Can The State Preempt Local Laws? - You might Not Like The Answer!

I was reading the Cape Vincent blog JLL this AM and came across this statement by Mr. Wiley.

Near the end of June, when it comes time to make comments and you listen to any comments from Voters for Wind,  keep in mind that British Petroleum has already complained to the PSC that Cape Vincent has the audacity to abide by New York State's constitution that declares that Cape Vincent has the right to home rule and has recently developed new laws. British Petroleum is saying it wants the right to take all home rule away from the citizens of Cape Vincent in the matter of local zoning and the protection of its citizens.

The underlining emphasis is mine.

That statement about Cape Vincent as a town and it's rights under the NY Constitution may not be completely accurate, so let's examine it a bit further.  This is not an attack on Wiley or his blog, but additional information needs to be looked at here...so let's do that.  If you are going to try to deal with this issue accurately we need to look at the realities.

In the wind battle when it comes to finding out what the State says about their laws and proceedures I have always found the NY Dept. Of State's technical papers series very instructive and easy to understand.  This is where I learned a great deal about how badly our previous wind conflicted govt. as puppets of the wind developers were distorting our laws to meet their wind conflicted ends. Probably the same stuff our town officers are required to read...or should.  Any zoning law we pass will ultimately have to be sent and filed  with the NY Dept of State.

Here is what one of the NY Dept. of State papers says about home rule and its restrictions, and preempting local laws.  It's called the  "Local Government Handbook."

You can find it at the link below.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf

Local law power is restricted where the subject of the local law is one considered to be of “state concern.” “Matters of state concern” is a phrase born in judicial opinions rather than in the Constitution or statutes. It is a term used by the courts to define what local governments may not accomplish by local law – in other words, what is not within their “property, affairs or government.” Matters of state concern are those of sufficient importance to require State legislation. If the matter is to a substantial degree a matter of State interest, it is considered  a matter of State concern, even if local concerns are intermingled with the State concerns.  Court cases construing the home rule grants have indicated that “state concern” includes such matters as taxation, incurring of indebtedness, education, water supply, transportation and highways, health, social services, aspects of civil service and banking. As a general principle, a local

government may not adopt a local law relating to a “matter of state concern” unless the Legislature has specifically granted such power by law; and   Local law power is restricted where the subject of proposed local law action has been preempted by the state. Preemption occurs when the State Legislature specifically declares its intent to preempt the subject matter, or when the Legislature enacts sufficient legislation and regulation so as to indicate an intent to exclude regulation by any other governmental entity. The courts have termed such indication intent to “occupy the field.”

Now you can damn well bet that "Powering NY"  is a "Matter of State Concern".  And you can damn well bet that since the wind developers have poured money into Cuomo's pocket and that of other state politicians, the wind industry's  and BP's corporate concerns to be able to freely rape our communities for profit is now also a "State Concern" requiring a limitation on home rule.  So much for our home rule "rights" under the NY Constitution!!!

 

In addition is a paper by Mr. Joe Stinson of Pace Law School on the same matter of home rule powers and restrictions.  You can find it at the link below.


http://www.celdf.org/downloads/New%20York%20State%20-The%20Home%20Rule%20Authority%20of%20Municipalities%20in%20Land%20Use%20Context.pdf

Interestingly enough it appears Stinson now is working at Osterman Whiteman and Hanna, the old Albany lawyers that Edsall found to rape our community.  But Stinson's evaluation follows the NY DOS explanations.

  Note the part above about "Dillon's Rule".  It is explained below by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. (CELDF)  These are actually the lawyers we should be working with if we are in any way serious about maintaining our rights as a community against corporate dominance.  Not some land lawyer from Syracuse who won't defend our scenic resources and whose firm has large corporate real estate developers as clients, then writing zoning laws on his advice!

"Dillon’s Rule," not a law but an opinion that bears its inventor’s name, has come to define the legal relationship between American municipal and state governments. It is derived from one of the judge’s decisions (Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R. R., 24 Iowa 455), handed down in 1868, and expanded upon in his 1872 book A Treatise on the Law of Municipal Corporations. (The book, which lays out the fundamental arguments for usurpation of community self-government by the Corporate State, is today all but unavailable to the public).
Dillon’s Rule maintains that each county, city, borough, town, and all political subdivisions of a state are connected to the state as a child is connected to a parent. Under this usurping concept, community governments are administrative extensions of the state and not elective bodies representing the right of the people to local self-governance. The Rule was fully adopted for nationwide application to local governments by the U.S. Supreme Court, by reference to Dillon’s book, in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents into one."

So what does it all mean???? It appears that the State can legally preempt local laws especially when they deem it a matter of "State Concern," or clearly state they intend to prempt local laws on an issue.  And this Dillon's Rule  decision plays into that.  CELDF also says this at the beginning of their paper on Dillon's Rule."Under today’s system of federal government in the United States, community self-government can fairly be said not to exist. After the American Revolution, a gradual legal redefinition of local government was begun that eventually consigned citizens living in their communities to the status of tenants within non-sovereign municipal corporations."

