More On An Actual Power Plant Sited By the Old Article 10 Process - Something We Can Learn From!

If you have not read my last post below on a power plant along the Hudson River sited by the old Art. 10 process in 2000, it would be instructive to read it first.  

The implied message by some around Cape Vincent and the area is that by participating in the Art. 10 process and sending input in the form of letters to the NYPSC and Art. 10 process we can defeat a wind farm on Galloo Is. or in the area.  That with enough of your opposition or concerned input an Article 10 siting board will see it our way, and up hold our laws.  I believe that is a delusion and fantasy that "Big Brother Govt" will protect us.
   
The old Art. 10 is much like the new Art. 10 and did have the local law preemption clause, and the siting process was administered by the same board on electrical generation siting at the NYPSC.

Here is a quote from the NY Times about the controversy of siting this power plant along the scenic Hudson River Valley.  This situation is not unlike what CV faced with BP, or what might occur on Galloo Island under an Art. 10 scheme.

"Since it was proposed two years ago, the Athens plant has met with ferocious local opposition, in part because it represented the beginning of a boom in industrial development on the banks of the Hudson, after the river had undergone more than a half-century of transition from an industrial thoroughfare to the attractive centerpiece of a fairly bucolic region. In recent months, opponents repeatedly tried to portray Pacific Gas & Electric as a corporate villain, reminding reporters and politicians that it was the company that polluted ground water in a California town, in a case made famous by the movie ''Erin Brockovich.''"

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/03/nyregion/big-power-plant-on-the-hudson-wins-approval.html

Geee...sound familiar??? Better pay attention all you Art. 10 believers!!!   And at the time this electric plant was allowed by Art. 10 it was one of the largest in NYS with many scenic concerns.  The NYT article says it was the largest in the nation, however I think that is in error.

Had this been CV, the mantra to faithfully follow the Art. 10 process and developing a zoning law we thought Art. 10 would abide by and protect us...well it would have been an unmitigated disaster!!!

In addition to ignoring the opposition to this plant (I'm sure they had their "input" letters) the Art. 10 board also easily preempted local zoning laws and trashed home rule to pave the way for this monster plant along the scenic Hudson corridor.  A number of important zoning regulations were simply waived for the developer.

Those of you putting your faith in Art. 10 as a fair process that will uphold your concerns and local home rule...you better start thinking again about a more effective approach.