Stand Up Against It - Or Enable It - That is the Basic Wind Zoning Question

   Why I fundamentally disagree with our Cape Vincent town
supervisor  Mr. Hirschey and the setback zoning approach.

Set backs did NOTHING to reduce the impacts of these turbines on Wolfe Island.

Photo by Rollin V. Hanson.  He may have captured the icon of the CV wind battle.

For those of you who have followed the Cape Vincent wind issue it’s not news that I have stood since 2006 for a zoning law amendment that would prohibit industrial wind turbines in Cape Vincent. Some may not agree with my abrasive approach, but quietly agree that they would like turbines prohibited as well.  They, for whatever reason, can’t seem to say it publicly.

This stance obviously puts me at the complete other end of the spectrum from the pro wind faction and I have fought hard against them.  But it also puts me at odds with what many would call the wind “opposition” or the wind “concerned” group led by our town supervisor Mr. Hirschey and three  members of our current town board.

The mantra from the Hirschey board, the committees, and other board members they have appointed is, you can’t outright prohibit industrial wind turbines.  They basically believe you have to “zone them out” with regulations so restrictive the developer will still have a CHOICE, but will walk away because those regulations will in the end preclude a viable project and investment for any wind developer. This is supposed to make you look “responsible and reasonable” in your zoning regulations for wind, and the hope is the Article X siting board and the courts will support this approach and let you “zone out” turbines, and everybody except the developer walks away happy campers.  It’s a big risk.  No less that prohibiting turbines.  In fact the “zone out” regulations might even make it such that no turbines could be placed at all. This is what many of the Hirschey supporters thought they were voting for.  This was all purposely kept very vague before the elections, and the emphasis was shifted away from the wind issue in specifics and onto the ethics, which had a broader voting appeal.  The mantra was that once elected and the ethics resolved everything else would take care of itself.  This and other tactics, like marginalizing anybody with a NO turbine approach as “crazy” kept any details of the wind issue nicely out of site.  This was also a mantra promoted by the local blogs since they both essentially became the propaganda arm of the Hirschey campaign.

So as I have pointed out before, even though a lot of Hirschey supporters are on the “zone out” band wagon and marginalized me for my NO wind approach, the end result of either actually on the ground,  if the Hirschey board doesn’t compromise further, will be exactly the same.  Both approaches in the end will prohibit turbines in CV.  That is what the Hirschey supporters will say when shoved far enough.

Some  people say to me,  “OK Pundt, why can’t you see reason and get on the “zone out” band wagon with Hirschey and his supporters?   Well first I am not convinced this is where Mr. Hirschey and his board are really going, but that is another discussion. Let’s assume the “zone out” approach is where we are going. So what is the difference? What’s the problem?

For me one big difference is the “zone out” approach negates an admission of many of the prime reasons we should not have industrial wind in CV, or as a national energy solution. Just look at the blogs JLL and Pandora’s’s to see the hundreds of times they have addressed these negatives of wind energy.  This zoning approach does not examine the science as to whether wind energy is a viable, reliable, consistent, source of energy.  It does not apply any science to whether wind energy will be a viable solution to our climate problems.  This approach does not address the question as to whether the American tax payer should shoulder a large part of this tax scam designed by Enron. As a result it does not address directly and honestly that our govt, and our community  should not be supporting this wind scam based on a terrible climate energy model, as well as a terrible business ethical model.  We should be saying NO to all of that.  Not YES if you can meet the setbacks.

Everybody is in a tizzy over bird and bat kills.  Well if we say wind energy is OK if you can meet our zoning laws…guess what… the bird kills go on.  Even if we allow a few turbines shoved as far toward Lyme as possible, they will still kill birds. Unless of course you kill birds everywhere else, just don’t do it here! So local zoning does not address the bigger bird and bat picture and take a real stand on it.  In fact Councilman Clif Schneider is not even supporting the three year moratorium he helped design for Save the River to study potential wind turbine regional bird kills.

