Fall In Cape Vincent - It's Not All Elections and Article X! Don't Forget To Enjoy What We Have Before It's Too Late!

Congatulations Michelle Oswald - But A Warning!

On the JLL blog several commenters are suggesting that I am trying to damage Michelle Oswald’s Republican campaign.  Or that she should not listen to me.  This is nothing more than a Republican code warning to Michelle that if she listens to me or anyone who might remotely agree with me, or considers our advice , she will be marginalized.  I voted for Michelle, and if she stands her ground I intend to vote for her in Nov.  With all due respect to Ed, because I thought he would also have had the best interest of the community in mind, but Michelle was willing to say publicly in her campaign literature she:

“Does not support Industrial Wind For CV”    Those are her words not mine, and I had no influence on her whatsoever.  I didn’t talk to her at all until she was campaigning and those words were already in her literature.  And I find it interesting that to win on that stance she must have had a lot of people voting for her that agree with a NO wind stance, and NOT a compromise. I personally know numerous seasonal people in my area or who I talked to who voted for her for that very reason too.    Wake up Republican town board!!!

But do you commenters who are basically telling Michelle as a warning to not listen to me  have any freakin clue what you are suggesting????  REALLY!!!

Let me see if I get this straight.

1.      I am asked to register as a seasonal to vote here in CV giving up my rights to vote in my home community and have never registered with any party all my life.

2.      Not only am I told I must vote Republican and I am told exactly who to vote for.

3.      This includes Michelle and Ed both Republicans and the WPEG candidates  in the last election.

4.      I am told to do all this to ensure the Republicans stay in power, and BTW one of those Republicans might not have been elected (John Byrne) unless he received the seasonal votes like my wife and mine.

5.      I receive a letter after the Republican election of 2011 to seasonals saying they still need us to remain registered in CV as Republicans and need our continued support and  input!!!!

6.      I am told that I can expect open and transparent govt as a result of my vote and

support.  Oh really!!!!  So let’s examine how that worked out! What have I gotten back for this loyalty? 

Well let’s see.  When I decided I wanted to ask some questions before the 2011 elections I was quickly marginalized and attacked, just for asking questions that might have made my Republican candidates a little uncomfortable.  That got me banned from 2 Republican blogs who I will still support against their law suits despite those differences. I must be nuts, but that is my stance. 

When the zoning committee asked for input I sent them detailed input.  But they didn’t like me even though I voted for the very people who made that committee even possible, so they completely ignored that input.  Didn’t even look at it or consider it.  Open transparent govt my ass…thank you very much Mr. Brown!!!  See any trend developing here??? 

So I voted for and supported Michelle, so does that mean you Republicans are now going to throw her under the bus because she convinced me to vote for her, or we might agree on some things???   Now some of these good upstanding Republicans are telling her right here in democratic America supporting a  local govt they claim is open and transparent that she should NOT LISTEN to one of the people, a CV citizen and Rep. voter,  land owner, and tax payer who helped put her in contention for the TB seat. I guess I missed something…I thought these elections were about listening to ALL of the CV citizens, and tax payers and getting away from that type of abuse of citizens from the past????? 

Honestly, you nit wit commenters are  actually telling her in a democratic representative process, while you promote open transparent govt, that  she should ignore  one of her supportive constituents, a citizen and tax payer who voted for her, and supported the other Republicans  simply because I might have a different idea on how  the CV govt should run.   REALLY!!!!  Are you fu@&*&% kidding me ????   Explain to me how that adds up to open and transparent govt. , a representative process, or having input to my representatives or candidates. 

You are actually telling her to not LISTEN to any  citizens who might think like me and might be her constituents!!!!  Good God …people REALLY!!!  Engage your Republican brain before you open your mouth!!! 

Here is a warning for Michelle.   These are the beginnings of  veiled threats that if she does listen to the constituents she chooses and their ideas, or God forbid might ask more questions or agree, she will be in trouble with the Republicans and marginalized just like they did to John Byrne when he initially declared no wind in the early 2011 campaign.  Smell familiar????

They immediately tried to marginalize him by attaching him to me until he got back in line. Which he did very quickly from that subtle Republican bullying and intimidation.

Gee…I thought you Republicans assured told me this type of bullying only came from the other side.  So far the record of how the Republicans treat some of their supporters is not going very well.

Now if Michelle decided she wanted to  take advice from whomever she pleases, and decides to stand on her own principles even if they might not totally agree with the current Republican board, or their mantra, or she decides to ask uncomfortable questions as a board member, or if I am seen talking to her at a meeting or at a restaurant …what are all you upstanding American Republicans trying to censor debate and questions going to do…devour your own and vote for Dem. Aubertine?

God speed Michelle… and don’t let anybody from any faction push you around or bully you!  It at least appears you have the support of numerous people who DO NOT want any wind in this community. I know some of them, and they don't want a compromise.  they want this community defended against wind and having our home rule rights stripped away.   THAT is why I voted for you!  This town is in a deep crisis and we need people who can think for themselves.  Please be that person even if you don't agree with me!!!

Another Round of Election Hoopla! Now I get it!

Of course once again there is a lot of election hoopla.  We are told we must elect a "pro home rule" candidate to add to the Town Board that is "pro home rule".  But who truly is or isn't "pro home rule?"