In essence we don't have the home rule control we may think we have, or Mr. Wiley implies we have.

Also"Corporations are today’s institutionalized embodiment of propertied privilege. For this reason, we need to understand that the emasculated governing authority of municipal corporations is equally important to the preservation and expansion of propertied privilege as are the judicially granted constitutional protections bestowed on private corporations (see CELDF’s Model Brief to Eliminate Corporate Rights on our web site). "

The bottom line here is what do we do about it?  Change the NY Constitution on home rule so we actually do have unlimited home rule?  That's not going to happen especially when the Supreme Court has recognized Dillon's Rule anyhow. Besides even if you could change the NY Constitution it would be far too late to deflect the wind mess in CV.

No it's not the time for a law solution, it needs a raw political one.  We should be raising holy hell for ever single State politicain that supported this A-10 nonsense and ensure they PAY for their approval of Article X.  The same applies Cuomo, especially if he runs for President.   We need to stand up and

What we should NOT be doing is writing letters that give endorsement to the A-10 process as if it is somehow valid and acceptable and give the impression we will play nice and play along, and give tacit approval to a process that has taken  away our rights as a community.  What we should NOT be doing is writing zoning or wind zoning in fear and panic over A-10, and hope the State an PSC don't spank us for standing up for the future of our communities.  I say SCREW THEM!!!!!

If we don't fight this we stand to lose BIG TIME!   

But we won't fight it because from our early education we have not been wired to fight in battles like this of corporate dominace.  We have been taught to play nice and write letters, and attend hearings, and speak politely at town  meetings etc etc etc, most of which are completely pointless in the face of power like BP to take whatever it wants.

Take a lesson.  Why did the origninal NYPA proposals from wind turbines in the lake fail? Because community and county after county along the lake said NO with resolutions.  That meant VOTES, and that made politicians  watching very nervous because one thing they do real well is COUNT THE DAMN VOTES!!!!  Same should apply now for us to protect our communities against the wind ouslaught on land.

If you want to write a letter write a letter DEMANDING the REPEAL of Article X.

Cape Vincent and the NNY towns, especially thiose facing the wind onslaught should be the poster children for a nasty political fight to oppose Artilce X.  We should be the focus of the opposition for that battle.

We should not be beggng for mercy under the process of Artilce X which is quickly taking our community rights away. as unified communities locally and throughout NY in passing resolutions outright opposing Article X, and stating will not abide by any A-10 siting board decision, and that our local laws will apply, and for any attempt to preempt our laws we will fight it and make it an overiding nasty political issue and there will be political hell to pay as a result.  Engage lots and lots of PR.  We should be hiring CELDF to assit us in forming a law to PROHIBIT industrial wind in our community.  Some communities have banned gas hydrofracking and they appear to have won those battles in the early going and we should join forces behind them related to wind power and home rule. 

Who Has The Burden Of Proof?

Then there is BP’s A-10 comments on zoning and who should have the burden of proof as to why the zoning should be adhered to or is not unduly burdensome, or is unduly burdensome.  Of course BP feels the town should have the burden of proof.   This is one more absurd distortion of zoning that the wind industry requires to force its bullshit on unsuspecting communities, and hoping we are stupid enough to suck into this zoning game that we can’t win.  

For example they take no responsibility for their visual impacts. They can’t because they already know how absurd and invasive the impacts will be.   

Normal zoning practices would say that if you cause a problem or disturbance, or health issue that YOU are responsible for the impact.  Like having a junkyard, it is up to YOU to screen it and reduce the impact by traditional zoning practices, or put your junk yard in a certain district away from other uses that could be impacted negatively.

 Not with wind energy. It needs a free ride from zoning. That has become part of its fight, and we should not be in any scheme that endorses this practice because it is so destructive and precedent setting.    It turns zoning on its head once again.  And THAT is why traditional setback approaches to this fiasco are so completely insane.   Now they can not be responsible for their impacts, it is up you.  Get curtains, plant some trees as screening, sell your home and move or worse yet, abandon your home because no one will even consider buying it because of the impacts, because they will take no responsibility.

Consider if you or I went to a zoning board of appeals for a variance to build a home a little closer to a neighbor’s property line because our property is too small.  We would be asking in essence to be allowed to violate the established setback laws for our property.   Whose responsibility is it to make the case that you need the variance outside of the normal setback laws?  Is our decision the decision of first resort and it is now the town’s responsibility to defend against it.   Does the ZBA go get a lawyer to  prove to YOU that the town zoning laws are rational and not burdensome on you???  Of course not.  You would be the one with the burden to make your case to the ZBA for the variance to the existing zoning laws and it should be NO different for the wind industry.   That has been the tradition of common zoning practices for hundreds of years.  At least until the wind industry came along and fully realized that they need to completely overturn these zoning practices and even pre-empt them outright to spread their snake oil scam over the landscape.

