Anti SASS, Anti Govt Blowholes!

In the report that supports the SASS designation for our region, it says this about large industrial structures like industrial wind turbines.

"There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of these structures because they are so tall, massive and frequently in motion."


However, the 1000 Islands towns along the St. Lawrence on the NY side, and many other communities have done exactly that, and charged right ahead and attempted the futility of trying to "mitigate" industrial wind using zoning laws and setbacks even though a quick look at Wolfe Is. will graphically show you how this approach fails miserably.

When we talk about mitigating these huge structures it would take setbacks in the 10's of miles or much more.  Fact is most communities simply aren't big enough to apply even the mitigation setbacks that might work with significant distances.  That is one reason a regional approach is relevant. 

It is one reason the SASS IS RELEVENT!!

Industrial wind energy has simply turned traditional zoning on its head!

What makes this zoning approach even more futile is that NYS can simply override a local wind law with Art. 10.

So the completely out of context paradigm zoning approach used so far is to try to mitigate with setbacks what obviously can't be mitigated, and no town has the appropriate land area to achieve, and use zoning laws that can simply be pre-empted anyhow.

 Zoning laws which in the end are a tacit invitations to wind developers to start wind development conversations.

Why give them that opening

It is time for a different approach and Henderson prohibiting industrial wind is the right approach.  And that can be backed by other political moves as well.

The prohibition approach puts the right argument on the table, both politically and for protection of significant regional scenic resources, instead of getting into a losing pissing match with a wind developer and the State over setbacks that in fact don't even work anyhow.

The real fact is by involving yourself in setback zoning and the Art. 10 process you have already given away the relevant and most powerful tools to actually protect your community.

Now think about this for a minute.  Communities get convinced by the Sate to get involved in the zoning/setback, Art. 10 paradigm.  You bring to the table zoning and setbacks as your primary weapon.  However the State and wind lobbyist aren't that stupid.  Sure they encourage you to write a wind law...now gee why would that be?  Because they are also bringing to the fight  a weapon that can simply make your primary weapon (zoning and setbacks) completely irrelevant, and powerless!!!

The state and wind developers come to the fight knowing they have the power to not even make it a fight.  Yet this is how virtually every town facing wind development takes on this battle. You come to the battle with a gun, yet the state determines if you get any bullets.  Yet town after town charges into these battles as it is a fight they can win.  Under these circumstances this is not bravado, but political stupidity.

Yet some people, towns, and blogs, try to convince you to engage in this effort as if it is a fair fight, when in fact under the rules it isn't even a fight at all...but cleverly engineered to be a slaughter.

Whenever you hear them telling you, you will have "input" you should recognize the "code words" and who real controls the fight and you are going to get slaughtered. 

Besides, wake up!  Any game that starts by trying to convince you that you have "input and it will be important", at the very same time they can simply preempt your input, then it should be clearly recognized who controls the game and why.

What fool plays this kind of game???? 

How does SASS play into this?

What the anti SASS anti govt people really fail to comprehend
is if you want to oppose govt in your lives, then stand up as a political region and take on NYS backed wind energy and Art. 10 head on instead of playing the wind zoning game that the state can just preempt anyhow.

You anti SASS people aren't even making sense in your own anti govt. arguments and need to get your head screwed on straight.

The way to fight govt., if that is what you want, isn't to withdraw yourselves in pissing matches behind little community borders, prodded on by outside influences, but make yourself a real geographic political force.

That is what the wind developers and people like Cuomo fear and understand.

What you miss, no matter what the issue is, is that SASS, although born of govt. identifies you as power in a political region. 

If you want to fight Cuomo's Safe Act, (and I haven't seen you repeal it yet), do you think Cuomo or the legislature is politically frightened when your region is so politically impotent it can't even get behind something as simple as SASS to protect the best interest of your area?

The tourism economy is the backbone of this region, and SASS helps protect it.  Cuomo and the legislature are probably laughing their asses off watching you anti SASS people piss right on an opportunity to enhance and protect your own economy.

