH COUNTRY WIND FARM WINS RETOOLING
— PSC Allows Installation of Largest Land-Based Wind Turbines in NY —
Albany, NY—6/16/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today voted to approve a modification to the plans of the Marble River Wind Farm in the Towns of Clinton and Ellenburg, Clinton County. The decision will allow the wind farm owners to install the largest wind turbines in New York State.
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The installation of these state-of-the-art turbines will maximize energy production, while significantly reducing the number of turbines needed due to the more efficient use of the region’s wind resource.”
The 3 megawatt (MW) turbines to be installed at Marble River are 492 feet tall, significantly larger than previous models proposed for the site, and are designed to achieve greater efficiencies of production by utilizing new gearbox and control designs, and by increased height and blade swept area to maximize generation potential at low and medium wind speed sites.
Earlier this year, wind farm developer Marble River LLC requested modification of the plan previously approved by the Commission. The company said its construction schedule must proceed by early July, 2011 to accommodate planned outage on the New York Power Authority’s 230 kV interconnection line later this year, and to maintain the viability of financing the construction of this 216 MW wind energy plant. The Marble River project is owned by Horizon Wind Energy and EDP Renewables, a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal.
Based on today’s decision, Marble River will site and operate 72 Vestas V112-3 MW turbines with a total maximum generating capacity of up to 216 MW. Marble River was previously authorized to install up to 109 2.1 MW wind turbines, with a rated project output of 229 MW.
The turbines are the largest ever approved for use in New York State. In addition to installing fewer, larger wind turbines, the project as now configured will include significant reductions in the length and area of access roads, a reduction in the length of underground electrical collection lines, and elimination of overhead collection lines, with overall disturbed areas and wetlands impacts significantly reduced.
In New York, Horizon is the co-owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a 322 MW facility located in Lewis County, and the owner of the Madison Wind Farm, an 11 MW facility in Madison County. Horizon is developing a number of other sites in New York that may be suitable for wind generation facilities. Clinton County will host the most wind generating installed capacity in New York with over 500 MW installed.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 07-E-1343 in the input box labeled "Search for Case/Matter Number". Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
So let me ask you a question. We have about 1400MW of wind power operational in NYS today in various large industrial wind complexes. Can anyone tell me if either the NYDEC or the NYDPSC has ever recommended the complete denial of a major wind project on any grounds as the Town is banking on here in CV? That could be a criticasl question!
I will let you ponder that for a while!
At the end of my comments you will see a very interesting (chilling) press release from the NYSPSC, and Chairman Garry Brown who will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board on the BP project decsion in Cape Vincent. It ought to make your blood run cold!!!
As you ponder, let’s look at some evidence of how these agencies feel about industrial wind energy. First here is a link to the NYDEC where they talk about wind power.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
I’ll be damned, it sounds like the wind developers themselves wrote this little wind promo for the NYDEC!!!
And unlike before where the NYDEC was only involved in the SEQR environmental study process, but could not deny a wind farm…now under Art. X they have a more direct power to make a decision that could deny a wind project. That is what the entire CV Town strategy is based on. Add to that the power of the “green” NY Governor behind these agencies and the State RPS to achieve some very aggressive renewable energy targets!
Read the DEC promo on wind power and consider the Town’s strategy. How do you think that will work out???? Doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy that a wind farm will be denied in CV!
So then let’s look at the NYSPSC. Here is a press release from them. And this one is real scary because it sounds much like what BP is proposing in CV and the same reasoning about those giant nearly 500 ft. turbines. And what about that Garry Brown, the Chairmnan of the NYPSC ? He will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that determines CV’s fate on wind energy and our laws and comp plan.
Again, this doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy about a BP wind farm being denied in CV by the PSC!
Oh…and that Garry Brown…he sits on the NYSPSC with fellow commissioner Maureen Harris. And who is she? She is the wife of John Harris, BP’s CV Wind Farm attorney.
Now after you absorb all this information…try to get your head around the fact that Judge Agresta who is with the NYPSC is the head examiner for the Art. X process between CV and BP, and he just said last week right here in CV that he would be very interested in the Town and BP working out stipulations (agreements) on BP project alternatives that would comply to our zoning law to the degree possible, and not necessarily 100%! And Mr. Agresta is very familiar with Mr. Brown and Mrs. Harris, because you can look up and see that he regularly presents before the NYPSC commissioners. He may even know the BP lawyer John Harris personally. Who knows???
But carefully note what PSC Chairman Brown says about this Marble River wind project and those huge 500. ft turbines…oh excuse me, I must be accurate here…only 492 ft. There, you should feel better! Can we learn something important here???
Here are Brown’s comments:
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown."
…to the maximum extent practicable!!! And what did Judge Agresta say in CV the other night about BP complying to our zoning?
…to the degree possible, maybe not 100%!
See any theme here?
Agresta - To the degree possible, maybe not 100%
Brown - To the maximum extent practicable
It appears they have a political code language book they are both working from that tells them how to make you feel better about how they are going to screw you!!!
And this is what our Town Board is banking on, hoping these two agencies will deny BP a wind project in Cape Vincent??????
Here is the full press release from Brown and the NYPSC
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us
518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
http://twitter.com/NYSDPS 11051/07-E-1343
NORTH COUNTRY WIND FARM WINS RETOOLING
— PSC Allows Installation of Largest Land-Based Wind Turbines in NY —
Albany, NY—6/16/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today voted to approve a modification to the plans of the Marble River Wind Farm in the Towns of Clinton and Ellenburg, Clinton County. The decision will allow the wind farm owners to install the largest wind turbines in New York State.
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The installation of these state-of-the-art turbines will maximize energy production, while significantly reducing the number of turbines needed due to the more efficient use of the region’s wind resource.”
The 3 megawatt (MW) turbines to be installed at Marble River are 492 feet tall, significantly larger than previous models proposed for the site, and are designed to achieve greater efficiencies of production by utilizing new gearbox and control designs, and by increased height and blade swept area to maximize generation potential at low and medium wind speed sites.
Earlier this year, wind farm developer Marble River LLC requested modification of the plan previously approved by the Commission. The company said its construction schedule must proceed by early July, 2011 to accommodate planned outage on the New York Power Authority’s 230 kV interconnection line later this year, and to maintain the viability of financing the construction of this 216 MW wind energy plant. The Marble River project is owned by Horizon Wind Energy and EDP Renewables, a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal.
