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!
