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!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment