I am going
to preface my remarks by making it clear this post is my opinion only. Dave did not prompt me to post anything and hasn't since I opened this blog. He prefers you call him and hear his side of
this public hearing story directly. You can see his
number in a post below.
I believe
the controversy of the public hearing represented
a severe test of our ability to understand the concept of rights and if we have
the political will and basic understanding to defend against Article X. In my opinion Dave presented us with a very
subtle yet extremely insightful challenge to see if we truly understood what
was at stake and how the community will actually react when the battle begins.
I think many
of us including me, until I had time to analyze it later, never even realized what was happening or
the relationship to Article X and what it meant beyond Dave’s specific zoning
input. That is painfully obvious in the shallow blog reaction.
NYS grants
us the home rule rights to comp plan and zone and determine our community’s future. Many of us feel those rights should be
strongly defended.
Article X actually recognizes our rights too, to
protect the future of our community through land use. But there is one significant
clause in that law that severely restricts our rights well beyond what is
reasonable. Article X is absurdly
patronizing us with this gross contradiction
by saying that you can have your rights to zone as long as you agree to strictly
play by OUR rules, rules formulated from large corporate interests, not the
traditional zoning concepts of health safety and welfare. This insidious game is given power through the
ability of Article X to preempt our zoning laws despite our rights to comp plan
and zone as we see fit. It really now is
not a fight about should we prohibit or zone by setbacks. What it is really
about is the insidious tactic Article X uses
to terrorized communities into believing
that one of those rights is no longer even yours as an option or right. You don’t have to wait to see if Article X
will preempt your laws, because in essence by this tactic they already have.
If we go down this zoning appeasement road or we
play along in any way to compromise or enable it…we then essentially have NO
community zoning rights at all. Just
about all of us in the wind opposition and beyond recognize this as an absurd magic trick that we will not stand
for. Well, at least that is the current bravado!!!
Now fast
forward to the Cape Vincent zoning public hearing and the controversy
surrounding Dave Lamora and his insistence on his right and the right of anyone
to speak for as long as they necessary and uninterrupted to reinforce their
points.
Speaking to
petition your govt is a right granted in the US Constitution. It doesn’t have any arbitrary time placed on
it. You have a RIGHT? Arbitrary time constraints and even negotiating
for more time starts you down that slippery slope. So where is the criteria line as to how far
we restrict that right as long as the speaker is relevant and addressing the
issue at hand? The debate alone is of critical importance and is actually how
we finally get to relevant decisions and policy. And the more important question is, who has
the right to restrict your rights with arbitrary speaking rules some of which are just as completely arbitrary
as the rules in Article X which restrict your right to your community’s future,
well maybe just a little bit here or
there to be “reasonable”? Arbitrary
speaking rules can open the door to abuse of power to any other entity that might have an agenda like our previous
town board and their agenda on behalf of industrial wind developers. They would just as arbitrarily restrict our
right to speak and in fact shut down meetings completely so citizens could not
be heard. The only protection is that
you have a vague hope that the powers that control the public’s right to
speak won’t be arbitrary and will be
responsible, and all too often that is not the case as we saw with our previous
town govt. The right to speak is a
critical right. So where is the town
board coming up with the three minute time limit? It is a complete arbitrary and completely unreasonable
number considering the gravity of the subject matter. The fact is there was plenty of time for all
the speakers to speak quite long, and frankly if that took till midnight on
this critical historic matter… so what!
So Article X
grants you rights … as long as you play by their rules under the threat of preemption based on the arbitrary
justification that energy siting is a critical State concern. Something they haven’t even proven, just
as our town board grants you rights as
long as you play along by their arbitrary rules as well. There is no difference if you really want to
talk about rights. In my opinion Dave
Lamora was incredibly insightful to see this comparison along with his points
on the zoning law. He placed a critical test
of rights and how we perceive the threat of Article X right in front of our
eyes to see if we really comprehend what is going on and what it will take to
fight Article X effectively.