I support Michelle Oswald, and I have not yet had a chance to discuss in detail the home rule rights / Article X issue and what she intends to do to actually defend our community against Article X.  So in fairness for now I will keep her out of this discussion in terms of what she might believe or do.

I think we do know where Paul Aubertine is going on Article X since he is backed by the CV pro wind oligarchy.  I'm sure he is supportive of the Article X process that will remove our home rule rights.

But what about our current town board upon which either Michelle or Paul will sit who already have  SUPER MAJORITY power to actually do something about protecting our home rule rights no matter who wins the empty board seat.  What about them and their  EXISTING power?  They have not opposed Article X in any significant way nor have they taken any aggressive action to actually defend our home rule rights. IN FACT  the board really isn't even talking about protecting our home rule rights themselves. They are silent.   Their zoning law is NOT opposition to Article X or protection of home rule rights.  It is just a zoning law  written in the wind regulations section to try to be "reasonable" or "appease" the Article X process not oppose it.  Their letter to the PSC about our law is not opposition because it recognizes and validates the Article X process.    Nor does our board  seem willing to pass a community bill of rights... or resolution to oppose  Article X  as the county did.

 Talk is cheap.  Where are the actual actions by these elected  sitting Republicans to  protect our home rules rights?

Their actions so far since Article X has come into existence is to go completely along with the  process intent on removing our community home rule rights. 

 But wait!!!  Let me see if I get this straight. 

We have our current board with super majority power to actually do something to try to defend us against removal of our home rule rights, yet they are going completely  along with the Article X process which essentially HAS removed our  home rule rights, and then you have Aubertine who we can be pretty confident will go completely along with Article X as well.

I guess under these circumstances Aubertine would be a good fit on our current town board since they both appear to want the same thing to validate and go through the Article X process. 

Ahhhhhh...now I get it!  The election hoopla keeps us focused on the candidates and the election and not on the town board which has the power to actually do something to protect our home rule rights and challenge Article X!!!!  The candidates will have NO power unless they completely agree with the existing Republican super majority town board...otherwise whomever wins the empty board seat will be a loner with no voting impact just like Orvis was.  Interestingly enough I think we can surmise that young Aubertine already agrees with the Republican town board on Article X!

Now I look forward to talking to Michelle even more, since she may be our only hope to at least start a discussion on the board to truly protect our home rule rights and and take action to oppose Article X!

A Guest Post

It’s never too late to do the right thing! Right?

Elected officials of Cape Vincent listen up!

For the past several years many in Cape Vincent have tried to present the “real” facts behind wind power development. Some have talked about wildlife, noise, and many other environmental concerns. Others, including me, focused on concern for the health and well-being of humans. Others have argued that the future of CV and, even the whole world, is hinged solely on a few local farmers having the ability to transform their farms into industrial sites despite the negative impact on their long time neighbor’s rights. 

Our neighbors in Canada and various locations across this great country have begged us to learn from their mistakes. The scientific community continues to provide emerging knowledge of the ineffective and inefficiency of this initiative. The medical community including the World Health Organization also continues to report on the negative impacts of industrial wind. So, are we doing the right thing?

Since the knowledge of the kitchen table contracts between locals and the developers became known to me, I have endeavored to present information that would guide and inform decision makers, elected/appointed officials, to do the right thing. This personal dedication includes campaigning door-to-door and voting in the last two elections for candidates who assured me they were vested in halting the process that would turn CV into an industrial park. This assurance included passing local regulations that would prevent any, that means as few as ONE, industrial wind  turbines from being implemented ANYWHERE in CV. In other words, do the right thing based on the wishes of those casting their vote for this outcome agenda. Did I do the right thing?

The leaders I voted for have let me down. Procrastination and failure to implement appropriate policy has made a mockery of my vote(s).  Their bias spurred attempts to limit or block the publication of those with opposing viewpoints and has turned into a mutual admiration clique. Wake up!!!!!!!The real adversary has money and clout.  You have the power granted to you by the voters to neutralize both. What are you waiting for!!!!!!!!!!? Listen up this is not a cocktail party!!!!!!!!!! This is not a negotiation or a popularity contest. Mr. Hirschey and Mr. Burns personally asked for my vote. In return I expected they would do the right thing and honor promises given or implied in exchange for that vote. Public integrity applies to them too. Stop playing into the hands of those whose true agenda is not the good of CV or the well-being of regional, country or world needs.  It is not too late to do the right thing. PLEASE do it NOW.

Theresa Ciocci, MSN, RN

Cape Vincent, NY

 

Planning Board Conflicts of Interest - But We Are All Still Losers!

The news at the Cape Vincent Planning Board meeting was that the PB decided to keep open the BP permit application.  That  being said I noticed something else very refreshing and the Chairman Mr. MacSherry mentioned it as well.  This was a very important discussion about BP and wind development in our community.  The two PB members with conflicts of interest with BP were not present, Karen Bourcy and Rochne Burns.  I applaud the PB Chairman and his board for dealing with this issue.  And I also applaud Mr. Burns and Mrs. Bourcy for complying with the ethics code of our town.  It made me reflect on where we might be today if our previous govt. had taken this path.

But I would like to make something clear.  Having a conflict of interest in and of itself is not unethical or illegal.  You can have a conflict and run for office and the you can have a conflict and be in office, and the voters will determine whether you are acting ethically or not.  But the line gets drawn when you act in a way that could even be perceived as favoring your own interests.  Then you must remove yourself from the discussion and voting on that issue. This doesn't have to be written in a code or a law...it's just plain common ethical sense.

