In the Watertown
Here is a statement by Wiley for example that is inaccurate.
“Holy crap! All I do is write stuff about what goes down. Except for a few silly things that I throw out there once and a while, to make myself and others laugh, what I post about is nothing more than what is going on in the community of Cape Vincent and elsewhere in the mad, mad world of industrial wind”.
Nice try Wiley, but some of us are not that stupid. In fact if you go back through the JLL blog archives (don’t remember the exact date) you will see Wiley admits he is more than just a fact reporter. About the time he was getting frustrated with my comments on his blog because I wouldn’t jump on the Hirschey mantra campaign bandwagon he said several times I should open my own blog. Then he said that his blog was not for someone else’s agenda, and that he had HIS OWN AGENDA. I have yet to figure out exactly what Wiley’s agenda is however. But for him to claim he is doing nothing more than reporting the CV community facts is absurd BS. And when you block commenters from your blog because they won’t agree to the prevailing group think mantra you support, then you sure as hell are not some neutral fact regurgitating reporter! There are plenty more examples as well.
Now “Start” is at least trying to imply that the 2011 elections were not a referendum on wind, nor that the community voted down wind in the election, and that it was not on the ballot. That is not quite accurate either. Well it may not have been a direct question on the ballot, but it sure as hell was on everybody’s voting mind, and it would be nuts to say it was not the overriding issue we were voting on, well at least indirectly. However, to say the elections were a referendum against wind doesn’t tell the whole story either, or to say it was the anti wind against the pro wind is inaccurate as well. “Start” is somewhat right in that wind was not actually on the ballot. There was no actual referendum on wind on the ballot yes or now. In fact NY law does not even provide for a referendum on such an issue. The closest you had to a referendum was the Zogby poll, and like it or not it came out that more people in CV favored wind development in some form. And it wasn’t 48% pro and 41% opposed as some like you to believe, because actually the people who were the “somewhat” opposed or in support are actually in qualified support of wind development. That would mean that 55% of the community supported wind development in some fashion, but maybe not the entire projects as proposed. The “somewhats” probably have similar concerns but would support wind if those concerns could be mitigated or the projects reduced. That is NOT an anti wind position.
But what about the elections? Wiley implies that the Hirshey candidate campaign was anti wind or at least against wind. That is total spin on the facts. In fact he tries to use the Hirschey Republican Unified Campaign message about supporting a wind moratorium and comp plan as proof positive the campaign was against wind. More spin. Nice try again Wiley but that doesn’t add up either. Here is the campaign statement:
There is nothing in this campaign statement that is anti wind. Having a moratorium is not an anti wind action. In fact it is recommended for communities facing wind development by the State’s very pro wind NYSEDA. It was intended to give community time to deal with the wind issue in its zoning and comp plan, not be anti wind. Halting any further progress on wind is only a 7 month temporary effect. In addition saying that wind development will comply with the town’s comp plan is not anti wind either. All one would have to do is change the comp plan to allow some wind development and that would comply with this vague campaign statement, and wind development would then comply with the town’s comp plan. And guess what. That is EXACTLY what happened in the just released 2012 revised CV comp plan. It does not prohibit wind in its language. It is not outright anti wind. In fact it allows for the possibility and recommends pushing it back from the lake and river front properties. I would not call that anti wind. If it precluded wind altogether THAT would be anti wind. The majority of the members (not all) on the comp plan committee appointed by the Hirschey board did exactly as I expected they would do. They would keep the door open for wind development as long as it could be shoved back into the CV backcountry. The new CV zoning is very likely to do the very same thing.
If you thought this campaign statement above guaranteed an true anti wind agenda then you got scammed as a CV voter !!!!
Now what about the various candidates in the last election? JLL likes to claim that because the WDT paper, and other media and the pro wide labeled the Hirschey candidates as “anti wind” that this was proof positive they actually were….REALLY???? Well that is a large stretch of the facts that Wiley claims he is reporting. It was very clear the pro wind side was actually rabidly pro wind, but what about the supposed “anti wind” side?
With one marginal exception, no Rep. candidate declared themselves anti wind. Nor did they speak anti wind at the candidate’s night in Oct. 2011. There is absolutely NOTHING in their unified platform that could be construed as anti wind. That fact of the matter is there was NO anti wind candidate. In order to have a true referendum on wind anti or pro you would have to actually have a side proclaiming to be outright opposed to wind. That did not exist. Now that is not to say it wasn’t on people’s minds and they voted some kind of misguided perception they thought was anti wind. But a true essential referendum on wind did not happen despite Wiley’s and other’s fantasy that it did.
Now what about that one Hirschey candidate that appeared (at least at one time) to be anti wind? Who was that? That would be CV Councilman John Byrne. In April or May 2011 (look it up on JLL for yourself if Wiley has not removed it) Mr. Byrne posted on JLL the start of his campaign, by saying outright he was opposed to any industrial wind development in CV. Now THAT I would consider an anti wind statement. However, as the campaign progressed I know he came under increasing social pressure from the Hirsschey candidates to back away from that position. He felt a shift in their attitude after he made that statement. Also the Hirschey machine and other on the blogs were working overtime to connect Byrne to me and my thinking as if I was controlling him in an attempt to marginalize his stance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Byrne had reached his anti wind conclusion early on by himself, and over being upset with Hirschey over statements Hirschey had made making Hirschey look soft and compromising on the wind issue. “Wouldn’t a few turbines be ok?” But by the time Oct 2011 rolled around the pressure had added up and Byrne was not making those anti wind statements, and he made it clear to me that we should not be seen as too close or associated to each other because he felt he was receiving too much flack from Hirschey camp as a result, and the voter might perceive him as anti wind. So in the end even he would not take a true anti wind stance. He thought the anti wind stance would not sit well with his voting audience. In the end he was slightly behind in the local vote but the seasonal vote gave him a wind. So where is all this anti wind sentiment if the guy who was once anti wind almost lost????
