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.

One Simple Question

I tried to get this comment on the JLL site.  Of course Mr. Wiley blocks all my comments.  I'm sure he is not prepared to let any more rebuttal comments challenge his thinking.

But this whole Art. 10 debate really is not that complicated.  It actually quite simple and boils down to one simple question.

And here is the simple concept for you to mull over and answer, and this pretty much says it all...

Why does the Art. 10 siting board have the ability to preempt local zoning laws?

Who Was The Fool???

I can distinctly recall sitting in meetings with people on the anti wind side in Cape Vincent talking about the wind contracts the slick wind salesmen got local land owners to sign.  The anti wind people would puff themselves up and say they would have never agreed to sign anything like that that took away so many rights to your land.  You would have to be a fool to sign such a thing. 

Hmmmm...really?  You are that smart eh???

Yet when the state came along with its Article 10 siting process which included the ability to preempt any local laws, drafted by people you elected which in turn was a direct threat and removal of your land rights on a mass scale, some of you anti wind people just jumped right on board with the state and slobbered all over the process just like the pro wind people soaked up the contracts that removed many of their land rights and gave them away to the wind company.

Actually the pro wind people were smarter...at least they got paid for their land rights being removed.  You smart Article 10 supporters gave away your rights jumping up and down telling the state and everybody else how fair this was, but came up completely empty handed.  They schmoozed you into warm and fuzzy compliance by offering some vague promise of "INPUT"  That is all you got.  And what is worse you sucked that up with absolutely no evidence whatsoever,  NONE, anywhere that the input would actually have any value or make any difference.  Just like the wind salesman, this was a "promise" you could bank on so trust us!

Smart?   Well let's see here.

The state comes in and says you have no more home rule rights to decide energy siting in your town.  probably the biggest land rights issue any town will face that could have a huge impact on your property values.  Then the state also says...oh by the way, with the rights we already took away. please go ahead and write a "reasonable "wind law " that we can just preempt if we don't like it anyhow!

Yup that appears to be real smart sound logic.  So who was the fool???

Article 10 Discussion On JLL

There is a good discussion on the JLL blog about the state electric energy siting Art. 10 process and how it will apply to Cape Vincent and our zoning law.  Much of it centers around the Art. 10 siting board's ability to preempt local zoning.

Mr. Dave LaMora of Cape Vincent, who is also  freind of mine has an excellent comment on this matter.

Of course as always when the Hirschey Republicans get in a pinch or feel there is sufficient logic to question their paradigm they unfortunately repeatably  resort to personal attacks to diverting the message  by referring to the fact that Dave LaMora and I are friends and imply I control how Dave thinks.  It is absurd, but here is a prime example from the comment section of the JLL blog.

"Interesting about Dave is his close relationship with Art Pundt. Dave respectively disagrees with JLL but I have to ask. Is Daves's spiel a set up for failure in favor of the gang who now claims his as their best friend? They are tight and Art has cultivated them. Unlike his buddy he seems to have a command of the syntax. I want to hear about his association with Arty before I listen to his opinion."

But now there is a new twist.

 OK fair enough...if this is the new rule that we are going to analyze everyone's relationship to other people then I want a full disclosure of your relationship to the Hirschey's.  AND I would like a full disclosure of the Hirschey govt relationship to people at the NYPSC!

Your toying around unwittingly with "relationships" could get you way in over your head!!! It would be a lot wiser to get back to the discussion at hand.  Figuratively you are holding a stick of political dynamite in your hand that could blow up in your face!

Of course since you hide behind anonymous you can't even stand up to your own absurd rule!!!

Ed Bender Appointted to Cape Vincent Council Seat Left Empty By the Passing or Brooks Bragdon

Well I guess this is truly unfortunate.  Is this what registering in CV to vote gets you??????

Let me remind some of you of a little history surrounding Mr. Bender that helped drag this town much deeper into crisis.