In addition this zone out approach is far too provincial in nature.  The zone out approach does not directly address the question as to the responsibility we have to our beautiful unique scenic region.  In effect we are saying to the wind developers, Cuomo, and Obama and the whole green push hoopla that as long as you can meet the parameters of our local confined zoning laws, in our little corner of the world,  then we are otherwise OK with wind energy as an energy / climate solution supported by the tax payer.  And by the way, if you go to another town and put up your disaster it’s not our problem.  This is a serious regional energy and climate issue with people around the world focused on CV and how we react and what we do.  I believe we have an obligation to stand up and tell everyone including Cuomo and Article X…NO, this is a disaster and we will not support it here or anywhere. Unless of course we DO support it in some manner, and you will see what I mean in a minute.

This local  zone out approach  addresses mainly the physical negatives of wind energy like sound, ice throw bird kills etc. That is EXACTLY where the wind companies want you by the way.  Bickering over distances of dirt and NOT addressing the big wind energy negatives in your laws.  This way they can deflect those questions and keep it neatly confined to the local setback discussion, where they can win.  They do not want the world seeing that CV prohibited wind energy and set a vivid example on many levels for others to see. By doing anything else than a stance to prohibit, we endorse wind energy and the charlatan politicians and developers that support it.

Now do I have any evidence to support my claims that this is the basis of this current CV board approach?  That wind energy is OK on these other important levels as long as you comply with our local setback zoning laws.

Well let’s see, use the link to view the following video.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Cape-Vincent-Supervisor-Urban-Hirschey-Wins-Republican-Primary-129775248.html

As you can see from Mr. Hirschey's comments apparently the "proper placement" of wind turbines  means the wind turbine fiasco is acceptable on those much bigger questions of subsidies, reliability, and as a climate and energy solution as long as we have proper setbacks.  Now what is implied here is that if we plunck down these wind mosnsters out there in the open land, or the desert like near me in AZ or some other remote place, then it's all OK and everthing else doesn't matter.  Well out in the Lake is open space and won't impact people like turbines on land. They could even be put out of sight possibly. So are they OK there????  Maybe that is why the town board has passed no resolution to oppose wind development in the Lake???? Even the text report next to the video is contradictory calling Mr. Hirschey "anti-wind" when he clearly states he isn't. They weren't even sharp enough to follow up on the contradiction and seek the deeper story, although if you listen closely even the reporter seems to start to question his statement but gets cut off. .

And herein is the very fundamental difference between myself and Mr. Hirschey and his boards, supporters and committees and the blogs.  I DO NOT think wind energy is OK on some setback scheme level and I AM opposed to it very strongly.  I don’t think you make an effective or responsible statement against this wind disaster by passing laws that do not address the bigger picture and meekly say “it’s really OK  maybe if you can meet our setbacks”  and send out a message that wind energy despite the disaster it creates and its ineffectiveness is OK overall.    

Then you have Article X.  By bending over for the State we say the same thing.  “Gee basically we agree with you on this wind thing and will play ball, and here is our attempt to compromise with you your Majesty, and notice we did not oppose your edict on the big wind energy questions.”

Now what really boggles my mind is that the CV blogs support this BS.  Time after time over several years they rant against these big questions on wind energy, actually very effectively overall.  But in the end they rabidly support a board and a committee the takes this “wind is ok approach as long as you meet our setbacks” right up to the point of even blocking any comments from me that challenge that approach.   And Wiley at JLL thinks I am illogical  Go figure!!! 

I think we as a town and region should take a wider stance against this complete energy climate wind fiasco.  When Mr. Hirschey or his supporters promote this “wind energy is OK setback approach” we badly fail other communities and end up in effect endorsing the very thing we claim to want to rid ourselves of and I won’t go there!.

With this approach our local governments stick their heads in the setback sand and shrink from the  much bigger and actually more important question that I think they have a responsibility to answer, of whether this wind fiasco is even appropriate at ALL in any form, and in fact duck a critical responsibility of citizenship and democracy. Playing this political game  is exactly what helps  the wind industry and the politicians that support it perpetuate its scam a little longer with these town after town  tacit provincial setback endorsement schemes. We become the enablers.

As Mr. Hirschey in his TV comment points out...wind energy IS OK as long as we give it some setbacks.