When you have a scam so invasive it requires the complete over turning of your zoning laws to survive, then why the hell are we screwing around with this game of wind zoning laws in the first place????

If a developent scheme is so destructive that it violates all zoning laws, can not fit within and zoning laws and land practices and in fact requires actual preemption of those laws, then don't ya think we ought to wake up to the fact this type of development should not be in our towns in ANY form at all.  Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Now they as large foreign entities with no other relationship to our towns other than profit are making the case that their land use decisions are the decisions of first resort and we must take the defensive and prove to everyone that our laws are justifiable and should be followed. It is insane and we have sucked into the entire scam!!!!

Once again the wind industry requires a nearly complete destruction of long held zoning law practices and land use practices to ensure the success of its business model. If that doesn’t work spread some money around and get some green nitwit governor like Cuomo and nitwit NY state government to simply get rid of zoning…just get rid of it if it gets in the way.

What is at stake here is the violation of zoning and zoning rights altogether that should protect us and give us reasonable assurances that we can  carry forward our lives in a reasonable and  consistent manner in our communities , not just this little setback here and there , and this little sound issue blah blah blah.

We should not even be playing this zoning game AT ALL with the wind industry and Article X.  We should be standing in direct and significant opposition to it at all levels.  There is far too much at stake in the bigger picture.

BP Admitts to Going For the Article X Siting Process

        Take a good long look at this picture.  If BP gets their way you can kiss all his beauty goodbye.

                          A 285 or more megawatt wind farm? See what that equates to below.

Well…with their letter to the NY PSC BP has finally admitted they are going to take the Article X route. And now the truth is out that the project could be upwards of 285 megawatts.  Whatever the hell upwards means.

So wait a minute…where is that “compromise” with the CV  community the scumbag liars at BP where talking about in the WDT a few months ago?  Anybody want to still keep talking compromise while Chandler attempts to shove 500 ft turbines up our backside using Article X ?

So let’s see how that plays out in megawatts and turbine numbers using 285 MW.

1.5 MW turbines  = 190 turbines

1.6 MW turbines  =  178 turbines

2 MW turbines  =  142 turbines

2.3 MW like Wolfe Is. = 123 turbines

The giant 3MW turbines  = 95 turbines

Just imagine Cape Vincent being the host to almost 100  500 + ft giant turbines! But hey just remember the new zoning attorney says he can’t defend the view.  Yeah…no kidding!!!   Well with turbines at  500 ft every town around for miles better get a damn good lawyer to protect themselves, their property values and their economy.

I keep hearing how the wind industry is dead.  I keep hearing that the subsidies are all going away, and this will kill wind development.  Well it appears that BP knows something we don’t as they keep striding forward with their CV project and it just keeps getting more absurd by the day. Now they are ready to committ $300 million.  BP and the wind industry and Cuomo and all the other green nut cases want CV so bad they can taste it, and they are going to do whatever it take to get it.  And what are we doing...we are writting letters.  YIKES!!!!

By the time BP and Article X get done with us in CV  you are going to wonder what the hell happened and why we  spent so much time dicking around with nonsense wind laws, and instead should have taken a real aggressive political stand against this entire wind and Article X scam instead of writing these letters to the PSC begging for mercy. Every letter that goes to the PSC is just tacit approval of the entire  process.  I’m still waiting for our board and the town boards around us to pass outright resolutions opposing the entire Article X legislation.  Why hasn’t that happened? 

Why aren’t letters being written saying the entire Article X legislation is a DISASTER and should be REPEALED.  Why are we working WITH the Article X process that is going to take away our ability of self determination for our futures.  Where are those letters instead of this nonsense of begging for mercy from a system that is entirely designed to support the green wind agenda in NYS. 

When are some of you going to wake up that our community is under an outright attack and onslaught.  Yet we are pissing an moaning by writing letters over who should have the burden of proof on our zoning laws, and we are writing those letters to a system that is designed to enhance the effectiveness of BP's attack on our community and our rights!!!

Zoning Law - Hard Numbers????

It appears the public will get an introduction to the new Cape Vincent zoning law draft and comp plan draft on Tues. June 5th.  Although these are still drafts and I guess could potentially change some in the future, I think it would be instructive if the zoning committee would put some hard numbers to the BIG question on everybody's mind. 

HOW MANY????

I guess we could all sift through the various setbacks and try to figure it out, but how many industrial wind turbines will this new law allow and where?  Will it be a "defacto ban" as Planning Board member Mr. Cullen has called it and allow ZERO turbines.  Will it be feasible for BP to put up one, two, five 20 etc????

 Rather than leave it to public speculation I think the zoning committee should be obligated to put some hard numbers to these questions.  Both sides of this wind debate certainly are going to want to know.  This question was completely avoided during the elections and ever since and now is the time to pony up as to exactly what this new law means for industrial wind development in CV and make it simple so we can all understand.