Based on today’s decision, Marble River will site and operate 72 Vestas V112-3 MW turbines with a total maximum generating capacity of up to 216 MW. Marble River was previously authorized to install up to 109 2.1 MW wind turbines, with a rated project output of 229 MW.
The turbines are the largest ever approved for use in New York State. In addition to installing fewer, larger wind turbines, the project as now configured will include significant reductions in the length and area of access roads, a reduction in the length of underground electrical collection lines, and elimination of overhead collection lines, with overall disturbed areas and wetlands impacts significantly reduced.
In New York, Horizon is the co-owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a 322 MW facility located in Lewis County, and the owner of the Madison Wind Farm, an 11 MW facility in Madison County. Horizon is developing a number of other sites in New York that may be suitable for wind generation facilities. Clinton County will host the most wind generating installed capacity in New York with over 500 MW installed.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 07-E-1343 in the input box labeled "Search for Case/Matter Number". Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Friday, May 24, 2013
What Does It Mean? - Or Do We Just Ignore It?
This last week we finally met the actual faces of Art. 10. Not a remote letter to or from the NYPSC. Not a website full of comments and regulations. We met Judge Agresta as the presiding examiner, and he and his assistant examiner ARE the Art. X process in living breathing flesh and blood. They are bureaucrats from the Albany right here in our very own community carrying out the process of Art. X between BP and our community. That is the first time that has happened here.
There is a lot riding on this. Outside of the intervenor fund ditribution...how do you think it went?
So once again let’s look at what Judge Agresta said according to the Watertown Daily Times article.
"Mr. Agresta also said he would be “very interested in parties working out some stipulations on alternatives,” such as alternative sizes for the project, and a case scenario that attempts to comply with the town’s zoning law — not necessarily by 100 percent but to “the degree possible.”
Now I know what I think transpired with this statement. Of course the very fact that I think it means one thing... will bring people out of the wood work saying I am crazy.
. OK so let’s look at Agresta’s comments. What do YOU think this means?
I do think we can rule out that Mr. Agresta was unequivocally saying BP must abide by our zoning laws…would you agree? I just don’t see that in his comment. The JLL blog immediately tried to interpret it that way…but I don’t think that was accurate.
When Mr. Agresta talks about the parties working out stipulations…what does he mean by parties. Does he just mean BP alone should provide an alternative to our laws, or is he talking about BP and the town reaching a stipulation? Are BP and the Town the parties he is referring to?
And when he says to the degree possible, or implies that any alternative or stipulation on the BP project may not necessarily need to be 100% in compliance to our law. What do you think he means? What percent do you think he means? Or doesn’t his comment here mean anything at all and we can just blow it off?
When he says he would be interested in the parties reaching stipulations, what does he mean. Is a stipulation a negotiation reaching an agreement in terms of the Art. X process or is it something else?
Are Judge Agresta’s comments even worth thinking about? Should we just blow them off as isolated ramblings and nothing of any real importance?
Maybe the first face to face meeting with the actual Art. X powers the town is depending on to defend its law and home rule didn’t go quite as some had hoped for…hoping for an absolute statement by the examiner that BP must completely abide by our zoning…end of story!
Maybe that has a disturbing quality to it in that it could be what the Art. X board might be thinking as well…something not really 100% in compliance with our zoning laws. Maybe only to some degree possible! Do you agree with Agresta on that?
Do you think that is what the Art. X siting board decision might be as well? Something less than 100% of our zoning law wind regulations? If so is that acceptable?
Do you think this statement by Agresta is a mild suggestion our zoning law might be a bit too burdensome, and let’s have BP and the Town look at some other options they might agree on in a stipulation?
Or like I said should we just blow off the Judge and his comments???
There is a lot riding on this. Outside of the intervenor fund ditribution...how do you think it went?
So once again let’s look at what Judge Agresta said according to the Watertown Daily Times article.
"Mr. Agresta also said he would be “very interested in parties working out some stipulations on alternatives,” such as alternative sizes for the project, and a case scenario that attempts to comply with the town’s zoning law — not necessarily by 100 percent but to “the degree possible.”
Now I know what I think transpired with this statement. Of course the very fact that I think it means one thing... will bring people out of the wood work saying I am crazy.
. OK so let’s look at Agresta’s comments. What do YOU think this means?
I do think we can rule out that Mr. Agresta was unequivocally saying BP must abide by our zoning laws…would you agree? I just don’t see that in his comment. The JLL blog immediately tried to interpret it that way…but I don’t think that was accurate.
When Mr. Agresta talks about the parties working out stipulations…what does he mean by parties. Does he just mean BP alone should provide an alternative to our laws, or is he talking about BP and the town reaching a stipulation? Are BP and the Town the parties he is referring to?
And when he says to the degree possible, or implies that any alternative or stipulation on the BP project may not necessarily need to be 100% in compliance to our law. What do you think he means? What percent do you think he means? Or doesn’t his comment here mean anything at all and we can just blow it off?
When he says he would be interested in the parties reaching stipulations, what does he mean. Is a stipulation a negotiation reaching an agreement in terms of the Art. X process or is it something else?
Are Judge Agresta’s comments even worth thinking about? Should we just blow them off as isolated ramblings and nothing of any real importance?
Maybe the first face to face meeting with the actual Art. X powers the town is depending on to defend its law and home rule didn’t go quite as some had hoped for…hoping for an absolute statement by the examiner that BP must completely abide by our zoning…end of story!
Maybe that has a disturbing quality to it in that it could be what the Art. X board might be thinking as well…something not really 100% in compliance with our zoning laws. Maybe only to some degree possible! Do you agree with Agresta on that?
Do you think that is what the Art. X siting board decision might be as well? Something less than 100% of our zoning law wind regulations? If so is that acceptable?
Do you think this statement by Agresta is a mild suggestion our zoning law might be a bit too burdensome, and let’s have BP and the Town look at some other options they might agree on in a stipulation?
Or like I said should we just blow off the Judge and his comments???
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The JLL Blog Spin Machine!!! - Please Rick, Too Much Is At Stake!
Hey...OK I can't blame Rick if he wants to fully support our town board. That is his right as a blogger and citizen. More power to him. And Rick despite my disagreements with him, in many ways with his reporting on the negatives of the industrial wind disaster on his blog has done this community a great service. I freely admit I read his blog on a regular basis and have found enlightening information.
But I do get disturbed at the spin he uses to support the town govt. As another of his readers pointed out...some critical things that are happening on the important wind issue in our community are critically important to understand and NOT spin so people get an accurate picture of what is going on.