I believe the pro wind side cut their own throat. Not because of the conflicts outright but the fact that they entrenched and defended the conflicts of the officers who acted with conflicts in place and this was to the  severe detriment of their very own cause.

Long ago near the beginning of this wind controversy I had a discussion with Paul Mason a wind lease holder for 3 hours on his deck. I made a prediction that myself or WPEG was not the problem for them.  I predicted that the real problem was going to be their govt officials and their conflicts that would ultimately take them all down.  And that is pretty much what happened to the letter.  I guess I was stupid to even offer that advice because it could have been detrimental to my anti wind cause if they had acted more reasonably and a compromise was reached.

I guess I could say I wish they would change and be reasonable, but since I don't want ANY turbines now in this community, their repeated entrenched moves, like the blogger law suit which is classic, and voter ID laws, and letter to assessors of seasonal voters etc which keeps energizing the anti wind or even the more middle ground of the community then they just keep working in my favor.

They just don't seem to ever understand that if  they were excited about wind development, if they had actually proceeded with a discussion that truly had the best interest of the entire community in mind, and not  totally in the best interest of BP and Acciona, they would have been much much  further along, maybe even with turbines spinning right now. 

The very first encounter I had with Rich Edsall in an official meeting started with he and Andy Binsley being defensive and yelling at me, a citizen they didn't know who asked a respectful question about met towers.  Binsley even said as a public officer that my questions were stupid. So how are you supposed to react to that?  There was a point in this fiasco that some of us , even me, under the right circumstances might have considered a reasonable discussion or compromise.  But by their own behavior those days are long gone and many of us were not even able to have that discussion.  And frankly I recognized early on that the conflicts of interest was one of our absolute best leverage points because it leveraged people to my side who otherwise were not anti wind or would have compromised.

That night Edsall and Binsley lit a fuse on me that there was no need to light if they had just been a little more savvy and comprehended what they were about to embark on and what they would unleash in many of us and even some people on the fence and pro wind, by using this behavior.  And after all this time pro wind are still doing it , and as I said the blogger suit is just one more vivid example of a lack of comprehension of what they are actually doing to themselves. That suit is going to backfire on them just like all the other moves on BP's behalf.  Just like the choice Edsall and Binsley made by yelling at a citizen asking a simple question.  Pro wind has  been on a self destruction path since day one that BP and Acciona engineered for them and they are simply unable to recognize it.

BP came here with a simple plan to profit on the backs of this community.... EVERYONE in the community. To them BOTH sides are an inconvenient distraction potentially in the way.  BP took a very basic human thing from all of us....the ability to have a simple discussion. BP does not recognize  human beings in our community, only profits.   In the end pro wind may get their turbines via Article X or I may get no turbines...but based on the anger and frustration and sadness exhibited by one pro wind person I encountered today...they will be like all of us...they won't escape the disaster BP has brought down on  this community.  The pain and suffering will not go away.  Not for pro or anti wind or anybody in between.  As I have said many times...there are NO winners in this battle...NONE.  Winning and losing is only an illusion, and the further we go down this road with BP and Article X  in control and all of us out of control the bigger and bigger the illusion becomes.

It's like in  the age of nuclear war...the real enemy isn't on either side...it's in the finality and total destruction of the war itself...that is the real enemy!  And like this type of war, it's not IF there is a winner...there simply CANNOT be any winners.  BP saw to that early on.

The best community for a wind developer to do business in is one in which they residents are screaming at each other at such a pitch that nothing else gets through, better yet get them to sue each other, otherwise joined together we might make uncomfortable and inconvenient demands on BP, such as a community wind power co-op, or a much bigger PILOT, and more profitable leases for the lease holders.  You could see this today after the PB meeting.  BP has gone to Article X which should be great news for pro wind, yet they don't seem to be happy even now and we are still screaming at each other over old wounds tearing off old scabs. The BP project manager doesn't have to come to CV or communicate with our boards because we will self destruct all on our own.  But this way BP can carry out business in the community unhindered.  It astounds me that the pro wind side didn't take an effective organizing strategy early on instead of being divided and conquered one lease at a time.  They became manipulated and losers the day they individually signed their leases.  That too is only common sense. 

And sadly with BP running to Article X, BP can now completely ignore EVERYONE pro and anti in the community because BP has ensured we will lose complete control over our future.   Neither side can be reasonable now even if we wanted to be.  BP and Article X have taken that away and left only the illusion one side might come out a winner.

Consider if in the process for whatever reason BP pulls the plug on their project and walks away.  This is hard cold calculated business and that is a very real possibility.  What are we left with?  An ugly law suit that goes nowhere, a community completely destroyed, our home rule rights removed, a community that is the laughing stock around the state, and we will still be screaming at each other, but now for no reason... even though the thing that caused us to scream at each other will  be long long gone.

Cape Vincent Town Board Is Asked to Pass A Resolution Opposing Article X

At the Thurs. meeting of the Cape Vincent Town Board, during privilege of the floor I presented a draft resolution to the Board to oppose the State's Article X just as the County has done.  In fact the language in my resolution was almost verbatim from the county resolution, with only a few very minor wording changes, but nothing of significance to the meaning.  Here is the draft  resolution below modified for CV.

RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, NEW YORK

Resolution No. ______

Resolution in Opposition to the Article X Provisions of the Power New York Act, 2011

Introduce By_____________________

 

FINDINGS

Whereas, New York State enacted legislation known as The Power New York Act of 2011, and

Whereas, Said legislation amended the public service law by adding a new Article X, which establishes a New York State Board on Electrical Generation Siting and the Environment, and

Whereas Said Board will have the authority to permit the siting of electrical generating facilities in the state which have a generating capacity of 25 MW or more, and

Whereas previously while various state agencies had regulatory oversight for such facilities as a home rule state, New York’s local municipalities, by virtue of discussions made by locally elected representatives could ultimately decide whether such development was in their resident’s best interest, and

Whereas, the Power New York Act of 2011 removes this decision-making from local municipalities, and puts that authority into the hands of an unelected bureaucratic state board which will have nominal representation from affected communities and even that representation cannot be from elected representatives of those communities, and

Whereas, the new board will have the authority to ignore any local ordinance, law, standard or requirement, if it finds that such is “unreasonably burdensome,” and

Whereas, the new legislation further states that no municipality may require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of such a facility, and

Whereas, while the law provides for set-aside intervener  funds for pre-hearing research on behalf of the affected communities, and parties, said funds are controlled by the Siting Board and will be allocated as it sees fit, and

Whereas, the majority of the Board’s membership will have no connection to the affected communities and will not be directly affected by their decisions, and

Whereas, while municipalities may be party to the siting hearings, so may any individual within 5 miles of the proposed facility’s site, and therefore the municipality itself, which purpose is to represent the residents who elect its officials, is diminished to the level of each individual within the five mile radius whether or not he/she lives in the affected municipality, and

Whereas, said law follows a disturbing trend in New York State to remove power from the local jurisdictions and therefore from the affected electorate and transfers such powers to a faceless, unelected bureaucracy which has no constituency.

The Resolution 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this duly-elected Town Board of the Town of Cape Vincent, New York opposes, protests, and expresses its deep disappointment and concern over the enactment of Power New York 2011 law and the Article X siting board it establishes, and be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be provided to the local county and state representatives, the New York State Board on Electrical Generation Siting and Environment and the New York State Governor.

Seconded by_____________________________

 I gave a copy to each board member present, and asked if they would pass the resolution this evening, but knowing that was impractical I asked if they would hold a work session where this could be discussed in greater detail, and then pass it at a special meeting or at the October TB meeting.

Mr. Hirschey responded that they would not answer questions during the privilege of the floor but would have to talk among themselves about the resolution.  I was hoping there could have been at least some brief discussion of the resolution.

They were not blind sided with this resolution because they were aware of this idea in private discussions back as far as early Sept.

This draft resolution is now a matter of public record and the ball is in the court of the Board.  I see this as a minimum step to protect our community if they are serious about preserving our home rule rights and protecting the community.  Enough talk about Article X stripping us of our home rule rights, let's step up and actually take some action.  Someone also suggested that a resolution of this type sets the ground work and justification for denying a PILOT agreement that many are confident the Board will deny to BP if Article X preempts our zoning law. 

So if you have an interest in this resolution and feel it is an important political step to oppose Article X and protect our community...then the ball is also in your court to contact your Town Board about this matter and ask them if they will pass this resolution...and if not why not?

Ask them as well if they would be willing to set a public TB work session to discuss this idea in detail.

 

An Old Post With New Meaning

I posted this post a few weeks back.  Now that BP has filed an application with Article X  to site its wind disaster in our community, this post has renewed relevance.  Use the link below.

http://cvcat.blogspot.com/2012/08/i-wonder-if-marion-trieste-has.html

Is this really what we want in our community using a singular wind law that can be easily preempted at a whim as our only defense?

BP Going With Article X Siting In Cape Vincent!

BP apparently has started the process to proceed with the Article X siting of their Cape Vincent wind project.  Between 200 - 285 megawatts.

Can you say preemption...sure you can!!!!!

I won't go into the details, but will refer you to the JLL blog or Pandora's Box of Rocks blog where BP's letter is posted.

Does Our Zoning Law Already Challenge Article X?

Did the zoning committee and town inadvertently place language in our new zoning law to already challenge State preemption of our zoning? 

There is a discussion going on the Pandora’s Box of Rocks blog about supersession of our zoning law  and constitutional rights.

 One commenter has claimed our zoning law already has language in it that would not allow it to be preempted or superseded. This language is right near the beginning of our law and says:

“2. This law supersedes all commercial, industrial, and private agreements affecting any aspect of this law, except as specified in this law.”

However, this language is not intended to stop State preemption.  Basically this language is designed to stop things like good neighbor agreements where a good neighbor might allow closer setback to his property line or house for wind turbines trying to circumvent the setbacks in our law.

However there is real interesting language in our law in section  5.9 “Interpretation” involving the Zoning Board of Appeals.  It says:

“Interpretation:

Interpretation and application of the provisions of this Law shall be held to be minimum requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. Whenever the requirements of the Law differ with the requirements of other lawfully adopted rules, regulations, or ordinances, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standards shall govern.”

Note that the language does not outline whether the less restrictive rules, regulations or ordinances are from a State law like Article X.  It just says “other”.  It doesn’t say that  the other regulations  are  only local either.