In essence
the town board with their arbitrary restriction of Dave’s and all of our
speaking rights, and demands that the only way we can have those rights is
if we play by their arbitrary speaking rules is doing to us the very same thing
that Article X is threatening to do to all of us when they tell us we can have
rights too…as long as we appease them and play by their rules. Yet the vast number of people who are now
familiar with this CV public hearing incident never saw this. In my opinion I think Dave in large part put
forth a severe test for all of us to see what we would do as a community. Kind of a mock battle if you will to test our
metal for the extremely hard battle we all know is coming. So how did we do? In my opinion, based on the blog reaction,
the town board reaction, and the comments…we failed miserably. In fact not only did we fail, we failed to
even recognize where the battle was taking place and who the enemy is. That is pretty damn scary to me considering
what we are facing.
So do you
out there on the blogs and in the community actually have any grasp at all
about what you are actually doing when you attack Dave? You are actually defending and endorsing the very
tactics of the State’s Article X. By defending the arbitrary speaking rules of
the board and their and your demands to inflexibly stick to those rules or even
putting other “reasonable” restrictions on them at all. As you defend the town board and attack Dave you are supporting and endorsing the very same thing you are
frightened to death of that Article X will do to YOU Play by our rules or we
will take your rights AWAY, or you will be arrested!!! You can’t win in that game with appeasement. When our board was confronted with this
situation they failed to grasp the fundamentals and over reacted because they
had very little else in their file to compare to except what experts had
prepared for them and rigid arbitrary rules.
This does not inspire confidence in me about their judgment in the
zoning process or the coming defense against Article X. They still have time to rethink their
approach and Dave’s commitment to help them defend against the insidious
Article X threat to our community, and to home rule and zoning rights
themselves.
I have known Dave a long time. I know he is a very bright and perceptive
man. If he did what I think he just did he just went up one more notch on my
scale. If I have to follow someone into
battle over Article X, I will follow
someone who has the insight and flexibility to endure by creatively
structuring the fight and adapt on he battle field instead of following people using an inflexible one dimensional
zoning approach AND imposing the very
same stifling tactical rules that
Article X will use on us. I can’t wait for an Article X board to tell some of
you to sit down and be quiet after your three minutes, and that you are out of
order and will be arrested as they strip away your rights to defend your
community’s future.
And the
critical question is, when an Article X board comes to town just exactly what
are YOU going to tell them? Are you going use the same tactics that you are using
to defending the town board? Are you going to comply and say you are willing to play by their arbitrary
and patronizing rules to restrict your home rule rights?
The sad part,
and what I think many of you don’t see about what Dave has tried to pointed out
was…if you endorse the zoning law
appeasement of Article X to look “reasonable”,
and let it drive your zoning process by implied threats when we can’t even clearly
define “reasonable”, and if you have written letters to the PSC in effect
validating the very rules process being designed
to take your home rule away, or if you sit down when somebody arbitrarily says
your time is up…then you already gave them your answer, and every time you
attack Dave you once again reinforce to NYS and BP your wiliness to compromise
and follow rules that put you at an extreme disadvantage. Under these circumstances nobody will have to
tell you when your time is up and to sit down, because you will have never had
the opportunity to stand up at all as your home rule rights evaporate!
You can bet
that NYS and BP are already taking notice of your willingness to give up your
rights and play ball by their rules.
They will formulate strategy based
on your willingness to relinquish your rights through some vague attempt to be “reasonable,
and your willingness to repeatedly attack
the very man truly willing to defend your
rights and the community’s rights to home rule. They can already take measure of how effectively
the Article X threat is working to paralyze our community.
Just remember with each of your attacks on Dave or comments to adhere strictly to the "rules" when BP brings the Article X board to town they will recognize the precendent you are setting on inflexibly and defense of following arbitrary rules. They will expect you follow your very own precedent in following their arbitrary rules as well, as they preempt our zoning and take away our home rule rights...
... be careful what you wish for!
