Deluded!!!

Well… Mr. Wiley at the JLL blog is at it again, promoting the idea that all that is needed to defeat a major wind developer is to have a well thought out restrictive zoning law and participate in the Art 10 process.  That this is the path to a legal zoning panacea because some “expert” lawyers have said so.  This time however, he is now referring to those of us who think otherwise as “stupid” 

Wiley said:

 “BP in Cape Vincent also tried to argue that BP’s zoning law “should be supplanted by Article 10” and state energy policy.  That argument didn’t work because there is strong precedent that a comprehensive local zoning law that is rational and equitably applied and enforced will not be set aside.”

Wiley also says:

“Fortunately, Cape Vincent officials (and their expert lawyer) were smart enough to understand that a comprehensive zoning law that prohibited a wide range of undesirable visible and sound related qualities and features – no matter their source -- that had the indirect effect of precluding large-scale wind development to any practical extent, was a far more legally defensible strategy than an outright ban.”

OK, I’ll play your inane game!  But here is my simple request.

Just show me one wind energy Art. 10 siting case in NYS, just ONE where an Art 10. siting board actually upheld the “legally defensible” restrictive wind energy regulations developed by so called “expert lawyers”  Just ONE, and post the evidence right here.  Give us a case, a case number, a name, a siting board decision we can actually examine look at etc.  Just ONE.

Instead of spewing out crap and loose fantasy opinions with no basis, at least give your readers the courtesy of one fact based case to examine. 

Problem is you know damn right well there are ZERO such cases as of yet in Cape Vincent or anywhere else in NYS.  ZERO.  So what the hell is your evidence, or facts???

Post them right here on this site. Time to put up or shut up!!!

BP walked away from its project in CV because of financial reasons as they did trying to unload their entire wind portfolio worldwide.  Despite your delusions, it had nothing to do with our zoning law or any expert lawyers.   FACT is the Art 10 admin, judge was already hinting that BP and CV should look at reaching an agreement on zoning that would have allowed BP’s project in some form and degraded CV’s restrictive law.  You can look that right up in the WDT and in the archives on this blog. FACT!!!  So how the hell do you come up with your nonsense claims of the CV law being legally defensible when the Art 10 judge already chipping away at it. 

So just put up your evidence right here…. However, I won’t hold my breath!

Beyond Your Property Values - The Wider Impact of the Galloo Island Wind Development!

As the proposal for the Gallo Island wind project move forward in the Art.10 siting process, many are worried about their property values along Lake Ontario shorelines.  As they should be.

However, there is property we all essentially own that will be heavily impacted as well.  I refer here to at least a couple of NYS parks like Wescott Beach,  and particularly the natural gem of Robert Wehle State Park on Stony Point which will have a front row seat to this Galloo wind disaster.

Apparently the town of Hounsfield officials see no problem with this huge negative visual impact that will be forced on residents and visitors along Eastern Lake Ontario shores. Perhaps the financial promises from the developer have anesthetized their brains on this matter.

Below are just a few examples of some  treasured places that will be visually sacrificed if the Galloo project is approved.

 In my opinion you have to be brain dead to sacrifice this beauty to absurd wind development that does nothing to provide any reliable power or solve our climate issues.

Environmental insanity at it's best, and Jefferson County had better step up to stop this idiocy since so much is at stake!!!

Also the Jefferson County Legislature previously passed a unanimous resolution opposing the very same Art. 10 siting process that will take place regarding Galloo Island wind development.

      NOW ... would be the time to do something about it before this Jefferson County beauty
         is simply wasted!!!  And I am not talking about just writing a few letters to the NYPSC!!!

       Oh yes...and hopefully the County won't approve a PILOT tax break to expidite the sacrifice of
        our treasured natural beauty!

                 Wild Lake Shores - Robert Wehle State Park - Henderson. NY.  This place is a true
                 NNY treasure, and it will suffer tremedous impacts since it looks out directly toward
                Galloo Island.  Stony Island is inbetween, but will not mitigate 600 ft. turbines with
                 moving blades and annoying red flashing lights.
       
                                  

Robert Wehle State Park

Wilson Bay/Beach - Cape Vincent

  Wescott Beach State Park

Robert Wehle State Park 

Robert Wehle State Park

 

                    Tibbetts Pt. Light House - Cape Vincent - Already heavily impacted by the

                                         Wolfe Island Wind Farm visual disaster!