You can't even do this right.  So I doubt Albany isn't real threatened by your ramblings about the Safe Act and anti govt. rhetoric.

As long as you are pissing all over yourselves they know you aren't going to piss in them!!!

A fact  many "anti" people don't seem to consider is that political power in Albany promoting wind and renewables, themselves may in fact not be real comfortable with SASS in a region where they want to promote wind development.

The biggest threat to this region isn't the Safe Act, or SASS, it's  the fact that despite your anti govt bullshit you don't have the first clue about the subtleties, or ability to actually back your anti govt rhetoric with effective political action, by organizing to support even a simple regional concept. 

And you may think I am blowing smoke, but the fact is myself and a few others took a political battle right to Cuomo' office door and got our foot in.

We sat across from his top lawyers and staff and had the political "goods" to get him to investigate the old wind conflicted Cape Vincent govt.  Apparently he calculated there was a political cost to ignoring us.

Now some might say that the investigation was never completed and didn't amount to anything.  That is true, but that would be very politically naive, and was but one political goal.  Finished or not, the political PR was priceless, and basically helped overturn a local govt. 

It doesn't hurt your campaign to truthfully say your opponent is under an ethics investigation by the NYAG!!!

You anti govt, anti SASS people are so distracted I doubt you can even focus your political efforts coherently or on the right target.

Images From Beautiful Eastern Lake Ontario

Keep in mind that if the reincarnation of the Galloo Island wind project goes forward this scenery will be dramatically impacted visually with 600 ft. wind turbines and their flashing red lights.

Those wind turbines will be seen all over the Eastern Lake Ontario basin.  Not to mention this will be in addition to the Wolfe Is. wind turbines that have already done tremendous damage to the visual beauty of this region

While you are contemplating what we will give up in this scenic and environmentally sensitive region, keep clearly in mind that when averaged annually (capacity factor) 70 to 80 percent of this wind farm's capacity is likely to not be used.

To sacrifice this beauty for that little unreliable power is just plain environmental insanity!!!

  Kayaking below the cliffs of Galloo Island.

                                              Storm at Wilson's Bay, Cape Vincent

                                                      Wescott Beach State Park

                                            Charity Shoal Lighthouse, Eastern Lake Ontario

                       Fall color and farm from the Wescott Beach State Park high overlook.

                                     Lake Ontario Shoreline at Tibbetts Point, Cape Vincent

                                          Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, Cape Vincent

                    Lake Ontario beach,  Robert Wehle State Park, Stony Point, Henderson, NY

       

Seasonal Voters Should Vote in the Place They Love??? - A Little Reality

The Cape Vincent JLL blog administered by Rick Wiley is once again pounding on seasonal residents registering to vote locally rather than at their other residences.

http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/

I have no problem with this basic message.  I am legally registered to vote in Jefferson County, NY although my other residence is in AZ.

However, as he does many times, Mr. Wiley makes some big leaps of logic hoping his readers will follow. 

So here is a little voting reality.

Just because you vote locally and may possibly elect a town board majority sensitive to your seasonal concerns, including the big issue of  industrial wind siting, it does not guarantee it will kill wind energy development in your town.

The siting of large scale wind energy is in the hands of NYS through the Art. 10 siting process.  It is NO LONGER in the hands of local town boards.  Mr. Wiley would like you to believe that if your board is against wind development and engages in the Art. 10 process, and you submit input to the Art. 10 process this will be taken into account by the Art. 10 board and you will likely defeat any local wind energy proposal.

There is no actual fact to support that.

Fact is that Art. 10 was developed to fast track wind development since local board got savy to industrial wind and where throwing up local zoning roadblocks that inhibited the State agenda to site wind energy.

Politically, Art. 10 would not even exist if developers thought it would be a significant roadblock to their development proposals such as Wiley is trying to make you believe. Has Wiley forgotten the power of industry lobbyists and bought off legislators?

Wiley is trying to make a direct connection between your vote and defeating wind development, which may not in fact be the case, because of the "middle man" which is Art 10 siting board that has the power to actually preempt your wind energy zoning.

