OK...If we don't prohibit turbines, what's next???

I wonder if these home owners on Wolfe Is. might be thinking that

a more "overly burdensome" wind law might have been a good idea?

So What's Next?????

Now I have been talking to a number of people about the idea of prohibition industrial wind turbines in Cape Vincent.  They are convinced this board and the zoning committee simply aren’t even going to explore that option; it is DOA, so why beat your head on the wall?  Well why I do that is another matter. But in reality I do agree with them on that point. A law to prohibit turbines is not going to happen.  That is still what I believe is the right solution, and you can read all the reasons in previous posts and comments on my blog and others. That hasn’t changed.

 Like the first Rienbeck wind committee of 2008 which was stacked pro wind, I believe these committees with a few refreshing exceptions have been stacked as well toward a certain outcome, and I think that is evidenced by the fact they won’t even consider prohibiting turbines as an alternative. So what’s that outcome?

So with that in mind let’s look at what is left.  Because if you are not going to prohibit  turbines, then what’s left is some type of compromise or accommodation to appease the dreaded Article X and the legal system. When the prohibit route is abandon, then everything else is a method of letting turbines into Cape Vincent in some form, even if that is trying to restrict the developer so much he goes away.  Even in that approach you are still allowing the development into your town and it is up to the developer, not the community to make the choice, because your law will basically put him in control.
 Then attached is the wild gamble that the developer will go away and won’t sue, or your law will hold up in court even though it is a defacto ban, or that the A-10 board won’t pre-empt your defacto ban.  And please let me know if I am wrong that the “rational restrictive zoning” approach is not a defacto ban, because if that is not where we are headed then we are much further down the road to accommodate and appease the wind developers and now we are in the realm of talking larger turbine numbers and where. 

Now everybody gets this right?  Once you drop prohibition you are now solidly on the developer’s playing field using laws and systems that the developer has control over.  This needs to be clear, because the laws and the legislature, the DEC, the AG the A-10 siting board and the system and SEQR and permits etc etc etc  are not there to protect you.  They in fact were basically designed by the corporations and lobbies for the corporations. Any bets how that is going to turn out???   That is a critical point to understand as you buy into the “not to burdensome legally defensible approach”.  If you don’t get this then go to the previous post and listen to the video by Richard Grossman, so you know what you are dealing with.  You must understand that you are dealing with BP, the 4^th largest overall corporation on the planet and the 3^rd largest oil company on the planet.  So who do think owns and makes the rules in this rational legally defensible wind law game? What do you think it actually means when BP project manger Peter Gross says they are going to “educate” the county and town board?  Yeah I bet they will!  That is a threat, not a debate.

So what is left? Basically a supposed “legally defensible wind law” which is actually a defacto ban, OR you start appeasing by allowing some number of turbines somewhere in the town to which BP won’t cry foul and sue you..  I am told the town board and committees are run by smart people.  I would agree.  In fact I think they are smart enough to know that the defacto ban looks good on paper but will not hold up in court either against BP and a rabid pro wind State since the end result is NO turbines just like a ban.  And I am guessing they are smart enough to know that BP (who is actually the entity that matters here, not the State) is not going to be happy with anything unless it approaches something akin to the full project proposal currently on the table so it’s a financially viable project in their eyes.  Oh they might hedge some turbines here or there to look like they are being warm and fuzzy to community public input and concerns. Like I said the board and the committees are smart, and this is not rocket science.

So that is what you have left if you are truly worried about a legal challenge is basically appease the developer so he won’t go ballistic, and as far as I am concerned and what would seem rational to appease BP is going to mean many more turbines than you are banking on…which may have been ZERO for some of you.  Well just as a prohibition is not going to happen neither is the ZERO number no mater how you try to fool people to reach it, so we better stop talking ZERO and start seriously discussing numbers, and where.  Once you step away from the NO line you are now somewhere on the compromise side no matter how much you try to disguise it.  Once you are there you can’t just get a little bit pregnant! You start thinking differently with a
”we can’t win” attitude, and you are done!  From there it is just a matter of slick negotiation and leverage and suddenly you are all the way pregnant! It’s compromise creep, once you give in you have a completely different mind set.  So what’s the compromise that in reality ACTUALLY keeps BP and the State off our backs legally? Keeping in mind it is clear they both want a lot of turbines to meet their goals.  That is the number that our board and our zoning committee are probably figuring out on their own but not telling you?  I have had discussions with a very educated and in touch person on these matters and when pushed and squeezed for a number they say very reluctantly maybe 25 or so could be the magic number.  I say more like 40 to 60 and pushed back as far from the CV shore as is feasible. You don’t see many small wind farms.  I seriously doubt 5 to 10 turbines is going to fly, or even 20. Supervisor Hirschey is after all on an industrial development board.  He is not clueless to the reality of how this will ultimately have to work, just like his associate former NY Senator Jim Wright who sat on the NY senate energy committee, and whose campaign donation list reads like the who’s who of wind energy including Enron!!! 