Food For Thought

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw

OVERLY BURDENSOME

Overly Burdensome

These are the  new Article X buzz words describing any wind zoning that is too restrictive to allow a wind developer to rape any community they wish. Of course nobody has a freakin clue what this code word dribble actually means, or can explain it.  Yet we are running around in a panic with setback wind laws trying to figure out what this all means and we are proposing policies on all this when we actually don't have a clue what this means.  You will only finally understand what it means far too late when you are forced to use an industrial wind turbine as a community suppository, if you get my drift.

Now let me give you a clearer definition.

Overly Burdensome = I am a wind developer here to destroy your community.  Oh, I might be warm and fuzzy for the PR and patronize a few of your ridiculous setbacks so you think you actually have some control of your fate. You'll  get to have a couple people on a siting board as if it matters.  I might give up a turbine or two for a turtle or a bird here or there, but do not be fooled...I AM here to rape and destroy your community, and I don't really give a damn what  your wind law says and neither does our buddy Gov. Cuomo.

Grandpa Says - "Don't Tear Down The Outhouse!!!!"

Grandpa used to say " Don't tear down the outhouse until you are sure that new fangled indoor plumbing actually works!!!"  The lesson here is don't be so damn quick to throw out the old Cape Vincent zoning laws and comp plan until you really understand what the hell you are actually doing!!!

I noticed the letter Carol Murphy of the NY Alliance for Clean Energy sent to the NY PSC concerning Article X.  It’s what one would expect from a renewable (read wind) lobby. But I did notice something of particular interest in her letter. I think in a distorted way she is telling us something important for our defense against Article X.  Her quote below.

“Finally, the regulations should ensure that applicants need only consider local laws in existence at the time of application. Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development after an application is filed.”

(Underlining is mine)

Now this has some real importance for Cape Vincent if the PSC takes Murphy’s advice. 

BP has not applied for Article X siting in CV as far as we know…yet.  However, BP in Cape Vincent has had an application before the CV Planning Board for a wind project, and that application has been in the process for several years. 

I’m sure as far as BP and Article X are concerned, no matter what timing we use to try to fool them, our new zoning regulations for wind  (a defacto ban as Mr. Cullen calls it) are an after the fact attempt to derail their wind project, whether it is through an Article X siting, or through the PB site plan review application process if they decide to stick with that route in CV.

However here is my point, and it is one I tried to make in my zoning papers to the new zoning committee, which they rejected outright.  The point is we have a good well  established comp plan (the County agrees) which is very protective of our scenic resources in particular, and it has been in place for almost a decade.  Our zoning and its language in its last revision has been in place since 1998, and is very protective of our scenic resources as well.  These two existing documents, that did not just fall off the zoning turnip truck yesterday, just because wind development showed up in CV. In no way can they justify industrial wind development.  That was clearly pointed out in both my papers, and that is the very relevant point NOW. In fact it appears by using the setback approach even as restrictive as it may turn out, we are now essentially back handedly justifying wind development

One way or the other we don’t need to get ourselves caught up in this Article X trap that is essentially suggesting that  any new targeted wind zoning that looks to be directed at wind since it arrived in any town should not be allowed.

We have had the proper and effective existing comp plan and zoning which have been on the books for years not targeting any industry or development specifically.  Instead we have adequate laws and land use plans on the books with broad language to protect our community from ANY invasive development, not just wind. However, we need to understand this and have the  will to enforce them.  We even have the full justification to prohibit turbines through the current language of these two long existing documents, including the PB site plan review language that says any unmitigatable project

(industrial wind ) or one that does not comply with our comp plan should be denied. The beauty is there is NO targeted language toward wind development and this language has been on the books long before wind arrived.  It endorses the view that we have had long term goals in our community for environmental protections, particularly preservation of our scenic resources so important to our community.  This establishes the argument that our land use goals have been consistent. and not reactionary or targeted at any development but rather targeted for the long term towards the protection of the community, and it citizens and environment.  It established that we are not being reactive to wind development, that it is the other way around that invasive wind development is in fact intrusive to the community and it’s land use goals and laws.    The protections instead are broad and protective.  Using these pre-existing documents effectively removes Carol Murphy’s arguments on this matter.  Any new setback law whether now or later is going to play right into the argument that essentially wind energy is being singled out and targeted in our zoning. You can bet BP will argue it that way against our new law whether they go A-10 or stay local in siting.

That was one of the major points brought up in the two zoning papers I wrote.  Like a friend of mine says, we don’t necessarily need new laws, just the will to apply them in defense of our community against ANY invasive industrial or other development scheme.

The fact that our existing laws and comp plan say nothing specific about wind may in the end have been a real good thing.  But it appears we are going to change all that, and weaken our arguments and defenses. If you want a new wind law and comp plan be careful what you wish for before you trash the old documents.