The other day for example after the intervenor fund meeting with Judge Agresta, Rick implied to the community that Agresta had told BP they must comply to our zoning law. That was not the case. Actually far from it.
Now to his credit Mr. Wiley adjusted that post after several readers pointed out it was not accurate.
Now Rick has a post up that has this statement in it which again I believe is more spin than accurate. Here are his comments.
"Thus far, two major New York State agencies, a bipartisan group of three New York York State Representatives and our local Congressman have agreed with Mr. Hirschey and his town board by defending our right to draft and enforce our local land use laws."
Well once again not really Rick!
Here is what the NYPSC said to BP about our local laws when responding to BP's PSS.
8. The applicant should provide rationales for any argument it asserts that a provision of local law seemingly applicable to the project does not apply.
The NYDEC essentially said the same thing.
Now as I see it, this is A LONG WAY from Mr. Wiley's claim that two NYS agencies are defending our right to draft and enforce our local zoning laws. All the NYPSC is saying to BP is... make a case for us as to why you want us to preempt Cape Vincent's local laws.
In fact if the NYDEC and the NYPSC were really defending our home rule rights to our local laws, there should not even be system that provides an opportunity for BP to provide any rational to a higher authority to remove our laws and make it impossible to enforce them. And keep in mind that in the final decision these agencies could agree with BP to preempt all or part of our laws. Again that is a long long way from claiming the two agencies are defending our right to our local laws.
Which also means they are NOT neccessarily agreeing with our board or Mr. Hirschey!
Now to those NNY leaders. that Mr. Wiley claims agree with Mr. Hirschy and the CV board..and Rick should have included the entire Jefferson County Legislature who passed a resolution opposing Art. 10. He claims they all agree with Mr. Hirschey and our board.
Once again... not really Rick.
Here are Rick's words from one of his past posts.
"Owens has joined our local State representatives in their opposition to Article 10′s threat to home municipal law. When Article 10 came to a vote in Albany, Assemblywomen Addie Russell, a Democrat, voted NAY. Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush, a Republican voted NAY. They were then joined by State Senator Pattie Ritchie, a Republican who also voted NAY."
First of all these leaders have stood and made strong public statements, or took public votes, or passed resolutions in direct OPPOSITION to Art. X and how it removed local land use rights and decisions. Hirschey has not!
In order to make the claim they all agree with Mr. Hirschey, then Hirschey would have to join that group with strong public opposition to Art. 10 or he and his board would have to voted a resolution to oppose Art. 10 or demonstated some strong public opposition to it. Again...not the case!
In fact I asked Mr. Hirschey and our board twice to passs a resolution to oppose Art. X to support and join these leaders and the County, and they outright refused.
What we have instead is a public declaration from Mr. Hirschey and his board that the Art. 10 rules are FAIR AND IMPARIAL!!!
Once again that is a long, long way from agreeing with the other prominent NNY leaders that have expressed strong and direct public opposition to Art. X one way or the other!!!
In fact I went back to look at the comments submitted to the Art.10 regulations. CV's comments from Mr. Hirschey and the board say virtually nothing about Art.10's removal of home rule, or show any opposition to that power to override local laws. Below is one comment from that letter of May 17, 2012.
Enclosed you will find a certified copy of Resolution No. 166 of2011 "Opposing the Power of NY Act of 2011" that was adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on September 6, 2011.
Thank you for your attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Fitzpatrick Chairwoman of the Board"
Here is the end statement of their resolution:
Now the County's opposition seems to be in pretty good sync with our other NNY leaders opposing Art. 10.
As as you can see from Mr. Hirschey's and the CV boards comments in their letter, it is a long long way from agreeing with these other leaders on Art. X and defending local home rule rights and laws as Mr. Wiley claims.
In fact Art. X and the Power NY Act of 2011 has been in effect for almost 2 years, and I can't remember any time that Mr. Hirschey or our town board has expresssed any strong public opposition to it such as these other NNY leaders have.
What Mr. Wiley claims is mostly spin, and not really accurate.
It seems to me on the critical issue we are facing with the removal of our home rule rights, and the potential destruction of our community by wind industrialization as a result, we should be expecting more accurate reliable information...not spinning of the facts!
Please Rick...there is far too much at stake here!
But I do get disturbed at the spin he uses to support the town govt. As another of his readers pointed out...some critical things that are happening on the important wind issue in our community are critically important to understand and NOT spin so people get an accurate picture of what is going on.
The other day for example after the intervenor fund meeting with Judge Agresta, Rick implied to the community that Agresta had told BP they must comply to our zoning law. That was not the case. Actually far from it.
Now to his credit Mr. Wiley adjusted that post after several readers pointed out it was not accurate.
Now Rick has a post up that has this statement in it which again I believe is more spin than accurate. Here are his comments.
"Thus far, two major New York State agencies, a bipartisan group of three New York York State Representatives and our local Congressman have agreed with Mr. Hirschey and his town board by defending our right to draft and enforce our local land use laws."
Well once again not really Rick!
Here is what the NYPSC said to BP about our local laws when responding to BP's PSS.
8. The applicant should provide rationales for any argument it asserts that a provision of local law seemingly applicable to the project does not apply.
The NYDEC essentially said the same thing.
Now as I see it, this is A LONG WAY from Mr. Wiley's claim that two NYS agencies are defending our right to draft and enforce our local zoning laws. All the NYPSC is saying to BP is... make a case for us as to why you want us to preempt Cape Vincent's local laws.
In fact if the NYDEC and the NYPSC were really defending our home rule rights to our local laws, there should not even be system that provides an opportunity for BP to provide any rational to a higher authority to remove our laws and make it impossible to enforce them. And keep in mind that in the final decision these agencies could agree with BP to preempt all or part of our laws. Again that is a long long way from claiming the two agencies are defending our right to our local laws.
Which also means they are NOT neccessarily agreeing with our board or Mr. Hirschey!
Now to those NNY leaders. that Mr. Wiley claims agree with Mr. Hirschy and the CV board..and Rick should have included the entire Jefferson County Legislature who passed a resolution opposing Art. 10. He claims they all agree with Mr. Hirschey and our board.
Once again... not really Rick.
Here are Rick's words from one of his past posts.
"Owens has joined our local State representatives in their opposition to Article 10′s threat to home municipal law. When Article 10 came to a vote in Albany, Assemblywomen Addie Russell, a Democrat, voted NAY. Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush, a Republican voted NAY. They were then joined by State Senator Pattie Ritchie, a Republican who also voted NAY."