  Well I could be wrong, but I think we are headed for a lot more turbines than ZERO.  Why?  Because the town and the zoning committee can claim a great carefully considered compromise by saying they did their best and it was all they could do with Article X.  We had over 200 + turbines proposed for the immediate CV Lyme area at one time.  Then it became 138 as both developers reduced their projects, and that number has stuck for a couple years now.  If the committee does a law that allows 40 to 60 turbines pushed well back from all CV shorelines it can be claimed they reduced the last project number by over 60%!!! How could anybody be unreasonable and ask for more than that.  The projects have been more than halved for God sakes!!!   They give protections to the rest with a property value assurance guarantee.  I think that is why all the hoopla over a  PVA.  And those Acciona lease holders that got thrown under the bus??? Well don’t worry maybe BP will throw you a bone in a modest yearly payment to keep you happy and quiet since you are now effectively in a river and lake conservation district to protect the prime tax base of the town. Not only that, it can be claimed that the town is going to get a great PILOT deal for this compromise too!! Maybe we even could get community participation in the BP project for a few more allowed turbines.  Man this is a sweet deal!!!!

Hey, if we are not going to talk prohibiting turbines , then we have to get real and start talking about other options, you can’t have it both ways, and this is where I think this could be going if the prohibit route is already DOA…which it apparently is.

                                               So let's start talking numbers and places.

                               If we aren't going to prohibit them then where do you think

                         industrial wind turbines should go in Cape Vincent, and how many???

This Photo is Absolute 100% Proof Positive!!!!

I am fascinated today by the reasoning over on the JLL blog with a post  that claims you can’t ban wind turbines.  So let’s look at it a little more.  

If you want to see just  how screwy the logic gets by JLL to defend the “zoning is responsible approach”, look at this picture that was posted on JLL in his post on not banning turbines. 

According to Wiley at JLL this is all the 100% proof positve

we need to show that prohibiting turbines will not work!

Yup...I'm convinced!!!! Wow that was easy!!!

Well that convinces me for sure, and there it is folks, proof 100% positive that a ban won’t work because of this sign.  No more questions please!!!  Of course he doesn’t explain where this picture is from or the circumstances.  Just because a person has a no turbine sign in his yard doesn’t mean that his local town board attempted to ban wind turbines.  But JLL wants you to make that giant leap in thinking (without thinking) to try to discredit those of us who think prohibiting wind turbines is the right direction. Maybe this person was against turbines and his town actually allowed turbines, or in fact tried the “reasonable zoning approach”, that Wiley promotes and that is why turbines are in the background.  Like Maple Ridge.  We have no concrete information one way or the other about the circumstance of this picture. But for Wiley apparently this photo is absolute proof positive that a ban won’t work. Does Mr. Wiley really think is readers are that gullible or stupid!!! Frankly this is an insult to any fair minded intelligent person seeking information trying to sort out the wind issue in CV and it is why you need to be very careful reading JLL. It’s also why I opened this blog.

In fact Wiley with his disconnected propaganda photo

is using the same tactic as this wind company propaganda photo.

 A pretty little girl with small wind turbines in the background. Geee those turbines can’t be bad for anybody if this cute little girl can play under them…right?  OR...Geee this town tried to ban turbines, see the sign says so and is proof positive …right?  Unless Wiley can back the photo with facts it is pointless propaganda just like the wind developers put out.   So when did we start using wind developers tactics to promote our new zoning laws?  And this is the guy we should be considering as credible when he says  prohibiting turbines won’t work.  This is a guy using this type of manipulative propaganda who is a defacto representative of the Hirschey govt and their “ reasonable zoning approach.”  I think I will continue to be a bit skeptical of JLL and his judgment.  Of course Wiley knows a lot about bans, because that is what he does to some commenters on a regular basis! JLL has been relentlessly pounding on the extreme negatives of industrial wind for a long time.  Ironically his NO turbine sign picture could actually be a representation of his exact blog mantra!

Now let me show you a picture I actually took, the circumstances of which I know a lot about in detail, because I was actually there.  This picture is Nextera’s Perrin Ranch Wind Complex north of Williams AZ, about 30 miles from my house.

  I was somewhat involved in the opposition to this complex, and attended several hearings and interacted with the opposition.  The opposition are wonderful well educated responsible people with impressive facts and research and presentations for our county boards.  In their hearts they really didn’t want the wind complex near their homes.  However, they decided to take the “reasonable” approach and tried to work with our county and the developer. I warned them this could backfire badly on them and they might as well fight against it outright.  They did not ask for turbines to be prohibited and as a result talked themselves right into a massive 62 turbine complex near their homes, exactly what they did not want. 

Here is a quote from their website, and I feel very badly for them and the end result!

CCCRRE is not against wind energy, but is for responsible renewable energy in this area. Wind Energy is not the answer to our renewable energy needs here in Northern Arizona. It is a WASTE of TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

 They found out the hard way the law and the system doesn’t work for them, it is rigged for the developer, and when you engage in that approach all you do is enable the developer.  So look at the picture again…because unlike Wiley’s little mind bending manipulation it represents the truth about the “reasonable” approach.  Now that is a picture you can bank on!