So does this mean that if our law is restrictive and Article X decides that our setbacks should be less restrictive,  that our law should then be the law that prevails since it imposes higher standards???? Does this mean we already have language in our law that attempts to challenge any Article X preemption by the State???   Does our law already set us up for a constitutional challenge?

Very interesting!!!   Maybe the zoning experts like Mr. Brown should explain this one to us!

The County Had The Brass To Oppose Article X, So Where Is Our Town Board's Brass????



This resolution opposing Article X was passed by the Jefferson County Legislature in Sept of 2011.  That was one year ago.  They stepped forward with a resolution with clear language opposing the Article X language in the Power NY Act of 2011.  This took some real brass. 

 

So what is our town board waiting for?  Were is their brass????   There is a lot of talk out there on the blogs about Article X and defending our home rule rights over corporate rule. Well OK time to "cowboy up" as they say  out West.   It's been a full  year since this was passed and more since Article X was passed.  Why isn't our town board at least taking this one step to  fully supporting the County on this critical matter of defending our community home rule rights? 

 

Our board wrote a letter to the PSC begging them to not take away home rule on their zoning.  How about now passing a resolution to oppose A-10?  Are they NOT opposed to Article X and the process it forces on our community to remove home rule?  Even to defend their own zoning law you would think they would at least take this step.

 

Or  is there some other reason they want Article X to sweep into Cape Vincent and possibly preempt our very restrictive law???  Is it possible they believe like Orvis that Article X might be the best solution to bring a compromise to our community and they can throw up their hands and say "well we tried" and Article X will relieve them of any more responsibility???? ?  Think on that for a while!!!

 

My suggestion would be to copy this resolution off and send it to or call your our town board members and ask them why they are not willing to step up and defend us with at LEAST this step to pass a resolution in oppsition to Article X and back up the County and defend our community and our home rule rights.  You are either for home rule or you are for the process that leads to corporate rule and the removal of your rights for BP.  Their isn't a lot of wiggle room on that issue.  Keep in mind if you try to sit on the fence you could get impaled on a fence picket!!!!

 

And as long as you're at it all you anonymous radical Article X opposition revolutionaries, ask your town board what they intend to do if their zoning is preempted?  Ask them if the intend to legally  challenge any negative A-10 decision and defend our community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home Rule On Wind PILOT Agreements - He Was For It, Before He Was Against It, Before He Was For It!!!

There is a debate going on the JLL blog as to whether our town board will use a denial of a PILOT tax agreement as the last defense against Article X if an A-10 siting board allows BP to site a wind complex here in Cape Vincent.

Here is a commenter from the  JLL blog:

“Art said, " I doubt seriously there will be any denial of a PILOT or of road agreements either as 9:25 suggests, that is far to radical a move."

Hirschey, Bragdon and others helped guide the PILOT process for Jefferson County communities so that town's get to vote. The county as well votes on PILOTs and they are less inclined to go along with a PILOT than they did years back with the Galloo Island fiasco. For anyone to say they doubt seriously anyone will deny a PILOT is preposterous given the attitude of the current town board - no way in hell will they endorse a PILOT for BP. Perhaps Art missed the PILOT discussion while home in Arizona.”

Really!!!!....Well if you didn’t read this WDT article read it now at this link:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120108/NEWS03/701089885

Now does anything strike you funny here?  Well it should!  I even picked it out all the way out there in old "Arizony" !!! A quote from the WDT article:

The underlining is mine.

“In November 2010, the board agreed to some changes to the policy that included a requirement to have all PILOTs approved by all taxing jurisdictions, with the sole exception of a standard PILOT of 15 years or less for a manufacturing project.

But recently, after difficulties in negotiations for PILOTs on housing and a rail spur into West Carthage, the JCIDA staff and board had decided they might need the power as a negotiating tool.

The board’s acceptance of the proposal for distribution to all taxing jurisdictions in the county and a public hearing originally appeared to pass on a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Docteur opposing. But board member Urban C. Hirschey minutes later decided to vote against it.

“I’d just as soon postpone it until we have the chance to know more,” he said.

Mr. Hirschey was a member of the committee that worked on the new language.”

WTF!!!!!!

So I have some inconvenient questions for the commenter from JLL.  You want to explain to me why Mr. Hirschey apparently voted FOR a JCIDA resolution in Jan 2012 that would have REMOVED his town’s ability to vote on a PILOT, and force it on his own town and others under wind threat and then only at the last minute changed his vote????!!!!  Why even consider supporting that resolution AT ALL!!!????  You want to explain to me why Mr. Hirschey sat on a committee to formulate language for this resolution that would allow the JCIDA to force a PILOT on his town?  Then he says he wants to postpone it till he knows more.  You want to explain to me what MORE there is to know about FORCING a PILOT on communities that don’t want them basically taking away the communities home rule rights on the PILOT issue???? Gee to me that smells exactlylike an Article X type preemption of home rule!!!    At least County Leg. Docteur used some good judgment and voted against this nonsense.  So what was Hirschey originally voting for? Did he not understand the resolution???  I doubt it since he sat on the committee that formed the language!!!

This is our own town supervisor we are talking about here, who appeared  was willing to throw his community right under the PILOT bus!!!!  You still confident our board will vote against a PILOT as a last defense?  Doesn’t make me warm and fuzzy, especially when I also see very little enthusiasm from our board thinking the Article X decision is the end game and that is IT!!! 