First of all these leaders have stood and made strong public statements, or took public votes, or passed resolutions in direct OPPOSITION to Art. X and how it removed local land use rights and decisions. Hirschey has not!
In order to make the claim they all agree with Mr. Hirschey, then Hirschey would have to join that group with strong public opposition to Art. 10 or he and his board would have to voted a resolution to oppose Art. 10 or demonstated some strong public opposition to it. Again...not the case!
In fact I asked Mr. Hirschey and our board twice to passs a resolution to oppose Art. X to support and join these leaders and the County, and they outright refused.
What we have instead is a public declaration from Mr. Hirschey and his board that the Art. 10 rules are FAIR AND IMPARIAL!!!
Once again that is a long, long way from agreeing with the other prominent NNY leaders that have expressed strong and direct public opposition to Art. X one way or the other!!!
In fact I went back to look at the comments submitted to the Art.10 regulations. CV's comments from Mr. Hirschey and the board say virtually nothing about Art.10's removal of home rule, or show any opposition to that power to override local laws. Below is one comment from that letter of May 17, 2012.
"In practical terms we understand Article 10 is now State Law and we can see from the draft regulations that the PSC appears to be trying for a balanced, even-handed approach in dealing with local communities. We are thankful for that approach and hope it remains a part of the rules."
Even handed approach???? Since when is the removal of our rights to pass an enforce our own local laws a even handed approach!!!
In contrast here is what the Jefferson County Legislature wrote to the NYPSC about Art. 10. They didn't waste time nit picking the regulations to appease the system but passed a resolution strongly opposing the entire Art. 10 process... and THAT was their comment.
Here is part of their letter and resolution.
"Dear Mr. Cohen:
Enclosed you will find a certified copy of Resolution No. 166 of2011 "Opposing the Power of NY Act of 2011" that was adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on September 6, 2011.
Thank you for your attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Fitzpatrick Chairwoman of the Board"
Here is the end statement of their resolution:
"Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That this Board of Legislators opposes, protests, and expresses its deep disappointment and concern over the establishment of said siting Board and ofthe enactment of the Power NY Act of 20 11..."
Now the County's opposition seems to be in pretty good sync with our other NNY leaders opposing Art. 10.
As as you can see from Mr. Hirschey's and the CV boards comments in their letter, it is a long long way from agreeing with these other leaders on Art. X and defending local home rule rights and laws as Mr. Wiley claims.
In fact Art. X and the Power NY Act of 2011 has been in effect for almost 2 years, and I can't remember any time that Mr. Hirschey or our town board has expresssed any strong public opposition to it such as these other NNY leaders have.
What Mr. Wiley claims is mostly spin, and not really accurate.
It seems to me on the critical issue we are facing with the removal of our home rule rights, and the potential destruction of our community by wind industrialization as a result, we should be expecting more accurate reliable information...not spinning of the facts!
Please Rick...there is far too much at stake here!
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
If The Town Participates In The Art. X Stipulation (Negotiation) Phase With BP...Where and How Does That Take Place?
Let's once again look to the Watertown daily Times article for the answer.
Here are comments by our Cape Vincent Town Supervisor reacting to comments by Judge Agresta as to how to carry out the stipulation phase with BP.
"Mr. Hirschey said he also was pleased to learn that most of the correspondence will occur via email and teleconferences, meaning representatives and consultants will not have to travel to Albany too often to participate in the deliberations."
So if the Town and BP negotiate to reach any stipulations on the environmental studies in the application ...or on our law and the project's size as Judge Agresta suggested...it will all take place by teleconference, emails, or going to Albany occasionally? Seriously???
Geee...I thought one of the large points of Art. X was to provide lots of public input and transparency!!! Yet when we get down to the real nitty gritty negotiations, including possibly negotiations as Agresta suggests on our zoning law with BP....it happens by EMAIL!!!! YIKES!!!
That makes me feel real warm and fuzzy about this Art. X process!!!
Lately Mr. Wiley at the JLL blog has put up some good posts about questionable emails between wind developer Iberdrola and Clayton Town Supervisor Justin Taylor that were FOILED by Clayton citzens so the public could see them.
Isn't it ironic that Cape Vincent citizens may have to do the same thing to see what is going on between our Town and BP!!!! Or will our Town somehow make public the any negotiations with BP! Will there be records of any meetings in Albany, or of teleconferences????
Maybe we should get an answer to that ASAP.
But don't worry...you will be able to "comment" on any stipulations between BP and the town out of public view!!!
Here are comments by our Cape Vincent Town Supervisor reacting to comments by Judge Agresta as to how to carry out the stipulation phase with BP.
"Mr. Hirschey said he also was pleased to learn that most of the correspondence will occur via email and teleconferences, meaning representatives and consultants will not have to travel to Albany too often to participate in the deliberations."
So if the Town and BP negotiate to reach any stipulations on the environmental studies in the application ...or on our law and the project's size as Judge Agresta suggested...it will all take place by teleconference, emails, or going to Albany occasionally? Seriously???
Geee...I thought one of the large points of Art. X was to provide lots of public input and transparency!!! Yet when we get down to the real nitty gritty negotiations, including possibly negotiations as Agresta suggests on our zoning law with BP....it happens by EMAIL!!!! YIKES!!!
That makes me feel real warm and fuzzy about this Art. X process!!!
Lately Mr. Wiley at the JLL blog has put up some good posts about questionable emails between wind developer Iberdrola and Clayton Town Supervisor Justin Taylor that were FOILED by Clayton citzens so the public could see them.
Isn't it ironic that Cape Vincent citizens may have to do the same thing to see what is going on between our Town and BP!!!! Or will our Town somehow make public the any negotiations with BP! Will there be records of any meetings in Albany, or of teleconferences????
Maybe we should get an answer to that ASAP.
But don't worry...you will be able to "comment" on any stipulations between BP and the town out of public view!!!
Getting To Know Judge Agresta And The Art. X Stipulation Phase He Mentioned The Other Night
Since Judge Agresta's comments at the intervenor fund meeting I thought we really should review and understand his duties, and the Art. X stipulation process he refers to. I posted information on the examiner and the stipulation process before but it suddenly seems more relevant nowafter his statements.