And here is a quote from Mr. Urban Hirschey our Cape Vincent Town Supervisor on TV when a  reporter asks him something about the election being an anti wind victory:

“ That’s not fair…I am not against wind, just the improper placement of turbines.”

Funny isn't it...that the mantra is to fight wind energy by starting out saying you are not against wind energy. That is REAL interesting logic.  And Wiley and crew would like you to think I am the one who is irrational.  YIKES!!!

Then Wiley says this at the end of his post.

“As a result of their efforts our  well thought out and research-driven town’s laws will stand a better chance in court compared to the legislating of a ban on wind turbines.  A ban would stand a better chance of being overridden in the courts as being overly burdensome to the State’s Article X siting board.”

Oh I see…and your approach which will also eliminate turbines through zoning is NOT going to be looked at as “overly burdensome” ?  When are you people going to wake up?  It’s the same damn thing in the end result! You can put as much lipstick on your pig as you want but the court and A-10 board are not stupid. They are going to figure out that it is still a pig! 

And once again Wiley tries to manipulate his readers into thinking that those of us who want to prohibit turbines would do it without any research, data or evidence to make our case. Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact he and K at Pandora’s blog use the same exact organized language to marginalize us by saying we are just having a “NO wind hissy fit”.

I was researching this stuff a couple years before Wiley ever opened his mouth on his blog., and have been fighting and researching industrial wind on both sides of the country and have seen the results. I guess he thinks that he and the town board and zoning committee are the only ones with a lock on data and rational research.

In the end I like to look at performance. So let’s test drive the facts in this debate and see how they hold up. It is amazingly simple. It appears the areas that take the reasonable “not overly burdensome” approach are the very places now hosting massive invasive industrial wind complexes.  Just look across the River. So of the areas or towns faced with wind development, which ones actually didn’t end up with wind development?  Well that would be the towns that actually prohibited turbines, like Henderson, Brandon, Malone, Meredeth, etc etc.  So if you are actually really intent on ridding your community of invasive wind development, it appears the very approach that Wiley is ranting against is the one that actually works!

An apology to my readers that this post had to be edited several times as you may have been reading on Tue. night.  I was having posting and editing problems.

Prohibit Industrial Wind Turbines or Don't?

Here is an interesting quote from the CV blog JLL in regards to the work of the zoning committee now underway.

"Fortunately, the new members of the Town of Cape Vincent did not get caught up in and fall into the industrial wind ban approach and have a history of thinking the same as other legal opinions.  As a result there is no documented history of our town board charging the committees to deliver them a comp plan and a zoning law that would ban wind turbines from our community."

Whoa!!!!Well that certainly begs the question of what the hell are they going to do with them?  Should we then have a comp plan and zoning that allows industrial turbines?  Is that where this is going??? Anybody else scratching their head like me, considering that these blogs promoted the recent election victories as anti wind victories. But now we don't want to be anti wind, and those people who are, are  lone RADICAL VOICES.

Frankly you are being fed a lot of happy horse poop!!!

And once again R Wiley at JLL would like to lead his readers by the nose to believe that saying NO to turbines will be based on some irrational NIMBY hysteria of myself and others.  He trys very hard to keep you from the truth that a prohibition of industrial wind turbines would be based on the EXACT same data, research and evidence that would support the zoning setback approach, an approach that in the end would also PROHIBIT TURBINES!!!!  Or would it?  Maybe somebody should ask that question of Wiley, but I doubt he will answer, because it exposes the inane logic.  In fact it's actually much more rational than Wiley on his blog hammering for years on the invasive excessive negatives of industrial wind, and then falling for some legal scheme to appease the State and their wind clients. And this is responsible and rational?  Seems to me it would be more rational to use the SAME evidence Wiley posts over and over and over and over on his blog to reach a rational conclusion to say NO. And frequently you see commenters on the JLL blog who say they want BP to go away or that we should prohibit turbines.

But JLL and Pandora's are manipulating and distorting information to get you to think a certain way, right up to the point they will  ban alternative views. And why s that???  Wiley admits he has an agenda, but has not explained it, so be careful. Mine is open and easy to understand. At Pandora's her husband has  now been appointted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Hirschey govt.  As far as I am concerned it makes any of her comments on zoning or the current CV government and it's actions completely biased no longer credible.

She even posted the "Let's All Get Along," which is or was right on the Town Website,  Not sure who wrote it or who is controlling who.

Notice I have supported both blogs by listing them on my blog.  Notice also you won't see my blog listed on theirs.  Why?  They don't want you to find a place with an alternative view. God forbid you should think for yourself without Wiley.  They want to control the discussion.  And these are the same people who will banter on about open and transparent govt blah blah blah!!!