At one point there was a vote made by the  long ago heavily wind conflicted planning board.  With no viable reasoning they declared that wind turbines could be declared utilities under CV zoning law.  It was absurd, nor did they even  have the authority to make that interpretation.  This vote was taken with many people on the PB having severe conflicts of interests in the wind matter.  This was a huge step by conflicted town officials driving the agenda significantly forward for wind developers and the ethical cesspool they made of our town.  It would haunt the town for years.

The group WPEG hired an attorney and challenged the PB decision and asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for a ruling on this bogus interpretation of CV zoning.  Mr. Bender was the chair of the ZBA at that time.

The case was heard by the CV ZBA and massive wind turbines were declared to be utilities under the old CV zoning with 3 to 2 vote of the ZBA.  It was idiotic, and Bender was one of the yes votes.

This is one reason that for  a number of years CV had no zoning to control wind development. The pro wind people simply wanted to shove it under the  old law so they wouldn't have to take time to amend the zoning or do a critical environmental review.  This was also completely contrary to the Comp Plan which they knew would also create a legal disaster for them.   This ruling also meant that the power on sting wind turbines would remain in the hands of Rich Edsall the PB chairman at the time who had massive conflicts of interest with his BP leases, and his families leases.

This did go to the NY Supreme Court, and the court ruled in favor of the ZBA decision.  But the court NEVER actually ruled on the critical question of turbines being utilities.  They simply deferred under home rule to the ZBA to have power to make that decision.

Now let me make this simple.  Let's say BP has 100 turbines set up in CV.  And during a winter ice storm the electric line to your neighborhood goes down.  Who the hell are you going to call...the wind farm????  Of course not, because they are an independent power producer, not a freakin utility!!!

You don't hear much about Ed Bender regarding the CV wind disaster in CV, unless you really understand the wind history, but he was a key figure that drove this town deeper into the black hole that ripped it apart.  I doubt if he really grasped what he was voting on in that ZBA decision or the massive distortion it was to rational zoning.

Yet here he sits at the heart of CV power.  Thanks Urban and John for once again crapping on the seasonal voters who put you in power.   And I am supposed to believe this BS Rick Wiley at JLL spews out about my vote counting!

The way things are headed CV is going to remain a wasteland.  The Hirschey administration at one time had the super majority political power to really clean house and make a difference.  Instead they played this appeasement game.

People have expressed the view that I have helped pro wind because I didn't march lockstep with Hirschey. That is absurd!   But the reality is the Hirschey group squandered its power and responsibility and  has done far more damage all on their own.

Here We Go Again Ignoring the Reality!!

Below is a part  quote from part of a post a JLL blog reader put on that blog. The administrator of the blog Rick Wiley insists on perpetuating this line while ignoring a very inconvenient reality. 

"What can you do?  Here is a good piece of advice.  Take it.   Elect people to your local government who are determined to keep your St. Lawrence/Lake Ontario town from being devastated by a large scale wind project.  But of course – for that to happen you need to be registered vote.  Now is the acceptable time to do that.

We have seen in both Cape Vincent and Hammond how key it is to have a local government in place to successfully fight off determined wind developers.  If they have financial backing they will go looking for any town that has an agreeable government and decent wind.  Don’t be that town." 

Now I have no problem with voting for people who want to protect our towns and region from the onslaught of industrial wind.  In general that is a good idea.  But it is what they actually do with your vote that counts, and the actual record on that is not good!

But as usual Wiley lets it be perpetuated that this will make a difference in fighting off a large wind developer.  This is where Wiley's and his reader's fantasy starts and they fail to address reality.

1.      Successfully fight off determined wind developers?????…GET FREAKIN REAL!!!   In both Hammond and CV the wind developers left due to the sudden unstable economics surrounding wind energy in general  due in large part to the subsidies that have not been renewed ,NOT BECAUSE OF ANY TOWN LEADER ELECTED AT THE TIME OR ANY OPPOSITION!  As a result we don’t have a damn clue whether we actually “fought them off” or not as the JLL blog and it’s reader likes to imply.  That is pure bullshit they are spoon feeding you.  Swallow if it makes you feel better, but you are likely to gag on reality when it sets in. 