Well if they are going to roll over for whatever Article X decides I am guessing they will roll over at that point and say…well we might as well  get the money!!!

And you are talking about “the board” as if they have minds of their own.  Well let me enlighten you to something.  I was sitting in a meeting recently with Mr. Hirschey and Councilman Byrne and the town attorney.  I asked  Byrne directly if the town board would be willing to pass a resolution opposing Article X like the County did, and then as a protest refuse to send delegates to the Article X siting board if BP applies. His response was that they would have to talk to the rest of the  board because "they work as a team”   Yup,  and I think I know exactly how that  works.  Geees...and people accuse Dave and I of thinking alike on everything!!!

Like I said…I doubt seriously this board will refuse a PILOT as a last defense for this community.  They are stuck on one zoning law, and then it appears they won’t even defend  that after the fact against a terrible A-10 decision. 

And here is a link to the JLL report of this JCIDA vote in Jan 2012.

http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/2012/01/jcida-override-vote-is-threat-to.html

A quote from the JLL report:

“Combined with recent Power NY legislation, that turns industrial wind siting over to a non-elected State Board, the attempt by the JICA to deny the right to vote on PILOTs is a very dangerous threat to home rule by Jefferson County Legislators, Town Boards and School boards.”

So why the hell did Hirschey work on the language of this JCIDA resolution to strip towns of home rule, and the VOTE FOR IT, before he changed his mind and voted against it?????  Is there some confusion in Mr.  Hirschey’s mind at this late date in 2012 about actual HOME RULE and what it means!!!

Dave Lamora and I have already talked to our town board members, and the town attorney  and others about a more comprehensive plan to defend our community… to no avail.  

In light of all this  I think if your are actually serious and not just blowing smoke  about preserving your  home rights  and defending our community you better start asking some damn serious questions of our board  and these new town board candidates and soon before it’s too late or this new zoning law won’t be worth the paper it was printed on!!!!

 

Article X - Health ,Safety, and Welfare???- Or POLITICS!!!

Will our zoning law be preempted, by Article X?  Will BP strongly argue the  point that our law is overly burdensome?  Will an A-10 siting board agree with BP?  That is the debate now.    BP has already indicated our law is too restrictive and will defer to the Article X siting process.  This already tells you we are in for a preemption battle if BP files an application to site a project in Cape Vincent under Article X.

So knowing this how does this battle stack up?

Let’s  say you order a new car.  When you get to the dealer only 8% of the car is there.   Or let’s say you order a meal at a restaurant , and the waitress brings you only 8% of the meal.  Maybe you hire a contractor to build you a house and he only finishes  8% of the house.  Let’s say you go to an ATM machine to withdraw $100 and you get $8 instead. 

Do you think any of this would make you very happy?  Probably not, and it’s not going to make BP very happy.   Might not make an Article X siting board  happy either.  Cuomo after all has sent all of us a message that the Article process is balanced, and we have to be “reasonable”  Think the commissioners he has appointed, or sit there at his pleasure and  that will sit on that A-10 board pay attention when the Gov. puts out such a public message right in the heart of NNY industrial wind country?  Think they are going to send the Gov. back a message with their siting decisions that says   “Screw you Andy…we are going to uphold every very restrictive ” overly burdensome” zoning law that allows virtually ZERO wind turbines to be sited.   Screw your political agenda and corporate lobbyists, we are going with the complete health, safety and welfare in these community laws! “

I don’t know how many industrial winds turbines our new zoning will allow.  I have heard 6 -8.  I have heard 10 or 12.  Some say that when all the regulations are applied it will be closer to zero.  I’m not sure anybody really knows or has figured it out conclusively, but let’s use 10 for the sake of argument here.

Now there is a rumor out there that BP has a plan for 125 turbines, and they have indicated they have expanded their project to 285 megawatts.  The math says  that would equate to 2.2 MW per turbine.  That’s about the size of the  turbines on Wolfe Island.  So let’s go on that assumption.

 What BP wants is 125.  Our law might allow 10.  10 divided by 125 equals 8% of what BP wants for their project.  Of course if the law does what was intended and basically makes it closer to zero turbines for BP, then that 8% goes to 0%.

Hhmmm….See any potential problem here???!!!  I doubt seriously BP is going to sit still for this no matter how damn good we think our law is.  And I think it is real questionable that an A-10  siting board full of commissioners appointed by a Governor with a green agenda is going to see this as “reasonable” or “balanced”.

Do you think Gov. Cuomo and the powerful corporate and political forces behind him are simply going to accept in community after community getting only 8% or ZERO of what they want?   You don’t build a successful political career on getting only 8% of one of the things  you are hanging your career on!  Your contributors aren’t going to be very happy getting only 8% of what they want either, which is probably the much more important point.

So what does reasonable mean?  The word suggests moderating the extremes.   BP wants 125 turbines…to us that’s extreme.  Many of us want ZERO.  That will also be considered extreme.  The Governor is tell us, (not the corporations) we have to be reasonable.  So if reasonable means some middle ground away from the extremes, that could mean about  62 turbines our about ½ of BP’s 125.  Maybe to hedge their bets it could mean 70 maybe 80.