And did you ever notice that during previous wind zoning attempts that these two blogs were all over those committees with good detailed reporting, and harsh examination. Not so with this zoning committee.  Look at JLL's post on the committee work today. Nothing but vague analysis and blind support.  Neither blog reports much on this.  Keeping in mind that this zoning committee has been at it now for almost 5 months if you count the draft work that probably went on as soon as the elections were won by Hirschey and crew, or maybe even sooner.

So ask yourself, after all this time what do you really know about what these committees  are doing or the discussion or what direction are they taking? Wiley says that they are not to ban industrial turbines. Well gee that is comforting!!!  What are they deciding on how to deal with wind development?  According to Wiley who admits to an agenda which he never clearly defines, it's all wonderful and not to worry.  Seems like I have heard that before...Oh that's right, that is what Enron said just before they created a huge financial disaster and went belly up as their accountant was shedding paper!!!

Yup and don't worry because Wiley is going to let us know the minute he sees something he doesn't like about the committee's work.  That is of course by his criteria, and assuming it meets HIS agenda.  I wouldn't hold your breath!!!

The Most Important Video You Will Ever Watch About What is Really Going on in Cape Vincent and Our Country as A Whole.

Video link;   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTpGzdc3ZFI&feature=related

The last two posts you see here with videos is not something you are going to see on the other Cape Vincent blogs. As the famous movie line goes..."They can't handle the truth!!!" They don't want you thinking about this stuff, as they rabidly support our new towns board's attempts to appease the State and the wind corporations. They don't want you to ask any questions like Grossman is suggesting.  When you view this video, consider what Grossman is saying, and consider it in the context of what we have observed and experienced in the corporate wind battle in CV over the last 7 years. Anything sound familiar? It IS CV! And sadly Grossman is talking about mainly US corporations and their corporate Constitutional rights or "false personhood".  Then consider that the giant corps we are dealing with are not even American, they are foreign and will be granted US corporate Constitutional rights as if they are US citizens. If you watch this video closely it will probably make you uncomfortable as the truth unfolds.  But consider it carefully as to why it is so important to say NO to industrial wind in CV, rather than attempt to appease with laws and a process the corps ultimately control.

In the video there is this very interesting quote:

"Our thinking has been channeled...We don't talk about what we really want...we think about, maybe this is the best we can do!"

And finally after you view the video go back and see the anon comment left under the Abbott and Costello post, and see if it demonstrates any of what Grossman is saying about how we think on this issue.

Critcally Important Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund Video

 Please view the important video at this link by Mari Margil of CELDF. 

Close your eyes and she could be talking about Cape Vincent right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGhErNWLek

This is our community and we should say NO to invasive

coroporate industrial wind development, to properly protect it.

It's an Abbott and Costello Routine! Who's On 1st? - No Turbines? Or No Turbines?

We tend to look at the Cape Vincent wind zoning issue from a now front position and what we need to do now in zoning.  Well let’s look at it from the back end. What is the end result? 

It’s about a year in the future.  Person A and person B are residents of Cape Vincent.

Now for the purpose of our story let’s say these persons live in parallel universes.  Person A in their universe convinced the CV Town Board to legislate a direct prohibition on industrial wind turbines using extensive research of the numerous negative impacts to make a case that wind development was not appropriate for CV. The board agreed.

Person B in their parallel universe takes the exact same research to the CV Board, and makes a case that turbines are not appropriate for CV, and tells the board they should use the research to develop tough protective zoning setbacks, sound restrictions, bird protections height restrictions etc, that when applied to wind development in CV will essentially make it nearly impossible for any industrial wind development. The board in this universe agrees too.

Now both A and B’s universes collide a year from now and they meet on a road in the CV interior.  So what do they see?  Nothing out of the ordinary.  What they don’t see is industrial wind turbines in all directions within the CV town limits.

Why?  Because the result of both A and B’s work have yielded the EXACT SAME END RESULT, NO industrial wind turbines in the Cape Vincent town limits one way or the other.  Well who does that matter to?  It’s going to matter to BP that’s who!  The mantra being passed around is that all this must pass a legal test in the State courts and with a Article X siting board, and essentially that is the wrong target. Some feel the restrictive zoning setback approach is somehow miraculously going to pass muster in that respect, even though it yields the exact same no wind development in CV result. But what about BP and their deep pockets? Think they matter?  Problem is, as far as BP is concerned they aren’t going to split hairs on this legal issue. They could give a damn HOW the turbines were prohibited, because either way it knocks them out of one of the best wind resources in NYS, and cuts into their profit margin. The end result for them is all the same either way.

Who are we trying to kid here?  Somehow some people have bought into this screwy logic that one method of dealing with wind  turbines though a grocery list of setbacks and restrictions that will actually prohibit turbines is somehow more respectable and legally palatable than a more direct approach using the same data that does EXACTLY the same thing…actually prohibits wind turbines.  Legally palatable to whom?  Do you really think BP is going to roll right over and say…”Yup., all those setbacks were developed on very logical research and we agree this was a legally rational approach we can’t fight.”