A while ago K at Pandora's blog raised the question as to what BP would do next after they received comments on their PSS. She outlined three choices she thought BP had, but skipped the important stipulation process and I filled in another choice...the stipulation phase. A stipulation is basically an agreement between the parties such as BP and the town on environmental studies to be conducted, or even negotiations and agreements on aspects of our law and the BP project size. So far BP wants it's project as is, and the Town wants it's laws complied with 100%.
However, it appears Judge Agresta sees this a little differently suggesting the "parties" work out stpulations (agreements) and those agreements may not be 100% what the Town wants in its law. After all part of his job is to mediate.
Below are quotes directly from the Art. X regulations regarding the presiding examiner (Agresta) and the A-10 stipulation procedure . After you read this then once again consider what Judge Agresta suggested to BP and the Town as "parties". They are the "parties" he refers to.
(h) Upon the filing of a preliminary scoping statement, DPS shall designate a presiding examiner. DPS may also designate additional hearing examiners to assist the presiding examiner in all duties of the presiding examiner.
(i) The presiding examiner shall, among other duties, mediate any issue(s) relating to any aspect of the preliminary scoping statement and the methodology or scope of any study or program of studies concerning which agreement has not been reached and receive any stipulation setting forth any agreement that is reached.
(j) After the presiding examiner has determined that funds to assure early and effective public involvement have been allocated to municipal and local parties, the applicant may commence stipulations consultations and seek agreement by stipulation with any interested person, agency or municipality including, but not limited to, the staff of DPS, DEC, and DOH, as appropriate, as to any aspect of the preliminary scoping statement and the methodology or scope of any study or program of studies made or to be made to support the application. Before any such stipulation is finalized:
(1) a copy of the proposed stipulation shall be served by the applicant on the presiding examiner and on the persons who participated in the stipulations consultation process, and shall be filed and served by the applicant in the same manner as it files and serves the preliminary scoping statement pursuant to Subdivision (c) of this section.
Now here is what Mr. Agresta suggested the "parties" do in the stipulation process! He is not just saying BP alone should provide an alternative, he is suggesting the parties enter into a stipulations (agreements) on our zoning, and maybe not even one 100% in compliance with our zoning!
Agresta's comments from the WDT.
Mr. Agresta also said he would be “very interested in parties working out some stipulations on alternatives,” such as alternative sizes for the project, and a case scenario that attempts to comply with the town’s zoning law — not necessarily by 100 percent but to “the degree possible.”
So the obvious question is... will the Town enter into negotiations with BP to reach a stipulation on the project size and as a result our law? I'm not saying they will or won't, but it will be interesting to see what they do about Agresta's suggestion.
But keep this in mind in the Town's own words below on an intervenor funding request for attorney Paul Curtin. He was the attorney hired by the Town to represent the Town in the Art. X process and deeply invloved in the formulation of our new comp plan and zoning law.
Mr. Curtin represents the Town of Cape Vincent in the current Article 10 proceeding. To date his
cost to the Town has been underwritten by local taxpayers. During the stipulation phase when
the Town and applicant are negotiating what to include in the final scoping document and what is to be considered for examination and study in the formal application, Mr. Curtin will attend all of these formal meetings and negotiations. The funding request is to cover any preparation costs
for the stipulation phase and any legal costs associated with attending, participating and
representing the Town.
Now as I said I am not sure if the Town would enter into the stipulation phase of Art. X with BP, nor am I saying they will negotiate and come to any agreement with BP over our zoning law that is not 100% in compliance.
But it does appear the town has thought ahead and will participte in the stipulation phase according to their coments above in the intervenor application.
And now Judge Agresta, a powerful man in the process, has just given them "suggestions" as to what he would like to see negotiated...and that appears to be a stipulation (agreement) on a project alternative that is not neccessarily 100% in compliance with the Town's wind siting regulations. Hhhmmmm!!!
Oh yes ... and like I said in another post, Mr. Agresta as presiding examiner, and his associate examiner can make conclusions and make recommendations to the final Art. X board and their decision.
Makes me wonder if Agresta's "suggestions" that the "parties" work out "stipulations" (agreements) on a project alternative that may not be 100% in line with the Town zoning is a foreshadowing of the final Art. X decision?
Or basically a compromise!!!
The next post will explore HOW and WHERE the stipulation phase takes place.
Stay tuned!
Did Judge Agresta Just Tell BP and the Town To Compomise On Our Zoning Law???
So here according to what Jae Lee at the WDT is reporting is what Judge Agresta said last night. Underlining and color emphasis are mine. Mr. Agresta is the presiding examiner for the whole Art. X process between BP and the town.
"Mr. Agresta also said he would be “very interested in parties working out some stipulations on alternatives,” such as alternative sizes for the project, and a case scenario that attempts to comply with the town’s zoning law — not necessarily by 100 percent but to “the degree possible.”
In this case PARTIES would have to be assumed to be BP...AND the Town of Cape Vincent. BP and the Town ARE the two major parties arguing over our zoning law. Apparently Agresta did not say BP alone should come up with alternative! He said the parties should! That is is an important.distinction.
STIPULATIONS in Art. X law are baiscally negotiations to reach agreements at this point right now in the stipulation phase of the Art. X process. Once agreed to they can not be argued or objected to later at the Art X siting board hearing by the parties that agreed to these stipulations.
So did Judge Agresta, an important representative with powerful influence in the Art. X process, just politely "suggest" the town and BP should reach an ageement on an alternative project to a degree possible that isn't 100% compliant with the town zoning...which would also therefore be in direct violation of our comp plan's intent????
This should be real interesting???
Keep in mind that so far the town has been bending over backwards to appear "reasonable" and appease the Art. X process. Wonder now if the Town will just tell Judge Agresta the influential presiding examiner who can even make recommendations to the Art. X siting board...to just go take a hike...there aren't going to be any such stipulation agreements on our law! Keeping in mind of course that our town has repeatedly said they will defend our law and there will be NO negotiations with BP!
Monday, May 20, 2013
BP, The Town, And Some Cape Citizens Agree - If Our Zoning Is Too Burdensome, Then Go Ahead and Preempt It!!!
If you read the previous post, I commented on a person's suggestion that we should all support our Cape Vincent town board in protecting home rule.
So I decided to go back to the NYPSC website and take a look at the comments submitted by our town and local CV citizens during the period last year when you could comment on the draft Art. X regulations.
Seems as though if you wanted to get involved in the Art. X process and protect home rule this would be a good place to express your strong objections to Art. X regulations removing home rule and preempting local laws on electrical power plant siting.