Now what about being “balanced”, another Cuomo word defining Article X.  Well we all know how a traditional balance works.  It has to have equal forces on either side to balance.  Well in the Article X Cuomo equation if there are ZERO turbines or 92 & less than what they want  that tips the balance to far to the extreme one way.  For us, having BP get 125 or more  turbines makes us feel the balance tips way to far the other way.  So again, by the Cuomo definition of balance for which you have had no input, balance has to be in the middle somewhere, or a little in his favor.   This brings you back near that 62 number or 70 or 80 so BP can make it a viable project in their eyes.

So are you still confident our new zoning regulations on industrial wind that allow somewhere around 8% or less of what BP wants is going to avoid preemption?  And  considering Cuomo’s definitions which you can bet any  A-10 siting board is going to pay very  close attention to. 

Some people I have talked to lately are very confident our zoning will stand up to preemption. Mr. Brown the chairman of the CV zoning committee is very confident apparently. I was told by one WPEG person that we have the “best damn zoning  law in the State!!!”  That was their defense when I asked if they thought our zoning law would hold up to A-10 preemption.   I wonder if they did the same political reality math as I’ve  shown above.  Their confidence is based on only one thing, that an Article X board will go completely along with them on our law since they have to and will recognize it was formulated on the health, safety and welfare of the community.  Well if that was the case in community after community and ZERO turbines in all these communities was acceptable…then what would be the point of Article X have PREEMPTIVE POWERS at all.   Why, because you can bet they intend to use it!!!  Some people in our community foolishly and  completely ignored nearly everything upon which Article X was established which is a corporate political power agenda, not health, safety , and welfare.   Brown and some others in CV think health, safety, and welfare which allow nearly ZERO turbines is  the ticket, at the very same time Cuomo is sending communities the message that we have to be “reasonable” which means it’s not reasonable in his mind for you to completely protect your  community’s health, safety, and welfare, (and home rule rights BTW), that allows  nearly ZERO turbines!!!

You can bet that Cuomo could  care less if we have the ‘best damn zoning law in the State” if it stands in the way of letting big corporations like BP power NY especially to meet NYS renewable targets.  How does it look for a green Dem. Gov. probably running for president if he has to admit he could not meet his renewable and business agenda targets.  Some  sharp Rep. is going to eat him alive on that count.

To me this all equates to preemption of our new zoning law.  It’s too bad that our  town board, our zoning committee, and their supporters aren’t willing to defend our community home rule rights with a political solution against A-10, but instead in their zeal ignored all that and went with a singular one dimensional  traditional  zoning solution like health, safety, and welfare, that in reality Article X politics has almost nothing to do with.

 Seems to me in their singular narrow one focus approach to defend our community against Article X  they actually  ignored most of what A-10 is actually about and have left our community very vulnerable as a result.

 

"Best Damn Law in the State"   Well Article X and Cuomo have the best damn preemption in the State!!!

 

Your Community - Your Choice

Dave LaMora’s name is included here but simply as a matter of record since he has participated in these events.  Dave may agree or disagree but will speak for himself on these matters.   However the opinions expressed here are mine alone.

I could pound on and on about this “community bill of  rights” thing and what I think  could be a better defense against Article X, and a defense of our home rule and constitutional rights, but I will make this statement and then you can all simply decide for yourself from here on how much commitment and will you have to truly protect our community.  Frankly I think the scattered statements I see on the blogs and hear around the community about resistance to Article X and protecting are community rights against corporate rule ring hollow, especially if the entire defense hinges on following and appeasing  a process with the power to preempt your rights, and  using a one time only a singular zoning law approach  as a defense.  If you want to find a definition of true gambling…this is it!!!

Recently Dave and I have had some more detailed  discussions with some people in our town govt and others about the ideas you have seen in posts and comments on this blog and on the JLL blog.  Those discussions revolved around the ideas of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) to pass a community bill of rights which includes the idea that corporations should not be considered to have  constitutional rights like people that they can then bring to bear under constitutional claims to plunder communities at will by negating their local laws thereby leaving them powerless to determine their futures.   Just like BP and the State is likely to do in Cape Vincent.  These ideas are not aimed just at wind power in CV.  Nor is it  against all corporations.  It simply means we want a choice as to what we allow in our community or how much and enforce our rights to do so.  The point is to make this community  bill of rights another layer of protection, and force the corps to argue on a rights level, not only on a setback regulation level where they can easily dominate the argument .  There are other things that would have to be done as well as a comprehensive defense against Article X and BP.

Recently Dave and I talked  Mr. MacSherry our planning board chairman about these Ideas, and he was willing to listen face to face and try to understand the concepts.  We asked to meet with Mr. Hirschey our town supervisor, and he also agreed to a meeting last Friday morning.  We spent about an hour and he included councilman Byrne and asked the town attorney Mr. Mark Gebo to attend as well.   The five  of us  had a fairly in depth and interesting discussion on the issues of community rights and a defense against Article X.  The discussion was very open and many questions were asked and ideas explained.  I am not implying they agreed necessarily, and  no commitments were made, nor have we  heard  any further interest at this point.

In addition all the other town councilmen were contacted and these ideas were explained to them as well.

Not long before that we spoke to the WPEG organization at one of their meetings about our ideas.  Again a lot of questions were asked and information exchanged but no commitments were made.  

We now know that key people in the community know of an alternative and additional plan to defend against Article X other than to depend entirely  on our zoning law as the complete end game. We also know that the CV planning board chairman knows of the details of the plan as does every current town board member.