This reminds me of an old Abbott and Costello routine.  “Who’s on 1^st…NO turbines.  Well who’s on 2^nd…NO turbines…yeah but who is on 3^rd…NO turbines.  But it’s all the same”…EXACTLY!!!!!

If you think you can duck a legal challenge with this lame routine you better wake up because it’s a fantasy.  What many of you are missing is that Cape Vincent is not only a profit potential for wind developers.  It has become a wind industry AND a corporate control game, with a HUGE prize attached.  All the big wind issues are right here. A big regional organized opposition, birds and bats, other habitat issues, very well known beautiful scenic resources protected by a comp plan and zoning,  sound issues, home rule, a new unconflicted town board, State politics, and ethic, corporate Constitutional rights (the real issue here) and another big wind complex right across the river etc.  There is a lot riding on this one. Any wind victory in CV is a big win for BP, corporations and the wind industry. Therefore I think they will take a stand here and fight.    It’s a fight either way as I see it and you are not going to deflect them with a zoning setback magic trick. And get real, because we are shooting at the wrong target…because they and their wind developers buddies ARE the ones that matter and that you are trying to fool. Who do you think lobbied Article X into place?

 So we should stand once and for all for what many of us really want, and that is real control over our community and our destiny with dignity  by taking it away from corporation dominance to do as they please, any time and anywhere they want.  We do that by taking a stand and prohibiting wind turbines outright with all the same relevant data and research.  We say NO to the lobbyists and the State and BP and corps and not shrink to some legal appeasement scheme that isn’t going to keep us out of court anyhow, in desperate hopes it will make wind developers go away without trying to convince everybody that they are ENTITLED to the prize. WE take control. Yet now suddenly we are taking advice from a law firm who represents large real estate developers, and taking advice from two politicians that represent the very State that has been lobbied by energy giants into a rabid green agenda to support wind development.

Geeee…I don’t know do ya think we might want to be just a little suspicious of that advice!!! 

And for those of who think we should always be deferring to the expert advice of lawyers…well have you been keeping track of the advice the lawyers have given the wind opposition like WPEG in CV over the wind battle years.  Not exactly spectacular results based on the fact that every law suit has been lost!!!  WHO was also a big legal firm…wanna follow their advice that was basically to throw the local and State ethics laws under the bus?

The Infinite Number of Monkeys Theory

There has been a lot of bantering about the new NYS Article X law that centralizes the siting of electric power plants with the State, with the possibility of pre-empting local zoning laws and land use goals that appear too restrictive or burdensome to power plant siting. This includes industrial wind complexes.  What is disturbing is the State has everybody running in complete fear on this issue.

 I have also heard it discussed for some time now that any zoning law or comprehensive plan can not be so restrictive such that it would not stand a legal challenge by the State or wind developers. In other words you can’t just prohibit a use outright, we must use the legal challenge criteria now as the driving force in what we decide about our land use goals, instead of first deciding to protect the beauty and uniqueness of our treasured scenic resources as the leading criteria.  There is a lot of screaming about giant corporations dominating our lives in Cape Vincent.   So why are we giving them the exact tools they need to carry out that domination of our community and lives, and we are doing it from a basis of fear alone.  If the legal challenge test and fear are the new criteria for land use; if I were a wind developer I think I would simply say up front.  “Look…accept our total proposal or we are going to sue the living crap out of you!”

Well this is an interesting approach, since it essentially negates much of the community’s expression for what it wants for long term land use goals and protections, and limits how committed we can be in protecting the natural scenic resources we hold so precious.  It in fact hands the corporations on a silver platter the domination they seek. I would call this the developers/lobbyists/lawyers law approach.  In essence this approach says that every hair brained absurd developer scheme that comes along with good lobbyists, and lawyers like industrial wind development must be considered and accepted in some form since we can’t even whisper that we might actually prohibit it. And since we as a community with treasured scenic resources are not lawyers and lobbyists, why are we buying into this approach?   Think about this for a moment.  If we can prohibit nothing because it’s too radical or restrictive then what are we left with?  Not much, only the facade of control to make us feel good.  Just like in rock climbing, placing a piece of protection that is very sketchy does nothing other than give psychological protection, but you may feel better seeing it there…but just don’t fall!!  It’s like the infinite number of monkeys theory.  A group of protections that are bad, or only symbolic, added together still don’t make one good protection whether it be climbing or land use.    We are left with having to accept in some form or another nearly everything proposed and throw around a bunch of meaningless hollow regulations hoping for the best. In reality we actually will be getting very close to the pro wind lease holder mantra that “you can’t tell me what to do on my land”.  Effectively with this approach they will be right!!!   That is not zoning, that is simply land use chaos ruled by corporations, lawyers, and lobbyists and their profit margins, and the people they can scam.  This has absolutely no meaning for the protection of the things like scenic resources that are of such high value to us personally and defines our community   This is exactly where the developers want us to be.   It’s ironic that everybody is panicked about home rule being taken away by the State. However, by accepting this “we can’t prohibit” approach, you are giving it away anyhow under this scheme.  I think we all need to realize that if you are really worried about your community and the pre-emption of home rule and local zoning, that to keep it under these circumstances you shouldn’t immediately give in to that force and thereby enable it and give it even more power.