So I reviewed the comments to see how that turned out. Here are some below from the town and some of our prominent citizens who have been involved in the CV wind issue for sometime.
First the Town's comments on local laws: Underlining emphasis is mine. My follow up comments are in blue.
"Since the current Town Council took office in January, two committees have worked diligently to complete an update of our Comprehensive Plan and a revision of our Zoning Law. We much prefer that our laws, which focus on health, safety and protection, are earnestly considered before they might be supplanted by the Siting Board. In the Memorandum's section on Local Law (p.1S) it notes, "The default is that the local procedural requirement is not supplanted unless the Siting Board elects to not apply it “ We fully support this concept that our local laws shall apply until the Siting Board decides otherwise. "
Really? They actually support the concenpt that our laws should apply UNTIL the siting board preempts them...seriously? So how exactly does this protect home rule if you agree your laws should apply right up to the point the siting board removes them right along with your home rule to enforce them? Oh ...and they don't just support this idea...they FULLY support it!!!
Seems to me if you are going to protect home rule you would FULLY object to the entire Art. X legislation that has removed your home rule. Or at least object to the part that allows the preemption of local laws in any form!
Below are comments from Hester Chase as a private citizen. Ms. Chase is also on the CV ZBA:
"Let the burden fall, appropriately, on the applicant to prove local laws unreasonable."
Now comments from CV Councilman Bragdon responding as a private citizen:
"I ask that the Article X Board defer to local regulations unless a high burden of proof is met that the local regulations are not reasonable and are unduly burdensome. "
Below are comments from CV citizen Donna Essegian: She was a Art. X ad hoc candidate but was not chosen.
"... the laws of the local community need to be respected by wind developers. It should be the burden of the developer to demonstrate with documented research why any local law should be set aside."
Cape Vincent, Wind Power Ethics Group - (WPEG's) comments:
"The applicants should bear the burden of proving local laws are burdensome. New York State is historically a home rule state and each municipality has carefully developed its own laws for its unique area."
Recognize the theme? It's about a debate, or negotiation, or a barter over WHO should bear the burden of proving our zoning is too burdensomeor not. But they are badly missing a fundamental point when you set up and accept a paradigm that the burden of our law should be bartered at all in some way. That is absurd and very dangerous ground to be on!
In fact the entire point of our law was that it IS made to be very burdensome! If that is not your goal with wind regulations to protect your town...then what the hell is the point??? Of course it is burdensome and under home rule we shouldn't give a damn whether the developer thinks it is or not, nor should it be subjected to a system to barter that point outside a court room by removing home rule!!!
And if you are going to claim to be protecting home rule and developed a law with home rule as the basis then there is NO barter as to whether it is burdensome or not, or if another party gets to decide or debate that fact and then preempt your law. True home rule would dictate that the way you wrote it is the way it stands and will be enforced...period! If the developer doesn't like your law as applied under home rule then he can go somewhere else. Or he can sue, and then you bring the debate to one of RIGHTS, where the real argument should be in the first place...not agruing over ridiculous setbacks.
The sad fact is that the town and these citizens have let the Art. X paradigm suck them into a deep dangerous logic hole. In their zeal to think they are protecting our zoning and claims to protect home rule what they in fact have done in appeasing and trying to appear reasonable is basically conceed control to BP, simply by saying that if BP can prove our law too burdensome then we agree you can preempt it. That is a huge and dangerous and absurd gamble, AND still is not a defense of home rule for the simple fact that even if the Art X board sides with you...THEY not YOU will have made that decision, and that is still NOT protecting home rule or defending our laws with home rule
Then you have the comments of our two local CV bloggers:
K at Panddora's says nothing about the removal of home rule what so ever. I guess she just sees the loss of home rule as acceptable and moves on to debating sound issues. She voices no objection to the possible preemption of our zoning laws.
Then you have JLL's Mr. Wiley's comment which I find very strange:
It is very important that Article X siting boards take into consideration past industrial wind corruption in towns like Cape Vincent before they overrule local zoning.
BEFORE THEY OVERRULE LOCAL ZONING??????? Boy, now there is a blistering argument to defend our laws and home rule! He doesn't actually object to Art. X having the preemptive power to override home rule our laws, he just says that before you do it...just consider the past corruption!!!! Seriously Rick???
The designers of Art. X were very clever. They figured out early on that the mind set of unquestioning allegiance to authority of many citizens, and twisted it into a clever illusion that in citizens efforts to think they are defending home rule and their local laws they are actually giving tacit approval to removing it and preemption of their own laws.
Don't believe me...just go back and carefully read with an open mind the comments above. They are bartering over the preemption of our laws, when the entire freakin point is their should be NO provisions for preemption at all. By ageering to this burden of proof crap, they are agreeing to a provision that allows our law to be bartered! Once on that level, then you have also traded away actual home rule. Home rule implies that the rule is made at HOME and not negotiated with anyone or by anyone else's PROOF!
THINK about what are you saying??? You are saying that the preemption of our laws and removal of home rule is OK...as long as BP can prove it! And what is far far worse is as they have agreed to this bartering of our law...we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what standard the Art. X board will apply as PROOF!!! You have got to be kidding me!!!! If the Art. X board's bar for standard of proof is low...then you have just set yourself up to be screwed!!! Because you agreed that as long as BP can prove your law burdensome to a third party...then they can preempt it. That is exaclty what Councilman Bragdon is saying. His word HIGH burden of proof is meaningless and completely arbitrary, yet he hinges the entire defense or preemption of our law on it! .
It is actually frightening considering an entire region depends on people unwittingly accepting this clever twisted paradigm without much question, engineered by BP and the State!!
Yet Mr. Wiley at JLL in a recent post has suggested the the town board and some citizens of CV are the "experts" on dealing with Art. X!!! Yet we are willing to gamble away our town laws on a completely arbitrary "burden of proof" when no one in CV has a damn clue what that means!
Like I have said many times...if you keep playing this Art. X game of appeasement and being reasonable you are going to talk yourself right into a nice wind farm!!!
So I decided to go back to the NYPSC website and take a look at the comments submitted by our town and local CV citizens during the period last year when you could comment on the draft Art. X regulations.
Seems as though if you wanted to get involved in the Art. X process and protect home rule this would be a good place to express your strong objections to Art. X regulations removing home rule and preempting local laws on electrical power plant siting.
So I reviewed the comments to see how that turned out. Here are some below from the town and some of our prominent citizens who have been involved in the CV wind issue for sometime.