Art. 10  stands between your vote for local candidates who may be anti wind and against siting wind development in your community.

Wiley even states that no wind farm has been sited where a board was against it and that includes state siting...Really???  Well I would like him to provide the details on that statement about state siting, but I'm sure he won't. If that is true there may have been other factors involved.

Of course you notice he lists all the wind farms that are currently proposed around NYS.  That would be after a year or so ago informing us with confidence and his usual leap of logic that "wind was dead"   I guess he has suddenly had a change of heart????

Mr. Wiley also likes to foster the impression that the Art. 10 worked in CV against BP because we had a  board voted in by seasonal voters and was "opposed to wind."  Fact is that is not reality. First, the board was not actually anti wind and then we got real lucky and  BP simply abandon their Art. 10 process and their CV project for primarily economic reasons.

We have no clue how the process would have played out and if Art. 10 would have preempted our zoning laws for BP's project. 

And the fact is BP made a complete travesty of the Art. 10 process because they knew they could get away with it.  The town board complained repeatedly with no real relief from the NYPSC.

In addition I think there is a high probability the person who writes the letter on Wiley's blog and has a voter check list for you is not qualified to vote in CV and may not live their.

By all means, if you meet the legal requirements, register to voter locally, but do it with your eyes open since the Art. 10 process that removed our home rule rights, and Wiley supports, is a much bigger problem.

If you are lucky enough to elect a town board friendly to seasonal voter concerns and opposed to wind energy, then use your voting power to get them to fully oppose Art. 10, not appease that process by writing wind laws that invite wind developers to target your town.

Wiley needs to be more honest about the realities of seasonal voting, and not support the Art. 10 process that has the power to negate your voting power by preempting local home rule powers.

Wiley is trying to have it both ways.  He wants you to register and vote locally, but supports the insidious Art. 10 process that makes your vote irrelevant when it come to one of the biggest zoning issues ever facing our communities.

And lastly, let's look at one actually fact about seasonal voting that Wiley won't touch with a ten foot pole!!!  A lot of seasonal voters voted in CV to put Wiley's favorite  Republican .Hirschey govt in power.  Then recently Hirschey appointed THE MOST controversial pro wind person as deputy supervisor, Marty Mason.  Then in a stunning reversal a few weeks later he drops Mason and appoints Councilman Byrne as deputy.

And Hirschey had previously appointed Dick Macsherry who wasn't even elected by the CV voters.  Who in fact was rejected by CV voters in the 2009 CV elections when he ran cozy with pro wind candidates!!!

Not sure this recent move with Mason  was in the best interest of the community already left with raw scabs from the past CV wind battle!!!

Too bad Wiley refuses to take comments on his blog.  You might want to ask how these bone head moves encourage seasonal residents to vote locally!!!

Deputy Town Supervisor - In Case You Were Wondering - From NY Town Law

"The town board of any town may at any time establish the office of deputy supervisor. The deputy supervisor shall be appointed by the supervisor to serve at the pleasure of the supervisor, and in case the office of supervisor becomes vacant any deputy supervisor in office at the time such vacancy occurs shall continue to serve until the successor of such deputy supervisor is appointed. If the supervisor shall fail to appoint a deputy supervisor within five days after the establishment of the office or within five days after a vacancy occurs in the office, the town board shall have power to appoint such deputy supervisor. During the absence or inability to act of the supervisor, or while the office of supervisor is vacant, the deputy supervisor shall preside, when present, at the meetings of the town board and shall be vested with all of the powers and may perform all of the duties of the supervisor under this chapter or any other law, except that he shall have no vote in his capacity as deputy supervisor on matters coming before the town board and he shall not serve as a member of the county board of supervisors. Any person, including a town officer, official or employee, may be appointed deputy supervisor, provided that the person appointed shall possess the same qualifications as an elective town officer. Before he shall perform any function as such, the deputy supervisor shall take and file the constitutional oath of office and execute and file an official undertaking in the manner prescribed in section twenty-five of this chapter. The town board shall fix the compensation which the deputy supervisor shall receive, which compensation may be in addition to any other compensation he may receive as a town officer, town official or town employee."