                Wescott Beach State Park High Overlook - One of the most spectacular views of
                 Eastern Lake Ontario.  The visual impact here will be devastating!

Spectacular Lake view bay on Grenadier Island _ As I remember part of this bay shore is protected by either the Nature Conservancy and or TLIT.

                                                                Grenadier  Island Bay

                                                   Spectacular Cliffs of Galloo Island

                                         The wide open water views of Eastern Lake Ontario

Galloo Island Wind Farm Enters the Article 10 Siting Process

The Galloo Island wind developer has entered into the State Art. 10 siting process for their wind farm.    A couple weeks back while debating the merits, or lack of,  of the Art. 10 process this comment came on my blog.  I believe this person is a friend of Cape Vincent JLL blogger Rick Wiley. 

"Take it from someone retired from the industry. The JLL Blog is right on when it comes to developer's fears of the Article 10 process. It is not a process they want to go through if there is even a hint of "bad information" being entered into the public record. There are plenty of places in NYS where wind might be accepted under 25M to avoid PSC review. Is your concern really with Article 10 or is it with the author of the blogger personally?"

Well if this person was in the wind industry he/she seems to be a bit out of touch in their advice about  the NYS Article 10 siting process.  

Apparently the Galloo Island wind developer has no fears of entering the Art. 10 process where there will be much more than a "hint" of  "bad information" coming from the opposition.


The developer on Galloo has to know they are facing major opposition from various organized   factions in the region, yet they went right ahead and started the Art. 10 process regardless.

So apparently the JLL blog was not quite "right on" either.

I don't want wind turbines on Galloo Island negatively impacting most of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin either, and write all the letters you want to the NYPSC in this process.  But be cautious about advice that engaging in the Art. 10 process is going to be a pathway to actually stopping this project.

Of course if you think about it, it would make sense that Wiley's wind industry buddy would promote Art. 10 that gives the developer major advantages.

Wiley makes a big deal on his blog that the NYPSC has said the developer's PIP is incomplete and recommends changes to the PIP.  Of course recommends is the operative word here.  All the developer has to do is write why they don't think they need to follow the recommendations and move on.  Or worse...if the developer does follow the recommendations, he just makes the case stronger in the Art. 10 process for his wind farm.

I hope people comprehend that when you engage in a regulatory process like this, and you demand things of the developer, and the developer follows through, you basically have talked yourself into a wind farm.  It is a permitting process...the process is designed to PERMIT something and regulate it...not stop it!!!

Don't mistake a regulatory paper chase for a fair process, especially when the developer can basically ignore the recommendations.

Hopefully the opposition has something more powerful up it's sleeve because the Art. 10 process is stacked toward the developer and NYS's rabid renewable agenda.

Somerset, NY Board Officially Opposes Wind Project - Geee Imagine That!!!

The Somerset, NY town board puts Albany on notice they will do everything possible to oppose the Lighthouse wind project proposed for their town.

Gee whiz ... can you imagine that???     You can read about it at the Wind Watch link below.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/07/09/somerset-board-adopts-resolution-against-turbines-officials-say-theyll-do-everything-they-can-to-oppose-project/

They passed an official resolution 4-1 to oppose the project and fight it.

 Unlike the Hirschey Cape Vincent town board who refused to do anything like this with BP, and instead decided to write warm and fuzzy letters to the NYPSC to placate and appease the state Art. 10 process.

I went before the CV town board and twice asked them to pass a resolution in support of the county, and one time even had the resolution written up for them to consider.  since the Jefferson County legislature had passed a unanimous resolution to oppose Art. 10.  It would also be at a time when Hirschey had a complete majority on the board of 5-0.  But they absolutely refused.

This situation in Somerset is going to be  real interesting to watch.  

If you look in the comment section of a previous post you will see a comment by a person claiming to have worked in the wind industry.  In a discussion about the Art. 10 process he said:

 "It is not a process they want to go through if there is even a hint of "bad information" being entered into the public record."

However, as you will read in the Somerset case it appears the developer has no qualms about moving forward with there project in the Art. 10 process despite the fact the majority of the community is against it, and an official resolution is "on the record" in opposition.

Protection...Seriously???

More convoluted logic from the last letter from the Town of Cape Vincent to the NYPSC regarding BP and the Article 10 process. A quote from the town's letter.

"The Article 10 law provides a number of protections for local plans and zoning laws, and in our experience PSC staff were very courteous, conscientious and professional."

PROTECTIONS???  REALLY???