My point has been all along that in our panic over Article X we have had tunnel vision to only one approach, and that is a long held mantra that we need a new zoning law and comp plan to deal with wind development.  As a result we are overlooking what might be the best defense and it is right under our noses in our current land use documents.

In a convoluted way Carol Murphy from NY ACE is telling us something important about our own existing zoning laws and comp plan. It is essentially a warning that any new law that even appears to target wind development could be less effective than if we enforced our old and long established land use goals and documents.

Article X - Does The Town Board Have The Power To Checkmate It???

All this hoopla in Cape Vincent about Article X may in fact all be a moot point if someone would answer one simple question. Let’s get our noses out of  the Article X
Tunnel vision hoopla and think for a minute.

Can an Article X siting board force a community to take industrial wind turbines AND a PILOT agreement?  I would think the answer would be NO.

If they can't force a PILOT then it seems we are expending a lot of energy for nothing. The mantra circulating around for several years is that if a wind developer doesn't get a PILOT, then they are history...game over.  Now here is where the super majority of the new CV Town Board comes in.

CV Town Supervisor has 4 votes to work with. He has a Super Majority.  The JCIDA has made it such that any PILOT must be agreed upon by the town, the county and the school board or else it won't fly.  Well that seems to make it rather simple.  So pass a law with the super majority that simply says that based on the evidence and the science, ( or lack of it) and the research of 6 or 7 years in CV that industrial wind energy is a bad fit with our land use goals, and documents and could seriously impact our economic future, and as a result the Town Board will give no financial incentives (a PILOT) to any wind development plans or any similarly invasive development..

Pass your new zoning, pass your new comp plan...whatever, then just kill any wind development through a NO PILOT resolution.  So what are we waiting for?

The way things look over at Jefferson County they also may be smartening up on the wind development stupidity and hopefully would not vote for a PILOT fro CV.  I mean hey…if you can oppose industrial wind in the Lake and understand that it is a fiasco what would be the point of approving it on land with all the additional impacts to people and the region. Why would you give away more Jefferson County tax payer money and scenic resources in a PILOT for this “stupidity” as one Jefferson County Legislator calls it.  I would hope they learned their lesson on the Galloo Is. wind project.

When Mr. Hirschey spoke to me in Aubreys about a PILOT agreement as leverage a year and a half ago or so before the current board was elected, his point was then that he and Bragdon were going to hold out on a PILOT unless Orvis would go along with better siting criteria for wind turbines.  At that time there was NO wind law to guide siting and Edsall and the planning board had control of siting, and Hirschey didn’t have enough votes on the town board to do anything of consequence since Orvis, Mason, and Mason had the majority. But he did have the power to vote on a PILOT, given to him by his very own  JCIDA.. He felt that Mason and Mason should or would not vote because of their conflicts, and  he was smart enough to see the leverage point since Orvis would need Hirschey and Bragdon to pass any wind PILOT if the others actually recused. That was his plan back then. I thought although tactical, why are we talking about ANY  PILOT at all if that would make a developer go away, and second why not hold out for the “restrictive” wind law he always wanted instead of the bogus idea of siting through the Planning Board.  If you have at least some voting power why not use it to your greatest advantage.

But things have dramatically changed now with Hirschey holding a WPEG super majority on the Town Board.  So if you were willing to block a PILOT back then…why not block it right now and make this whole thing a done deal?  NO PILOT…NO WIND DEVELOPMENT despite Article X.

But maybe since Mr. Hirschey’s  buddy’s on the JCIDA who saw he was in a pickle for siting wind turbines with at least some sanity (at least in their view) back in 2009 gave him this temporary voting leverage power for towns to vote on a PILOT, maybe he is not willing to use that power outright now and screw them over now since some of his JCIDA buddy’s like Alexander  seem to want wind development.

Then there is the Jan.2012 vote by the JCIDA to reverse a previous stance to let each taxing entity vote for or against the PILOT and now  be able to force a standard PILOT on the all taxing jurisdictions.  That resolution passed narrowly with a 3-2 vote but later the JCIDA backed off saying they would not force a PILOT despite this vote.

But at the point of this JCIDA vote is where it gets real interesting and  nobody was talking about this back then, because the other blogs are so pro Hirschey.  

According to the paper WDT, Mr. Hirschey apparently was on a committee working on the new language of the proposal to force a PILOT  on the taxing jurisdictions.  So why would that be?  According to the WDT he apparently was considering voting for the resolution as well…WHAT????? He backed off at the last minute and voted against it and it still passed narrowly only to have the JCIDA back off later.  Fortunately our local Jefferson County Legislator Mike Docteur had clarity on this issue voted against it stating basically he could not justify taking away local control from communities on this issue.  I wonder if Mr. Docteur had to sit Mr. Hirschey down and explain this to him.