John Byrne Replaces Recently Appointted Marty Mason as Cape Vincent Deputy Supervisor

According to sources in Cape Vincent, CV Councilman John Byrne has been appointed Dep. Supervisor by Urban Hirschey, who apparently is out of town traveling.  Must have been done electronically or by phone. 

The deputy position is an appointed position with no vote by the town board.  It is at the discretion of the supervisor.

This is a rather stunning reversal of events since Hirschey appointed Councilman Marty Mason as deputy at the last town board meeting.  The appointment is apparently temporary until Councilman Bragdon who is ill can return to the deputy position.

Makes you wonder what hell is going on in CV politics, since Hirschey had appointed one of the most controversial pro wind people (M. Mason) to the deputy position.  This would seem very contrary to why voters, including seasonal voters put Hirschey in power in the first place.

I have no information as to what prompted Hirschey to drop Mason and replace him with Byrne, although I am guessing this will end in some political fireworks.

Commenter "SIR" in the WDT Has Badly Distorted Reality!

I was reading some of the comments in the WDT about the controversial SASS designation.  A commenter named "SIR" made a comment and I have posted a portion below.

"This is nothing more than an attempt to prevent the development of wind farms in these areas, just ask Mr. Clifford Schneider. He is on the steering committee for SASS. He effectively prevented BP from developing a wind farm in Cape Vincent..."

No... SIR, and you need to get a grip on reality if you are going to engage in this debate with any shred of credibility!  Apparently you need to distort your point this badly for your anti SASS agenda.

First...if that is what Mr. Schneider actually did ... then good for him, and I applaud him!  But that is not what happened, and it just ain't that simple.

However, even though Mr. Schneider as a CV councilman was deeply involved in zoning matters that were restrictive to wind energy development, he did not in my opinion prevent BP from developing a wind farm.

As a councilman Mr. Schneider and his town board were involved in the Art. 10 electric generation siting process between CV, the NYPSC, and BP for the siting of the BP wind farm.  

However, BP walked away from CV and Art. 10 based on the unfavorable wind economics, and financial stresses on the company from its Gulf oil disaster. 

Keep in mind that BP had already gotten out of the solar business long before they dropped wind in CV.  And the reality was they were trying to divest their CV wind farm as part of getting out of the wind business across the board, not just CV.

With no disrespect to Mr. Schneider, but that is why BP left CV, not because of Mr. Schneider or the board he served on.

The reality is the Art. 10 process that could have preempted the zoning law Schneider and his board wrote on wind siting, was never completed.  BP just walked away from it altogether, because of economics. 

It is also not likely the letters people wrote to the NYPSC opposing the BP project had any effect either.  We will never know, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not dealing in the reality that was the CV wind battle and Art. 10.

Despite the fantasy some people like to conjure up, we will never know (at least in the case of BP) whether the Art.10 siting board would have preempted the CV zoning and allowed BP to develop a full or modified project.

In fact the Art. 10 administrative judge, while visiting CV, recommended BP and CV sit down to look at a project that would have been a compromise with the CV zoning.   What does that tell you?  I think it tells you that had the process  played out  BP would have gotten some type of wind farm in CV.

Some people fear SASS will put on additional regulations that will protect the scenic resources so important to the 1000 Islands region.

That doesn't appear to be the case, but  ... SO WHAT!!!

Imagine...some people want to be a little more careful with development in a narrow region so as to protect our unique, beautiful, internationally known tourism and environmental resource...can ya imagine that!

BTW, a scenic resource that has been absolutely critical to the economic survival of this region for decades.  Yet some think this is a radical idea.

GET REAL!!!

REALLY???

From the 1000 Islands Regional Assessment Draft Report


"Promoting the region based on sustainable development practices will create a unique image for the Thousand Islands as a beautiful, carefully overseen area that values its scenery and environmental quality."

So what does that say about the people who don't support the 1000 Islands region as a Scenic Area of State Significance? 

Really????


      Click on images to enlarge.