COAX is on the right track to oppose Article X.  But we must add to that more and more communities willing to actually prohibit what they don’t see as appropriate land uses for their community, especially wind

Finally, here is a portion of the description of the law firm our Cape Vincent Town Board has hired to guide us through the new zoning process.  This comes from the firm’s Website:

" The firm enjoys the highest reputation both in legal skill and client service, the result of which is the representation of many of the largest and most dynamic real estate developers in the upstate New York real estate market."

                                           Well this ain't just any real estate my friends!!!

I guess I can understand why this legal defense first approach is being suggested by this firm and away from prohibiting wind development as a protection. I'm sure after representing  some of the largest real estate developers in the upstate market that they would not suggest to our zoning committee or town board to prohibit anything!!

This seems like an interesting choice of legal representation if we are trying to protect our unique scenic treasures from development. Assuming that is what is happening.

We are running around in a panic over Article X, hoping to develop laws that are not too restrictive as a protection, or at least don't appear that way, in some circus magic act of logic trying to appease the State and wind developers, and at the same time being represented by a law firm that has large developers as it's biggest clients. 

But drift off to sleep my friends...eeeeeverything is going to be OK!!! 

Industrial Wind Turbines Beautiful??? - Money is in the Eye of the Beholder!

Two Scenic Icons on Different Sides of the Country

Battling Against Industrial Wind Turbine's "Beauty"

The 12,000 ft. San Francisco Peaks of N. AZ.  A scenic icon of much of N. AZ.

The new Perrin Ranch Wind Complex about 30 miles west of Flagstaff, AZ

The historic and scenic Tibbets Point Light House, at the  junction of Lake Ontario and the

St. Lawrence River in Cape Vincent, NY.  The Wolfe Is. Wind Complex across the River.

A discussion of our land use documents can not avoid the question of aesthetic judgment. Is it really simply a matter of personal taste involving industrial wind turbines or is there a consensus?  If there is no consensus then our entire Cape Vincent land use document’s themes would be almost pointless since they rely so heavily on scenic preservation  They clearly make an aesthetic judgment and negate the idea that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.  As we introduce turbines into the land use equation the question is magnified.

Let’s first look at our region. It is clearly recognized by people around the world as one of significant natural beauty.   That is evidenced by the choice millions of people make to come here to vacation, or live to enjoy the scenery.  We have a numerous state parks in the area, as well as the Canadians have determined some of the 1000 Islands as so significant they designated some islands as a national park. Typically this type of park designation by governments is at least in part recognition of unique natural beauty. So it is well established that our region is host to spectacular natural scenic resources, and governments on both sides of the border have taken significant steps to ensure access to it.  There apparently is a consensus that our region has natural beauty. Apparently a lot of “beholders eyes” see it that way too.

What evidence do we have, however that wind turbines might not be a beautiful enhancing asset to our community and region.  Most people claiming wind turbines are beautiful are being directly or indirectly compensated in some way or aligned with family or friends that are, or will benefit from the development of wind energy which biases their claim.  It has been pretty well established by credible sources that industrial wind turbines harm property  values, which has a great deal to do with the negative viewshed disruption. Even pro wind sources like NYSERDA, and the NYDEC agree that the visual impact needs to be studied and mitigated.  If turbines were universally recognized as beautiful by a majority, why raise this question or concern at all. Why the need for visual studies and mitigation? This makes no sense if turbines are that beautiful. The developers are even admitting to the visual disruption and trying to compensate communities as a result.  You know, a new clock on the fire house will fix it!!  For example, we don’t find a need to mitigate the scenic views in our community or suggest the views of majestic mountains in our national parks need mitigation or study to reduce their impacts. We aren’t planting trees along a highway or in our yards so people won’t see a spectacular mountain or lake view.  From this a logical conclusion can be reached that wind turbines are more disruptive visually to many people than they are beautiful.

What else?  Scenic areas draw large numbers of people who want to reside, or vacation surrounded by natural beauty. They value a beautiful unchanged natural landscape. In my area it’s a big advertised selling point if private land backs national forest, or a national park or monument, or state forest.  I have seen no evidence that an area dominated by industrial wind turbines creates such a desirable aesthetic quality that it is specifically sought out for peace of mind, or even investment, based on demand. I don’t think I have ever seen land for sale advertised as “backing up to the view or industrial wind turbines”  

Small numbers of people may come as a curiosity, but no one or group that I know of is flocking to build vacation condos or set up state or national parks near or under wind turbines because they are beautiful and are sought after for the same qualities as a undisturbed aesthetic landscape. It is industrial turbine’s overwhelming dominance of the natural landscape which in the end reduces the natural beauty or scenic vistas of an area.  It’s a matter of being so badly out of context to the natural surroundings. Although wind turbines may be interesting for a short term view, as a technological curiosity, or in the short term have an interesting and somewhat graceful sweep to the blade rotation, their long term presence on the landscape is a different matter and does not relate to or enhance traditional natural beauty concepts. And I might consider the Mona Lisa or other art work beautiful, but I still don’t want it dominating a window that has a beautiful scenic view outside, nor would I want 100 Mona Lisas hanging in my house.  There is a place and time for such things.