Now the CV blogs poured praise on Hirschey for his voting against the resolution that would have had obvious negative consequences for wind targeted towns in Jefferson County, and that’s fine…but that doesn’t answer the rather important questions I outlined above. Why was he on a committee working on the language that would have denied towns the right to vote on a PILOT, and why did he almost vote FOR that resolution?
Somebody want to explain that one to me?

Could it be that now that Mr. Hirschey had the CV Town Board votes to get  his “restrictive” setback wind law that now it was OK to force a PILOT on us, and he didn’t need that power to vote on a PILOT as a town any longer to neutralize the old board where he didn’t have a majority?   I think it is also important to note that this vote came not long after the new CV Town Board took office.  Does Mr. Hischey expect some wind development in our future…a result that might some of his JCIDA buddies  happy.  And if that is the case is he in fact holding out for a PILOT from BP for the town coffers? 

More Appeasement of Article X - Please NY PSC, Don't Spank Our Town, We Will Play Nice!!!

The Town board of Cape Vincent has decided to play this insane political game and has submitted a comment letter to the NY Public Service Commission regarding Article X.
You can read the article in the WDT by Jaegun Lee at the link below.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120519/NEWS03/705199927


Here is a quote from that article.

“In a draft letter to commission Secretary Jaclyn A. Brilling signed by Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey, the board asked the state to amend Article X to require wind farm developers to assess low-frequency noise impact — a component, town officials argue, that will be “most annoying and unhealthy.

Yeah, really!  Well what about the fact that wind development is a complete tax scam on the American public, and a complete failure as an energy / climate solution, or that Article X perpetuates all that and more!!!  No problem there or no mention of that just as long as the developer assess the sound?  You can’t be serious. What is most annoying and unhealthful is the complete Article X law and what it is going to do to our rights as communities and citizens, and that our Town Board won’t really try to protect us by strong unambiguous opposition to the entire A-10 law.  Instead they are pitifully begging the PSC to be nice to our new zoning laws.

They should have been more honest and written,   “We will be a good town….Please, Please, Please PSC, don’t spank us with your Article X law!!!!” 

You have got to be kidding me!  Amend Article X.?????  Article X is a complete disaster. It’s a blatant egregious stunt by politicians and corporations taking away our rights as communities to be able to direct our own futures.  It’s an attempt to shove the wind disaster down our throats because some nit wit politician like Cuomo thinks “green” is a good idea and is going to force you to eat it.

Amend Article X?  You can’t be serious.  This law should be outright OPPOSED not tinkered around with and given tacit endorsement as if it is legitimate. Our local towns should join together in a unified voice of opposition to Article X, not go running to the PSC with our tail between our legs begging for mercy. Then councilman Byrne is running around endorsing this approach to other towns like Lyme.  I can also see Councilman Clif Schneider’s finger prints all over this approach as well based on my past experiences with him and his thinking.

This Town board letter is the same thinking that has been embedded in the WPEG brain since 2006.  Don’t actually stand up and fight, play along, write letters, and be nice, don’t offend anybody, study everything to death. . I’ll tell you what, why don’t we sit down and have a glass of wine and discuss it with the PSC, that should solve our problems!  

 It is exactly like the last law suit they did.  Don’t actually address the fact that the entire Acciona FEIS environmental study is completely corrupt, and was handled by a completely corrupted process making the study a worthless piece of paper,  Oh no let’s give it legitimacy and fight the sound issues we can’t win anyhow as if the study was legitimate. And worse as I posted before, apparently they are now being advised by the same damn lawyer who used this approach and lost their last law suit on a simple legal mistake.

This is more absolute brilliance!!! Why don’t we just send Cuomo and the PSC a Candygram and blow them a kiss like good little obedient sheep and tell them how much we just love Article X if they will just tweak a few clauses and concepts.

This is like having someone point a shotgun right between your eyes and then asking them if they would please use a 10 gauge instead of a 12 gauge.  Jesus, why doesn’t the Town Board just pass a resolution demanding all of us get some shovels and help BP start digging the foundations for their freakin turbines too!!!


                      The BP archeological study.  The next time BP stops by they aren't just going
                            to be plowing up a few fields looking for arrowheads and bones!!!
                        They will be coming to TAKE our community, with Article X behind them. 
                                                   So why don't we just blow them a kiss!

The problem with this entire wind fight in CV has always been and continues to be that we have never believed we can win it.  We started with this absurd compromise position from day one (even though they never grasped we had no power to compromise) as the wind developers were driving a bulldozer through the social fabric of our town.  Now after all this time and all this fight we have super majority power on our town board, and we still won’t use it effectively.  We will pass a zoning law that gives tacit approval to wind development, we will more than likely weaken the protective language of our previous Comp Plan and zoning to accomplish that in some misguided attempt to not be too “overly burdensome” on the wind developers.  Then we are running around begging the PSC to treat us nice with their new law.
And we wonder why the wind developers and giant corporations keep winning and can keep right on destroying communities time after time, and why our rights keep disappearing.  It’s because WE are our own worst enemy with our brains wired for only this appeasement compromise approach that we have been brainwashed with by our politicians, and the political corporate system that keeps them alive…and keeps you wishing and hoping and begging.