2.       If the town leaders you elect make such a difference in deterring wind development why did both towns write wind zoning allowing wind development in their towns, which is an invitation to wind developers?  And why in CV are there numerous cases where the local govt we elected to be supposedly “anti wind” went ahead and appointed some of the previously ethically conflicted pro wind people to important town positions.  Like for one example town supervisor Urban Hirschey recently appointing Marty Mason to temporarily be the deputy supervisor.  Mason had wind contracts with two wind companies, is opposed to the SASS designation for the area, and was at one time under investigation by the NYAG for possible ethics violations between his wind contracts and his town council position.  Not to mention passing an illegal unconstitutional voter registration law to prevent legally registered season voters from voting!  And that is only part of the story.  And Hirschey appoints him Dep Super…even temporarily.  What Hirschey did was PISS on your vote!  Ask Wiley about that!!!

The quote says…”Agreeable govt and descent wind”  Yup, and CV has both, they have good wind and a govt that could have prohibited wind but instead wrote a zoning law that allows industrial wind development!

3.      And the biggest thing Wiley and his reader does not address is the State  Art.10 siting process that will site wind energy in your town and can simply preempt any local wind zoning the state feels is too burdensome to the developer.  In effect the state can simply erase at will any vote you cast to prevent wind energy development in your town.

4.       

THAT IS FACT!!!

The reality is, that go ahead and elect all the anti wind leaders you want, and they can pass all the local zoning they want to deter wind energy,  but your vote and who you vote for are NOT the ones who will decide if a wind development will be sited in your town or not.

 THAT IS FACT!   It will be the State that decides.  The State made sure your vote at the local level to attack wind development was rendered meaningless so it would not stand in the way of their renewable agenda.

What you and the town will get is the famous buzz word “INPUT”  that everyone who is not a sucker knows means you are likely to get screwed.  If you don’t believe me look at my previous posts of what happened under an earlier Art. 10 siting of a power plant along the scenic Hudson River.  Despite tough opposition the state simply preempted the local town laws that would have prevented it and sited the power plant anyhow!

Wiley and his contributor are simply huckstering a very dangerous false premise by leaving out key facts.  The idea that you elect the anti wind leaders then they will write a wind law, and that wind zoning  and their opposition will make the developer go away.

They have ZERO evidence to support that premise ZERO!!!  To imply that votes and elected officials and opposition or any participation in Art. 10 fought off wind development, especially in CV is an outright LIE!!!

And lastly why don’t some of you who are in Wiley’s good graces start asking him some critical questions about these realities. 

Part of the problem is that he will not allow any debate on his blog that might threaten his fantasy, and you as a reader suffer as a result of this gross manipulated mis-information.

Or if your vote counts ask Wiley, or better yet ask Urban Hirschey the town supervisor why he agreed to appoint Karen Bourcy a very ethically conflicted pro wind planning board member who still sits on the board.  Or why Marty Mason temporally as deputy supervisor, or why Dick Macsherry one time as deputy supervisor who at one time was sympathetic to the previous pro wind heavily conflicted Rienbeck board, or Rockne Burns who had a wind contract to the planning board.

Or maybe ask councilman John Byrne who we were supposed to vote for who was pawning himself off as anti wind right up until he needed votes for his run for NY Assembly, then he became all warm and fuzzy about farmers and wind energy or leaned against the SASS designation.  And now HE is your CV deputy supervisor.

 It certainly will be interesting to see who get the open CV council position!

Think your votes counts…the actual evidence says otherwise no matter what Wiley is trying to spoon feed you!  But I guess if you read it enough you can be brainwashed.

And I am making an educated guess that there is a good chance the contributor to Wiley’s blog doesn’t live in CV or even qualify to vote there!!!