First the Town's comments on local laws: Underlining emphasis is mine. My follow up comments are in blue.
"Since the current Town Council took office in January, two committees have worked diligently to complete an update of our Comprehensive Plan and a revision of our Zoning Law. We much prefer that our laws, which focus on health, safety and protection, are earnestly considered before they might be supplanted by the Siting Board. In the Memorandum's section on Local Law (p.1S) it notes, "The default is that the local procedural requirement is not supplanted unless the Siting Board elects to not apply it “ We fully support this concept that our local laws shall apply until the Siting Board decides otherwise. "
Really? They actually support the concenpt that our laws should apply UNTIL the siting board preempts them...seriously? So how exactly does this protect home rule if you agree your laws should apply right up to the point the siting board removes them right along with your home rule to enforce them? Oh ...and they don't just support this idea...they FULLY support it!!!
Seems to me if you are going to protect home rule you would FULLY object to the entire Art. X legislation that has removed your home rule. Or at least object to the part that allows the preemption of local laws in any form!
Below are comments from Hester Chase as a private citizen. Ms. Chase is also on the CV ZBA:
"Let the burden fall, appropriately, on the applicant to prove local laws unreasonable."
Now comments from CV Councilman Bragdon responding as a private citizen:
"I ask that the Article X Board defer to local regulations unless a high burden of proof is met that the local regulations are not reasonable and are unduly burdensome. "
Below are comments from CV citizen Donna Essegian: She was a Art. X ad hoc candidate but was not chosen.
"... the laws of the local community need to be respected by wind developers. It should be the burden of the developer to demonstrate with documented research why any local law should be set aside."
Cape Vincent, Wind Power Ethics Group - (WPEG's) comments:
"The applicants should bear the burden of proving local laws are burdensome. New York State is historically a home rule state and each municipality has carefully developed its own laws for its unique area."
Recognize the theme? It's about a debate, or negotiation, or a barter over WHO should bear the burden of proving our zoning is too burdensomeor not. But they are badly missing a fundamental point when you set up and accept a paradigm that the burden of our law should be bartered at all in some way. That is absurd and very dangerous ground to be on!
In fact the entire point of our law was that it IS made to be very burdensome! If that is not your goal with wind regulations to protect your town...then what the hell is the point??? Of course it is burdensome and under home rule we shouldn't give a damn whether the developer thinks it is or not, nor should it be subjected to a system to barter that point outside a court room by removing home rule!!!
And if you are going to claim to be protecting home rule and developed a law with home rule as the basis then there is NO barter as to whether it is burdensome or not, or if another party gets to decide or debate that fact and then preempt your law. True home rule would dictate that the way you wrote it is the way it stands and will be enforced...period! If the developer doesn't like your law as applied under home rule then he can go somewhere else. Or he can sue, and then you bring the debate to one of RIGHTS, where the real argument should be in the first place...not agruing over ridiculous setbacks.
The sad fact is that the town and these citizens have let the Art. X paradigm suck them into a deep dangerous logic hole. In their zeal to think they are protecting our zoning and claims to protect home rule what they in fact have done in appeasing and trying to appear reasonable is basically conceed control to BP, simply by saying that if BP can prove our law too burdensome then we agree you can preempt it. That is a huge and dangerous and absurd gamble, AND still is not a defense of home rule for the simple fact that even if the Art X board sides with you...THEY not YOU will have made that decision, and that is still NOT protecting home rule or defending our laws with home rule
Then you have the comments of our two local CV bloggers:
K at Panddora's says nothing about the removal of home rule what so ever. I guess she just sees the loss of home rule as acceptable and moves on to debating sound issues. She voices no objection to the possible preemption of our zoning laws.
Then you have JLL's Mr. Wiley's comment which I find very strange:
It is very important that Article X siting boards take into consideration past industrial wind corruption in towns like Cape Vincent before they overrule local zoning.
BEFORE THEY OVERRULE LOCAL ZONING??????? Boy, now there is a blistering argument to defend our laws and home rule! He doesn't actually object to Art. X having the preemptive power to override home rule our laws, he just says that before you do it...just consider the past corruption!!!! Seriously Rick???
The designers of Art. X were very clever. They figured out early on that the mind set of unquestioning allegiance to authority of many citizens, and twisted it into a clever illusion that in citizens efforts to think they are defending home rule and their local laws they are actually giving tacit approval to removing it and preemption of their own laws.
Don't believe me...just go back and carefully read with an open mind the comments above. They are bartering over the preemption of our laws, when the entire freakin point is their should be NO provisions for preemption at all. By ageering to this burden of proof crap, they are agreeing to a provision that allows our law to be bartered! Once on that level, then you have also traded away actual home rule. Home rule implies that the rule is made at HOME and not negotiated with anyone or by anyone else's PROOF!
THINK about what are you saying??? You are saying that the preemption of our laws and removal of home rule is OK...as long as BP can prove it! And what is far far worse is as they have agreed to this bartering of our law...we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what standard the Art. X board will apply as PROOF!!! You have got to be kidding me!!!! If the Art. X board's bar for standard of proof is low...then you have just set yourself up to be screwed!!! Because you agreed that as long as BP can prove your law burdensome to a third party...then they can preempt it. That is exaclty what Councilman Bragdon is saying. His word HIGH burden of proof is meaningless and completely arbitrary, yet he hinges the entire defense or preemption of our law on it! .
It is actually frightening considering an entire region depends on people unwittingly accepting this clever twisted paradigm without much question, engineered by BP and the State!!
Yet Mr. Wiley at JLL in a recent post has suggested the the town board and some citizens of CV are the "experts" on dealing with Art. X!!! Yet we are willing to gamble away our town laws on a completely arbitrary "burden of proof" when no one in CV has a damn clue what that means!
Like I have said many times...if you keep playing this Art. X game of appeasement and being reasonable you are going to talk yourself right into a nice wind farm!!!
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Protecting Home Rule? - What Home Rule?
I saw this comment on Pandora’s Box of Rocks blog.
“Mr. Fixit,
If you want to heal the community, politely ask Richard Chandler and Marion Trieste to go home. Or the other way is to support the Republican members of the town board who are diligently working to protect our right to home municipal laws that if obeyed will make it impossible for Dickie and Maz to ruin our town anymore than they already have.”
On the Cape Vincent wind zoning issue...if someone actually finds a scrap of home rule laying around...please... I would like to be the first to know!!!