With this letter to the PSC our Town Board sold us out to  Article X and the idiot politicians  that support it, and to the wind developers themselves...pure and simple!

Ring of Fire Annular Solar Eclipse in AZ

When I was a kid my parents gave me a small telescope for Christmas. It was one of the neatest gifts they gave me and one that had a life time impact.  Ever since then I have been a half assed amateur astronomer.  Much of what I leaned about the night sky I leaned on dark summer nights in Cape Vincent along the St. Lawrence River.  Something else the CV zoning should attempt to preserve…Dark Skies!

Now days I use the stars and Sun as a navigational guide in my wilderness outdoor activities.  I also teach a course for search and rescue on primitive skills survival navigation using the Sun and stars for direction finding, location, and travel.

So today was a special day in AZ for all people who take an interest in sky observing.  Today we had an annular solar eclipse pass through N. AZ.  This time of year here we have mostly clear dry weather so the observing was perfect.  My wife and I found a big open meadow in the forest at about 6500 ft. about 40 minute drive from our house, and set up our make shift solar observatory.  That would be a small telescope image projected onto a white piece of paper on a clip board on the tailgate of my truck, a camera, and a couple of lawn chairs to sit and watch.  A real high tech operation!!!

Thought I would share it…enjoy.

                                                   Our make sihift solar observatory

The view on the way home.  Very lucky to enjoy this and the beauty of Cape Vincent too!

Sunset in the forest and on the San Francisco Peaks of  N. AZ 12,600 ft. Highest point in AZ.

A Few Pictures From Our Beautiful Neighboring Town Of Lyme, Also Under Industrial Wind Threat

Whatever wind zoning decisions Cape Vincent makes will impact the neighboring Town of Lyme, NY and vice versa.  This is where typical setback zoning FAILS as a mitigation since industrial wind impacts are so wind spread.  This is a regional issue, not just a little town by town problem.

Late summer field along Millens Bay Rd in Lyme.

Fall tree  in the Village of Chaumont.

Summer evening field, Millens Bay Rd. in Lyme.

Lyme Library

It's Wildland Fire Season In Arizona - A First Hand Look.

Some people live with tornadoes, some with floods, some with earthquakes.  Where I live the threat is wild land fire.  This is the fire season in AZ and it is underway.   It gets warm and windy.  Both conditions add to extreme  fire danger. Sometimes here on a hot windy day our humidity levels will reach down to 3% to 5  humidity!!! Not exactly NNY weather! On a hot June day once Phoenix TV stations were reporting 1% humidity.

In search and rescue we do not fight fires, but act right along with fire crews by evacuating homes in the path of the fire.  Since we work in the path of the fire we have some basic wild land fire safety training and we are usually accompanied by a forest fire specialist who can warn us when the fire behavior changes or accelerates and we must get out of the way or get to a safety zone.  Fire can travel at amazing speeds under certain conditions. 
Below are some pictures from last year's fire season.

Above and below.  Forest fire right on the edge of the Flagstaff city limits. 

These events look like chaos but they are actually very well organized

The yellow shirts and green pants are all Nomex and fire resistant. You are not allowed to

wear any synthetic clothing since it can melt to your skin.

Slurry tanker lining up for a drop of fire retardant on a fire.

An extremely dangerous job.

At night after the  fire was successfully knocked down.  No homes lost this time. 

On the way with a Forest Service escort to evacuate homes in the path of a fire.

                                        Most of the pictures you see here are from an arson fire set
                                               by a guy who had an argument with his girl friend.


So when I hear some pro wind ass----!!! say in a public meeting about wind development opposition that "you better hope your house doesn't burn down", that has a little different meaning for me and is not an abstract concept when you actually have to evacuate a families from their homes because they may burn down in a forest fire.

I will keep to myself what I think should be done to a person who makes those kinds of threats. One more reason to rid our community of the insidious  wind disease once and for all!

The Pandora "Grace" Post - Biiiiiiiizzzzare!!!!!

Have been busy with SAR duties lately.  For a couple weeks we have been dealing with a large search for a missing hiker in the Grand Canyon.    So I haven’t had a lot of time to read the other blogs.  Somebody had mentioned that there was a post on Pandora’s Box of Rocks I should look at.  Not having much time I looked at in passing but not it detail and thought....yeah... blah blah blah!!  I had more important things on my mind at the time that dressing up dolls or manikins

I finally went back and read the post in more detail and was astounded.  Not astounded in that it was an attack on me, that is the price of the ticket for having an opinion, I accept that., but astounded in that it seemed so detailed and bizarre.  I thought WOW I must be having more impact than I thought!

Several things jumped out at me right away.  Based on the level of detail  I guess I should be flattered that K has obviously read my blog fairly closely.  The second thing I noticed was …Man I must have really hit a raw nerve to receive this much detailed attention.

