I Wonder What a New Zoning Law Would Taste Like If BP Told You To Eat It.!!!

According to the TI Sun, Mr. Richard McSherry, the chairman of the Cape Vincent Planning Board is quoted as follows:

“Once the new restrictions are approved, it is likely that a hard copy version of the new zoning law will be presented to British Petroleum, which is proposing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm. "We could say, here's the law, if you can make your project work within the law, good luck”

This is a really interesting and revealing comment.  One would have to infer from this that apparently Mr. MacSherry is ok with industrial wind in CV as long as it meets the new law. Or as long as we can shove any possible turbines off on somebody else by pushing them back to Lyme then that would be ok too?  I guess it would not matter to Mr. MacSherry that wind is an energy, climate, and tax scam on the American tax payer as long as BP can meet our new zoning restrictions.  And what if BP does find a way to make their project work within the law, then a few turbines go up?  It’s ok to put up 5 or 10 big 500 footers? So how many turbines does this law allow anyhow?  That is the big question.  I guess  Mr. MacSherry apparently is not in line with NY Assemblywoman Addie Russel who voted against Article X and believes turbines would be prohibited in CV and the area.   I guess as  long as any wind developer meets Dick’s new law we are good to go? Now MacSherry has been around the wind debate for a while.  So has the Hirschey board that appointed him.  They have seen all the numerous significant negatives about wind energy. Yet this is what we get?  Wind is perfectly OK as long as you meet our little local law? 

Now if you write a law that could ALLOW some turbines, even a very few, then you have to water down the Comp Plan’s scenic resource protection language to allow for that or your zoning will not be in accordance with the Comp Plan.  So are we going from a Comp Plan and zoning law that were very protective of those scenic resources to a watering down of both?

Of course MacSherry is forgetting one little rather important detail.  In his bravado he must be assuming that BP will stay with local siting where he wouls have control backed by a new zoning law BP would be forced to abide by.  Of course if BP goes the Article X route Dick’s new law could be preemepted as being too restrictive and he could be left with wind restrictions that would be worth no more that expensive toilet paper..

 In that case BP might turn to MacSherry and say  “We are putting up as many damn  turbines as we want and could care less what your little law allows…so GOOD LUCK WITH THAT  Mr. MacSherry, see you in court”.

One more reason we might as well prohibit turbines outright and stand for what we really want…or does MacSherry and Hirschey actually want something else?

This is the goofiest damn game to avoid the obvious that I have ever seen.