It is disturbing to me that people who make these comments still don’t grasp the reality of home rule and Art. X.and what our town board is actually doing. If someone wants to support our town board then fine, but at least do it based in reality rather than fantasy. The fallacy in this comment is right at the point where this person says ”if obeyed”. If home rule is truly in place and protected there is no IF OBEYED. If we had home rule and were willing to protect it and applied it BP would HAVE TO OBEY.
So let me ask this commenter a simple question.
Who will make the final determination on whether the wind regulations in our Cape Vincent zoning law will be enforceable or not? The town…or the State? Hopefully you are smart enough to understand that the STATE in ALBANY will make that final determination. And the last time I looked on a NY map Albany is NOT our HOME but will STILL make the RULES!!!
I fail to see how that is home rule or that we are protecting it.
I give the board credit that they are working diligently on the path they have chosen to appease, validate, and be reasonable to the Art X. system. And I am sure they and their supporters just love to bask in this praise that they are protecting home rule!
But a significant disconnect in logic and comprehension occurs when that is interpreted as defending or protecting our right to home rule. In reality the town board is doing no such thing. They ARE attempting to protect a local law before a political bureaucratic system that already removed our home rule on this issue. But they are not challenging the removal of home rule or defending or protecting home rule itself. That assumption is badly flawed!
You can’t willingly participate and appease and be reasonable to a system that has already removed your home rule rights and then at the same time claim you are protecting home rule. You can’t claim the rules of a system that removed your home rules rights are fair and impartial, and then claim you are protecting home rule rights. That is an absurd contradiction.
To actually protect and defend home rule you would have to go after and directly oppose the root system that took it away, not further enable and validate and give power to the system by appeasing it and participating in it.
You can’t claim to be defending or protecting home rule when you formulate a local law and then hand it over to the State to determine it’s validity and argue and beg as to whether you are allowed to enforce it or not. That is NOT protecting home rule!
This town board an every town board that willingly participates in and appeases the Art X system that already removed our home rule, is validating and enabling a further suppression of your home rules rights.
And that IS NOT PROTECTING OR DEFENDING HOME RULE!!!
And further more I twice asked this town board if they would pass a resolution that would have opposed Art X and the removal of our home rule.
THEY OUTRIGHT REFUSED!
So would you like to explain to me how this is “protecting” our home rule rights?
WE have NO CHANCE of protecting our community if people don't even grasp the fundamentals of Art. X and what it is doing to us and how the town board has chosen to react to it.
On the wind issue in CV there is NO HOME RULE...and you can't protect something you DON'T
HAVE!
“Mr. Fixit,
If you want to heal the community, politely ask Richard Chandler and Marion Trieste to go home. Or the other way is to support the Republican members of the town board who are diligently working to protect our right to home municipal laws that if obeyed will make it impossible for Dickie and Maz to ruin our town anymore than they already have.”
On the Cape Vincent wind zoning issue...if someone actually finds a scrap of home rule laying around...please... I would like to be the first to know!!!
It is disturbing to me that people who make these comments still don’t grasp the reality of home rule and Art. X.and what our town board is actually doing. If someone wants to support our town board then fine, but at least do it based in reality rather than fantasy. The fallacy in this comment is right at the point where this person says ”if obeyed”. If home rule is truly in place and protected there is no IF OBEYED. If we had home rule and were willing to protect it and applied it BP would HAVE TO OBEY.
So let me ask this commenter a simple question.
Who will make the final determination on whether the wind regulations in our Cape Vincent zoning law will be enforceable or not? The town…or the State? Hopefully you are smart enough to understand that the STATE in ALBANY will make that final determination. And the last time I looked on a NY map Albany is NOT our HOME but will STILL make the RULES!!!
I fail to see how that is home rule or that we are protecting it.
I give the board credit that they are working diligently on the path they have chosen to appease, validate, and be reasonable to the Art X. system. And I am sure they and their supporters just love to bask in this praise that they are protecting home rule!
But a significant disconnect in logic and comprehension occurs when that is interpreted as defending or protecting our right to home rule. In reality the town board is doing no such thing. They ARE attempting to protect a local law before a political bureaucratic system that already removed our home rule on this issue. But they are not challenging the removal of home rule or defending or protecting home rule itself. That assumption is badly flawed!
You can’t willingly participate and appease and be reasonable to a system that has already removed your home rule rights and then at the same time claim you are protecting home rule. You can’t claim the rules of a system that removed your home rules rights are fair and impartial, and then claim you are protecting home rule rights. That is an absurd contradiction.
To actually protect and defend home rule you would have to go after and directly oppose the root system that took it away, not further enable and validate and give power to the system by appeasing it and participating in it.
You can’t claim to be defending or protecting home rule when you formulate a local law and then hand it over to the State to determine it’s validity and argue and beg as to whether you are allowed to enforce it or not. That is NOT protecting home rule!
This town board an every town board that willingly participates in and appeases the Art X system that already removed our home rule, is validating and enabling a further suppression of your home rules rights.
And that IS NOT PROTECTING OR DEFENDING HOME RULE!!!
And further more I twice asked this town board if they would pass a resolution that would have opposed Art X and the removal of our home rule.
THEY OUTRIGHT REFUSED!
So would you like to explain to me how this is “protecting” our home rule rights?
WE have NO CHANCE of protecting our community if people don't even grasp the fundamentals of Art. X and what it is doing to us and how the town board has chosen to react to it.
On the wind issue in CV there is NO HOME RULE...and you can't protect something you DON'T
HAVE!
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Just Thought You Should Know
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
February 1, 2013
TO: Siting Board
FROM: Jeffrey C. Cohen, Acting Secretary
Peter McGowan, General Counsel
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communications
Executive Summary
During the course of an Article 10 proceeding, individuals and/or representatives of entities or members of the public may want to meet with members of the Siting Board and their advisors to discuss the pending proceeding or send information that would otherwise not be part of the public record of the proceeding. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with guidance concerning the parameters of permissible communications and recommended procedures when communications occur during the phases of an Article 10 proceeding, as dictated by applicable rules concerning ex parte communications and conflicts of interest.
The following summarizes the guidance concerning communications, in person, telephone calls, or through written correspondence, with individuals and/or representatives of entities or members of the public during an Article 10 proceeding.
Applicable Law
SAPA §307(2), the provision that sets forth the prohibitions pertaining to ex parte communications, states as follows:
Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in an adjudicatory proceeding shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact, with any person or party, nor, in connection with any issue of law, with any party or his representative, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)