So where is all this anti wind sentiment Wiley claims is sweeping the CV community? Even WPEG has made statements prior that they are not anti wind. That is why I left them as a group.
But let’s go back even further to the 2009 elections. I invited that year’s WPEG candidates to my cottage to talk about considering to run anti wind. That was Mr. Hirschey, Mr. Bragdon, and Mr. Byrne. NONE of them would commit to an anti wind platform then NONE!!! Mr. Hirschey kept saying we need a good wind law. I challenged him on that as to what exactly that meant. His reply was “push them (wind turbines) back a couple miles from the water front” I vehemently disagreed. Funny isn’t it that that is exactly what our new comp plan and zoning are looking like now!!! Engineer the language such that the door is not completely closed on wind development, and push it back as far as possible. Go look at the language in the new comp plan on this matter for yourself. It is NOT anti wind. In fact even though Bragdon was not running in 2011 since he was a sitting councilman, I asked him if we would support a wind turbine prohibition. He said too could not take that stance. So hwre is all this anti wind sentiment on the new CV board?
Finally “Start” is right about a point that Wiley is arrogant to assume he knows what the voter was thinking as he entered the voting booth. Wiley once again is putting his Hirschey, WPEG spin on the issue, despite claiming to be a neutral reporter of facts…well OK his facts maybe!
For example I am truly anti wind, yet I did not vote in 2011 for the Hirschey candidates because I thought they would be anti wind or even eliminate wind in CV. I voted much more on the ethics issues and because the absurd pro wind position and their candidates were simply not in any way or acceptable. So for one of the most anti wind people in CV (me) I felt for the 2nd election cycle in a row there was NO anti wind stance or candidate to vote for, and I know many others who felt as I did. They didn’t vote some trumped up anti wind referendum. They voted against unethical behavior and the pro wind idiocy. Some were even pro wind who voted for Hirschey.
Here is a little 2011 election history many people don’t know. Early in the campaign I asked candidate now councilman Clif Schneider if he would vote anti wind, or instead along the lines of the Zogby poll since $10,000 of CV tax money was spent on it. He disagreed with some of the poll results and cherry picked what went along with his thinking. He did say, however, that he was going to poll the community as he campaigned and ask people how they wanted him to handle the CV wind issue. So just before the elections I asked him how his informal poll was going as to results. He said he gave up on the tedious effort to make an actual written tally. However, he said he was surprised by the seasonal vote reaction that was NOT anti wind. Many people had told him that they thought that maybe the farmers and land owners should be able to financially benefit from their land, but had concerns how the wind farms would be sited. THAT is not an anti wind stance, and in fact aligns with the Zogby poll since the poll relied heavily on seasonal responses…I think it was 63% were seasonal. During the campaign I talked to a Hirschey supporter close to the campaign. I debated that the wind issue had taken a backseat to ethics. He admitted it had and that was purposeful because the ethics played better as an overall acceptable campaign issue. In other words the Hirschey candidates were deflecting the actual wind issue, particularly any possible anti wind appearance. I pushed them many times on the CV bolgs for a clear stance one way or the other and they refused to pin it down. Not what I would call the basis for a true referendum or anti wind mandate. In the end that is what I think a lot of people voted for in Hirschey. They didn’t vote anti wind or some fantasy anti wind referendum , but on the more voter acceptable and neutral ethics issues as they were RELATED to wind. They knew they were not voting an anti wind ticket pure and simple Now once again one can not make a case based on all this that there was a clear unequivocal anti wind victory, mandate, or referendum. Starting with 2009 elections, the Zogby poll, and the 2011 elections… that conclusion just does not add up in actual facts s Wiley at JLL would like us all to believe.
Of course then there is this video I have posted before on my blog of Mr. Hirschey’s own analysis of the wind issue and of the Republican primary win over Harvey White. Of course a fence post probably could have won against Harvey White!
There was a subtle sleight of hand on the Hirschey Republican side in the 2011 elections.
Wiley and JLL swallowed it whole or more accurately I am guessing knew what was happening. Neutral facts reporter my ass!!! It was to appear anti wind, but it a clear wind referendum. The Hirschey candidates were like a blank painter’s canvas. They NEVER clearly outlined a wind position or solid stance on wind at all , and certainly not in their vague campaign platform even about the comp plan and moratorium. They filled in the canvas corners with a few splashes of color to possible only suggest what might go in the canvas, and then let the voter fill in the rest of the canvas with their own perception of what it all meant.
The saying goes that politics is perception, and it certainly was in the last 2011 CV elections over the wind issue. Many people voted unwittingly for a mirage because they were so thirsty for a resolution and what they thought was the truth after suffering in the pro wind ethics desert we had all been in for years.
No comments:
Post a Comment