The pictures below are from the famous industrial wind turbine complexes near Palm Springs, CA.  Many of these turbines are abandoned as others are going up.  Funny thing...when we were there I didn't see any evidence of people flocking to this turbine area  for a long term vacation or high quality property, or homes being sold with signs saying. "Very Desirable Property... Backs By Beautiful Wind Turbines !!!"

Where are the vacation condos and high quality homes?????

Palm Springs is a prime example of what wind developers will do if you give them the rope!

In addition the argument always comes down to, or is neutralized by opinion. When the wind turbine subjective beauty argument is posed by wind proponents, it’s as if it is automatically 50/50 argument on the beauty of turbines, where no majority can be established and thus no one is right.  But this illogically leads to a premise that because this 50/50 may be so, it is therefore concluded by proponents that we must automatically accept the significant visual impacts with no further question and is rational for action to develop in their favor.

This completely negates 50% of the equal arguments the other way, that turbines are not beautiful.  What about the people who don’t find wind turbines beautiful? If it was truly a 50/50 deadlock as might be suggested by wind proponents, then in reality the rational thing to do would be basically do or change nothing in an argument that can not be won, one way or the other. Similar to a deadlock in government where no majority can be established so no action is taken. But we tend to defer to the argument that beauty is completely subjective and must therefore defer to wind turbines being erected. We need to stop deferring to this stance.  There is after all a lot of evidence that a majority of people do not find wind turbines beautiful or appropriate in the landscape, especially in sensitive scenic areas. This evidence also comes in the polarization of many communities over visual impacts where wind turbines are proposed. The evidence comes in the fact that even pro wind sources admit to the objections, and visual impacts and go to long lengths to marginalize or compensate for them, right down to their manipulated visual simulations that specifically try to lessen the impacts.  Initially Acciona in their first visual study even omitted the largest impact areas from their document, such as views from the River looking over water inward toward their project, for obvious reasons.  They knew it wasn’t “pretty” and knew a large portion of the public might object in such a scenic area. But wait, turbines are beautiful so what’s the problem?

It’s really a matter of context and significant character change.  Do wind turbines, beautiful as some claim on there own, fit the context of a spectacularly and traditionally accepted beautiful viewscape.  I believe the answer is obviously no and has evidence as you have seen to back it.  If it wasn’t, then why wouldn’t we be accepting wind turbines as a natural and sought after enhancement to our treasured national park vistas, or to our other nationally recognized scenic vistas? Why aren’t 1000 Island towns rushing out to find wind developers to enhance the beauty of our region, and bring in hoards of people to buy homes next to turbines? In fact the opposite is the case. Efforts are often enacted to keep large winds turbines from visually impacting theses places.  It is simple, because a majority of rational citizens understand the negative visual impacts of industrial wind development, and in the end, so does our own land use documents.  If you have detailed regulations for smaller scale flags and signs, as Cape Vincent zoning does, it borders on irrational to not recognize the vast visual impacts of massive industrial machines wide spread through a community as unacceptable for that community. However, the pro wind argument is also made that our energy and climate needs are so urgent we must simply ignore the all the impacts of wind turbines for the greater good.  This is the final emotional end run around the visual impact question.  Well OK…is there really a greater good?  Wind turbines produce very low capacity factors in the range of  20 – 25% even in good wind resources.  So the over all environmental question becomes, why would we sacrifice the significant scenic resources of our region, knowing up front by clear real world evidence that as a result of that sacrifice of our beautiful area, the return will be that nearly 80% of the capacity of the wind development will not even  be available when averaged annually and we can’t even reasonable predict the availability of the remaining 20%..        80%!!!!!!

This is an insane environmental decision from an aesthetic protection view point. It is neither responsible management of our energy and climate problems, or a responsible government reaction to it, and is not for the greater good with such low return in exchange for such high environmental risks and impacts. If we sacrifice our long range land use goals, we will have to live with that reckless decision for many decades, and it may be an irreversible decision.

Even GE, a large manufacturer of wind turbines, recognizes that industrial wind turbines are not always an appropriate development from an aesthetic view point. . A quote from the section on aesthetics related to siting wind turbines from the GE paper “A Case for Wind”

“There will always be, and should always be, places where wind turbine development is off-limits when aesthetic and other environmental issues cannot be overcome. However, with the limited choices for cleaner energy sources, these decisions should be made with the public good in mind.”

And we have already established that there is very little public good in wind energy or placing it in such a visually sensitive area for such paltry return.

              Wind Mill Tours????? 

      Palm Springs, Ca. One of the industrial

     wind turbine capitals of California.

