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!!!