For the general public and blog readers who have an interest  I have once again posted links to a very good video by CELDF that explains the basics of what we face in CV, and a link to their Website.

It’s your community, and your choice if you really want to defend it, and defend your home rule rights over corporate rule as the current slogan says.  That is not going to happen all on its own nor will it happen by simply following along the Article process which has clear language that could completely take away any local land use decision we make and our home rule rights over those matters as well.  It’s simply your choice if you want to have this conversation in the community or if you want to have it with your town board.

Once again for clarity I will outline the basics.

A community bill of rights approach and approach to oppose Article X is not a zoning process. It is an independent question.  It is a defense of our community, rights to determine our  own future free from State or corporate control.

Immediately pass a resolution opposing Article X as the County did, and encourage other local towns under wind threat to do the same thing.

Refuse to cooperate with the Article X process by not sending local reps to sit on the siting board, and encourage other local towns and the County to do the same if an application is presented.

Pass a Community Bill of Rights and encourage other local communities to do so,  declaring we have the constitutional rights to deny State preemption of our home rule rights, or regulate or deny  any corporation doing business in our community, and that they cannot force their false corporate constitutional rights on us to, take away our right to determine our community’s future.  ( See the CELDF site)

I still believe that a prohibition of wind development is the correct direction and that our current law does not go far enough in its protections,  but no matter what, we should legally defend our right to determine that choice against any Article X decision that is contrary to what we determine is right for our community.

Deny BP a PILOT, and make that known right now.  Same for any road use agreement.

There are also effective political and PR additions to this strategy that will not be discussed here.

Those are the actions, so once again here are the critical questions for you, our board, or the new candidates for the open board seat.

How confident are you our new zoning wind regulations will stand up  to Article X?

Are you 100% confident in our new law?

Would you be willing to pass a resolution to oppose Article X?

Would you be willing to not send reps to the Article X siting board as a protest?

What will you do if our law is preempted beyond the strict regulations in our wind zoning?  Will you be willing to legally defend our law in court to defend the community and our home rule rights?

If BP is allowed to site turbines ,will you deny a PILOT agreement?   Same for any road use agreement?

You have seen the discussion here on the blogs.  You can visit the CELDF sites to get more informed. You can call either one of us to get more information.   It’s your community, it’s your home rule rights and constitutional rights…and it is also now your choice as to how committed you are to defend our community and those rights,  or if we and our board are simply going to surrender to whatever Article X decides is our fate. You now know the alternatives and choices…and be sure to consider that Article X does actually have the power to preempt our zoning law, and that power is not there as just an afterthought or joke!

We need to have enough respect in ourselves and our rights and our long 6 years of painful efforts to not just give it all away to BP without a fight.  We need to have enough respect and will to at least tell them that if they are going to take our rights, then they will have to come TAKE them in a very ugly open public fight, and that we won’t just willingly surrender them.

In the end I still believe that NO industrial  wind development belongs in this town or in this region, and I think we should take the necessary steps toward that outcome instead  half measures trying to dance around the obvious.  I don’t think the sum total of our battle against Article X and the removal of our home rule rights should sit on a foundation  of one singular idea that our zoning law is the one and ONLY defense, especially when that defense has been established on being “reasonable” to Article X, when in fact no one knows what  “reasonable” is, and it’s anybody’s guess.    But it’s your choice!

My opinion based on all the people I have talked to in an out of our govt and around the community about this issue recently is that the community is asleep, lulled into a dream land that our singular  zoning law is all we need for a defense and basically the fight is over as a result.  Voting  was easy, and writing the new land use documents was all we had to do, and there is no need for a PLAN B.  That is a very dangerous place to be if you are truly intent on protecting your community.

 I think this is basically like the same simplified snake oil the wind developers try to sell you that all you need is wind power in your community, and all kinds of jobs and money will appear and all our energy and climate problems will magically disappear. You would think after 6 years we would have learned by now.   It has not taken one singular simple  approach to get this far in the CV wind battle and it is the same to protect our community and defend our home rule rights now.

American’s are basically reactionaries, and as I see it the next step in this process will be outright  panic.  That panic will arrive at the point people wake up and realize that the singular “reasonable” zoning law setback approach is about to come apart under Article X preemption, and the BP equipment is about to carve up our community.  The stunning realities will set in that many simply don’t want to face, and so will the panic.  Sad part is it will be far too late, and that is all you will be left with is panic and anger.   Well of course you will have the remnants of a community completely destroyed physically and socially.

I saw this very process take place in Arizona with a group who was not willing to fight with the toughest approaches and defend what they really wanted.   The result????   Many of them look out their picture windows at 62 – 400 ft wind  turbines day and night and can’t believe what they see.   Definitely not what they had hoped for, but was actually the logical end result of the appeasement and compromise approach they had chosen.

It’s not rocket science…if you work within, and enable, and appease and compromise, and play by the rules of  a system that is designed to site wind turbines and take away your rights,…well then geeee whiz and guess what…then you get those wind turbines and you get those rights taken away. Pretty simple formula to understand!  That is the script, and if you don’t want that outcome simple logic and intelligence says you have to play by a different script.

It’s all risky.  There are no guarantees in any approach.  But it seems to me you do what you can to shift the probabilities as much as you can in your favor, and playing in a game where the probabilities are all owned and engineered by the  opposing side doesn’t make much sense.

It’s your choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowKoNmODNY

http://celdf.org/