Yeah... right up to the point they decide your law is overly burdensome and preempt it for the developer and remove the protection, just like they did in the case in Athens, NY.

So let's look at a definition of "protection" I pulled from the Internet.

n. noun

• 1. the action of protecting someone or something, or the state of being protected , like B vitamins give protection against infection
• 2. a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury, like  his son was put under police protection
• 3. a legal or other formal measure intended to preserve civil liberties and rights.

Well number 3 certainly seems pertinent now doesn't it, when discussing the Art. 10 process!

Notice that each definition is virtually an absolute.  You are either protected or not. In this case the town officers are using the word protection in a very very loose context in regards to this issue.

So...if the town thinks the Art. 10 process has provisions for the protection of local zoning, then why does the Art. 10 process have or need preemption provisions to remove those very protections if they think those protections are too protective????  And because it can remove those protections, how the hell can we call them protections in the first place????

How can supposed smart people be so easily fooled? 

The town's logic is absurd in their attempts to placate the state Art. 10 process.  It doesn't even make any sense!  In the town's attempts to look "reasonable" they became irrational!

The new Republican candidates running for CV council better start seriously thinking about this nonsense or they will get caught in this same self destructive loop fantasizing about home rule and protections that don't actually exist!

You can't "protect" a community based on a fantasy!!!

Home Rule??? What Home Rule???

In another effort to promote the Art. 10 electric generation siting process. Mr. Wiley's JLL blog has posted the last letter from the Town of Cape Vincent to the NYPSC regarding the BP wind farm in CV as some kind of wisdom. 

 This was after BP had finally pulled their application under the Art. 10 process. The letter basically is the Town of Cape Vincent council slobbering all over the NYPSC Art. 10 process saying how wonderful and fair it was.   There are a number of disturbing things in this letter, but I have posted one paragraph here to comment on.  Underlining emphasis is mine.

"Local governments also need to be a forceful advocate for their community, they do have a role to play in the Article 10 process, contrary to what some believe. If they choose not to fully participate, then they effectively relinquish home rule."

 This quote in my opinion shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the Art. 10 process, and very skewed logic.  It also shows how the state of NY has completely snookered small towns like Cape Vincent into obedience.

What this letter is in complete denial over is that the state's Art. 10 law ALREADY REMOVED local community home rule on this issue of siting large wind farms.  THAT IS FACT!!!    

Participate...or don't participate...your home rule was already removed by the state legislators...end of story!!!  You either have home rule on this issue or you don't, and in this case YOU DON'T!

So let me see if I get this straight.

So the town thinks if it chooses not to participate in the process that already took away their home rule...they would be relinquishing home rule they already don't actually have??????

WHAT????? And these are supposed to be smart people!

Ahhhhh...Somebody want to explain how this logic works????

Oh and BTW...how about this sentence..."Local governments also need to be a forceful advocate for their community..."

I agree, but essentially in CV that never occurred!   Explain to me how you can be a forceful advocate for your community when the one essential  tool you need (local zoning law)  to protect your community was taken away by the state...and you play right along?

Again...someone want to explain how this is supposed to work!!!

Still Don't Get It!!!

Saw this comment on the JLL blog.  It was in reference to a wind farm being proposed (and opposed) for a town in NYS. 

"The best way to go about it is to elect officials who have enough pride in the community to resist them. If they invite them in that is home rule and your goose is cooked. Home rule is local election"

"Home rule is local election"????     One more poor misguided individual.  

 Now as I have said many many times, I have no problem electing officials who oppose wind development in their communities.

But people like this simply refuse to grasp the reality that there is NO HOME RULE in your community on the siting of electric power plants (including wind energy) above 25MW.   Elect whomever you want but the fact is they won't decide if you will have a huge wind farm in your town or not...the STATE will decide through the Art. 10 siting process.

And if the person who wrote this is from the 1000 Islands region they better do a little basic research, because every town along the U.S. side of the River has zoning that allows wind development in some manner.  I would say that IS inviting them in!!!

Now in Cape Vincent there are some good new candidates for town council, but I can guarantee you that not a single one of them will do what it takes to truly defend home rule on the wind issue.  If we are faced with another wind farm proposal they will simply defer to the state Art. 10 process that TOOK AWAY home rule on this issue. 

Don't believe me...ask them!!!

So on this issue, the comment that local elections mean home rule is just plain nonsense!!!

