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?