 I know for fact it takes time to write and create a blog post, and this one must have taken a bit of time to create.  She had to dress up her doll or manikin then pose it in several poses, then take and download and post numerous pictures, then write the text.  I mean this thing was intricate, and that is what I found bizarre. What prompted this????

 Now she and her commenters go on about my ego or that it’s all Me, Me, Me.  What strikes me odd about this post from a logic point of view is that if she and her commenters think it’s all Me Me Me, then why create such an elaborate post about ME!!!  Why give me all that attention, including my blog.  That is a bit baffling to me....or like i said a bit BIZARRE!!!! 

But hey, why look a gift horse in the mouth...eh!!!

One commenter had it about right that I was probably chuckling about the post.  That’s about right except like I said I thought it was also so bizarre! Why take all this time and detail to go after me?    I really wasn’t offended, I was actually more flattered that the post took so much work.  Then her blog sheep jump in and give me even more press with 27 comments.   That is unusually high for K’s comments.  Once again I am flattered.  I have said things about both Pandora’s and the JLL blog in passing in my posts…but geee whiz an entire detailed post attacking me…WOW!  Like I said I must have really hit a raw nerve over at Pandora’s and among her commenters.  I guess if people didn’t know me or about my blog, they do now!

As usual Pandora’s blog sheep commenters all comment anonymous.  No one has the spine to put their name on the comments.  But what really cracked me up was that in this attack she can’t even be straight forward and use her own name, subliminally she has to use “Grace” (the manikin) as the supposed writer.  What an absolute hoot!!! Of course when you don't put a name on your comments it could be one commenter or 2, or it could be K putting all the comments on herself...no one knows!

And of course I can’t comment back on her blog so her readers know they are in the “intellectual safe zone” where K can hold their hands and where she and her commenters can go on the attack and don’t have to worry about defending their comments.   She provides them needed cover. That is usually what is required when your thoughts or arguments are so weak.  Now that is real integrity.  If I beat somebody up in a comment or post or argument my blog is completely open for them to respond.  In fact I would have even opened my blog to K’s “Grace”  post if she had asked.

Oh and by the way, I thought K did a good post the other day on the capacity factors for NY wind farms.  Very enlightening and I have passed it along to several people I know in AZ in wind fights.  Good work on that one K.

But finally I got to thinking about something else after I had a moment to digest K’s “Grace” post.  K started blocking my comments on her blog starting last summer.  Then it was intermittent until she has blocked my comments for some time. 

But here is what is very ironic about her blocking.  In her “Grace” post she references the fact that I have mentioned her husband is on the CV ZBA and new zoning committee, and I believe that makes her comments on the CV govt actions or approach not very credible.

So here is something  interesting to consider based on actual history. Maybe this comment blocking runs in the family.  Geee I don’t know do you think K ever discusses my comments or her blocking them with her husband in the CV govt?  I would guess she probably does  based on her overly detailed post.  Did her husband even prompted her to do the post?   He is on the zoning committee, the same zoning committee where several of its members out right (blocked) refused to look at detailed input I sent them. Not sure if he was one who refused to look at the input. My information says only two people on the committee took the discs with the input on them and I know who they were.  

Hhhmmm is there a family pattern here???

It’s one thing for K to block me or attack me…OK bring it on, that is all very fair game…but it may be quite something else if her spouse, an official of the CV govt and a member of an official appointed committee and an official representative of the town refuses to look at public comment input possibly based on the fact that I take on his wife and her blog.  Now we are in new dangerous territory.   Last I looked the CV Govt is not a blog site nor should they or any one of their members act like one picking and choosing who they like and who they will listen too, and who they will block.

That blocking thing may work on a blog, but it gets a bit riskier for a public official representing ALL the people in the community to do it based on personal reasons.  Now things get rather blurry. I have been told repeatedly that bloggers can do damn near anything they want.  I’m not sure that works for public officials of a govt.  I wonder if I had to go before the ZBA where Mr. K sits, for a variance.  How that would work out????  Would he take that info home and ask K what to do and have a good laugh???? I also wonder which way the venom  travels on things like this.  From K to her husband where he could take action from his official town capacity?  Or could he be telling her to slam me because I have been critical of the zoning committee upon which he sits?   Did that already happen on the zoning committee? How much influence does she and her blog have on Mr. K and vice versa?   Is it possible for him to be unbiased as result?

I wonder how that plays out legally?????   Although K does some good research and reporting at times, if nothing else the closeness of K to the CV govt on several levels  sure doesn’t look good for credibility, and integrity if you clearly think it through and what may have already transpired.  

As I have said in the past, and K brought up again in her post, is she with her inside track to the CV govt just the propaganda arm of that govt? What’s the level of influence and can it be separated responsibly?    A lot of very interesting questions here.   It’s all pretty cozy if you ask me.  Once again I would be careful what and where you read!!!