It doesn’t appear that the significant beauty of wind turbines is enticing people to flock to this wind mill tour business!!! You would think that if so many people found wind turbines so captivating and beautiful, this parking lot would be full and the business would be booming.  Compare this to the demand for our local boat tour businesses, state parks, marinas, or the Tibbets Pt. Lighthouse etc.  There is no comparison, and the “wind turbines are beautiful for the majority myth” is just that…a myth, and this myth propagated by a minority for short term gain, and wind developers for big gains on our tax dollars should not dictate the long range land use policies in our community and region, which is recognized by a true majority and , backed by our land use documents, as beautiful, This unique regional quality should be protected and remain that way. 

                                                                And Finally

Many of the wind turbines I saw at Palm Springs had long oil and grease streaks running down the towers,  like the one in the picture below.  This seems to be common as they age, and I have seen it on more modern turbines as well.   I don't find a 400 ft industrial tower with rotating blades and flashing strobe lights...AND oil and grease streaks running almost to the ground as a monument to "beauty" !

Get Real!!!!!

It's about time we get serious in Cape Vincent and face reality and stop crapping

around with zoning setbacks as if this is going to solve our wind development problems! 

Passive Solar - ( Today Passive Polar! )

As some of you know I live in a passive solar house with traditional utilities as back up.  The bank required the traditional utilities or I couldn't get a mortgage loan.  Apparently the banks get it about renewable energy, and won't take the risk.  But today Flagstaff has received over a foot of snow and more is coming. This is good because otherwise we would have a terrible forest fire hazard come spring and early summer. 

 Sheriff's Search and Rescue patrol evacuating homes in front of a large forest fire near Flagstaff, AZ.

Miraculously no homes were lost.

But today the traditional utilities are running (natural gas) or the house would be "Passive Polar"   And so it goes with renewable energy.  Not always reliable. Just like commercial wind energy.  But when it's sunny, which is a lot of the time here, the passive solar works great, and makes sense for this area, yet still not as many people as could or should take advantage of it.  Don't think either passive solar or active solar would be very cost effective or efficient in Cape Vincent, so based on my experience I find it real interesting that NYS is talking solar a lot lately.

Beauty - Who Makes the Call?

On the JLL blog R. Wiley wrote a post recently about protecting our local St. Lawrence River viewshed from industrial wind development. This is something I have also been saying we should do since 2006 when this wind controversy started, and do it using our zoning and comprehensive plan as the basis for that viewshed protection. I also believe the only rational approach that actually gives the maximum protection is to prohibit industrial wind  turbines altogether.  This is the only way to address a land use so visually invasive and dominating that traditional zoning setbacks fail.   Wiley is quoted below.

“I have been doing exactly that by staying in constant contact with the progress of both the comp plan committee and the zoning ordinance committee. I also have been staying in contract with other individuals who have been doing the same. If at any point I thought those committees were not preparing town plans that were not protecting what we have here on the St. Lawrence and in the very best way you would certainly hear about it from me.”

Well good for you Mr. Wiley I am glad you seem to know exactly what the collective community aesthetic taste is and will let us  know if it is violated!!  Of course that depends on two things and seems just a bit arrogant to me. First, what would Wiley’s and his friend’s standards be for protecting the viewshed?  Would they be different from yours and mine?  I guess he makes the assumption he knows the answer to that question and we should just trust him.  Of course then again there is another approach.  If he has the close inside track on the committees, and the people surrounding the committees, how about he present us with some concrete details of what the committees are actually doing in the area of viewshed protection and let us make up our own minds as to whether they are actually taking steps to protect the St. Lawrence viewshed.

Now gee there is a concept!!  

Not sure the zoning committee talking about a wind overlay district right out of the box falls under my definition of “ viewshed protection.”  And where are those protections going to be…along the waterfront and around the village where Wiley lives?   Keep in mind that 4 of our town councilmen who will take the final vote on our new land use documents live either on the CV shore or in the village.   What about the CV interior? Maybe that is why an industrial zone is proposed for the

St. Lawrence Rd.

out to St. Lawrence Corners.  ( see my earlier post on this matter)  The CV interior is beautiful and should be protected as well.  Oh that’s right! Our Comp Plan actually talks about that on page 32 to protect the interior agricultural viewshed.

In my next post we will examine this question of beauty as it relates to industrial wind turbines in our area. Are turbines actually beautiful as some claim?  Where is the evidence?

Back From Wonderful Spring Desert Trip - Blog On!

Back to blogging about the Cape Vincent wind issue.   But first a few pics from a great desert camping / rock climbing trip in the Dragoon Mts. about an hour south of Tucson, AZ. 

This will lead me to some upcoming posts on the beauty of our 1000 Islands region and industrial wind turbines.

Dragoon Mts.  - Coronado Nat. Forest - Southern Arizona

Old Guy (me) Rock Climbing

My nephew leading a steep rock pitch.

My other nephew on lead on a very hard rock pitch.