I also noticed that all you people who are supporters of the Art. 10 process and home rule have not answered my simple question in a previous post.

Why does Art. 10 even have a provision to preempt local laws?????

Art. 10 - Opinion vs Evidence

Mr. Wiley's JLL blog opinion on Art. 10 preemption of local zoning laws.

“What this means is that with a comprehensive, complete, well documented, fair, carefully crafted, and fully reasonable zoning law that does not single one specific kind of industry for special adverse treatment (with an “outright ban”) but prohibits a broad range of aspects or impacts that are generally considered objectionable to most people in a residential community – no matter what kind of industry produces those objectionable impacts – then you have a highly defensible zoning law that any wind developer is going to have a very tough time with.”

Let’s see if it holds up with an actual Art. 10 siting board decision.  A precedent already set under the older Art. 10 law.  It was for a  huge gas power plant near the scenic Hudson River that had very stiff organized opposition.  The town involved also  had a good zoning law where this gas plant could not meet the zoning codes.

Below is the siting board rational for preemption.   

“The pump house would be a non-conforming use in a RU

district. In addition, the interconnects, which would cross

various land use districts, would not be permitted uses or uses

authorized by a special permit. The pump house and the

interconnects, however, are essential elements of the proposed

facility. Therefore, the local requirements barring those

installations are unreasonably restrictive given the existing

technology.

Because the pump house could not comply with the established setback requirement in the RU district, we conclude that the requirement is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology. In addition, many of the proposed facility's structures would not comply with the 35-foot height limit established in ZO §403. Those structures, which include the turbine enclosures and the transmission towers, cannot be

redesigned to conform to the requirement. Therefore, we conclude

that the height limit is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology.”

Now the gas plant could not meet two very important well thought out codes for setbacks and height restrictions.  And keep in mind that setback and height restrictions are not radical ideas in zoning.  Even the state of NY has examples of zoning codes that show setback and height as reasonable approaches to zoning.  Virtually every good zoning law will have these items.

Yet the Art. 10 siting board preempted them anyhow.

Mr. Wiley also expresses his opinion of what the siting board is saying.  Let’s see whether that holds up as well.  He is talking about what Art. 10 has told BP as a wind developer.

“And they were further told that a basis for invalidating the Cape zoning law could not be simply that the law would make their proposed project unfeasible or impractical.  That would not be good enough for the Siting Board to declare the law “unreasonably burdensome.”

Really???   Now read an actual Art. 10 siting board reasoning!  Also posted above.

“Because the pump house could not comply with the established setback requirement in the RU district, we conclude that the requirement is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology. In addition, many of the proposed facility's structures would not comply with the 35-foot height limit established in ZO §403. Those structures, which include the turbine enclosures and the transmission towers, cannot be

redesigned to conform to the requirement. Therefore, we conclude

that the height limit is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology.”

If you look at what Wiley is claiming the new Art. 10 board was saying to BP in theory.  And what an older Art. 10 siting board actually did, it appears it is completely contrary!

The siting board actually did, make the exact case that the zoning laws in that town WOULD make the gas power plant impractical or unfeasible… SO they preempted those reasonable zoning restrictions that stood in the way anyhow.

Now this is a decision under an old version of Art. 10. But it is the same agency  under the NYPSC and this is now a precedent.

Wiley has his opinions, yet he has no case or solid evidence to back up his claims since no wind siting has been done in NYS under the new Art. 10 laws.  It s all conjecture.

What I am showing you is an ACTUAL siting and an ACTUAL thought process from the agencies that will control the sitings.

And keep in mind that back then NYS had a big agenda to site any kind of power plant because they were desperate for more power. Didn’t matter if it was the scenic Hudson Valley.  And they were using Art. 10 to make sure that happened and no local town or its zoning would stand in the way.  Just like today’s Art. and wind power! 

You decide...one man's opinion, or some actual Art. 10 thought processes and decisions.

 Now if you want to write the NYPSC, go ahead please feel free. Don’t let me stop you.  But I think the reality is going to be different than Wiley and you might expect.

Also keep in mind the Mr. Wiley once reported after an Art. 10 meeting in CV that the Art. 10 judge said BP must comply with the CV town law. It was far from reality as he was trying to spin the Hirschey govt wind law Art. 10 appeasement case.

What in fact the judge said was he recommended that the town and BP sit down and see if there was a way BP could mostly comply with the town law, but maybe not 100%  That is a damn long way from declaring BP had to comply with our law.