According to the Watertown Daily Times on page B6 BP intends to file their Art X Scoping Statement on March 29.
Wait a minute...this can't be real. I definitely remember numerous blog commenter saying it was all a bluff by BP and it would never go this far...Oh Well!!! Time to wake up!
AND
Is that the end of the PIP process.? Has it been accepted and approved by the NY PSC??? If that is the case then what does that tell you about the Art X process and our board willingness to follow it as a fair process!!!!
And what about all those letters to the NY PSC telling the PSC how BP's PIP was a sham? Geee didn't just ignore those did they???? No really????? You mean it was "Thanks for all your input, but we are screwing you anyhow!"
Geee do ya think that is how the Art siting hearings will go too!!!
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Special WDT Commentary By Cape Vincent Town Supervisor Mr. Urban Hirschey
Cape Supervisor Urban Hirschey's comments on the season voter and Star tax exemption issues can be seen at the link to the WDT.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130324/OPINION03/703249981
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130324/OPINION03/703249981
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Really Doesn't Matter Who Is In Power In Cape Vincent - It's Only An Illusion!
There is one commenter on my blog who is spineless enough that they are frightened to put their name on comments and stand by what they are saying. And what they keep repeating is that I am attempting to take Mr. Hirschey and his govt down. I think this is in hopes they can embarrass me into silence as a traitor. That strategy could benefit both sides, so these comments could be coming from pro wind or Hirschey supporters playing a game.
Well either way people who know me know I don't fold up that easily, and know where I stand on the wind issue and that has not changed in 7 years. Anybody who thinks I am somehow working to enhance the pro wind side must not be reading over the last 7 years, and must be illiterate! They would also know that the last thing I want is any shreds of the old CV govt back in power.
But let's keep something in perspective. Even if the Hirschey govt were to go down, which I doubt they will then in a sense on the wind issue it doesn't make much difference now who is in power in Cape Vincent govt, either pro or anti wind snce Art X took over. That is why I have no hopes or expectations or desire that Hirschey and/or his govt "go down". I just want them to make sure they abide by the law no matter what they do if there actually is an issue in that regard.
The decision is going to be made in Albany by Cuomo either way, and I believe it is already fixed. The question now with our board's willingness to succumb to Art X, the only question that remains in my view is not yes or no to turbines, but how many and where. And that has little to do with our zoning, comp plan or who is in power.
And the pro wind people who think they have it in the bag are completely politically deluded. What I currently see in CV is one faction that wants as many turbines as they can get and another that will chase Art X and accept whatever they get. In a broad sense you have two wind favorable factions...no longer a true pro and anti wind divide...at least as far as potential govt make up is concerned. Hell...the current govt is now agreeing with the pro wind faction on "wish lists" they can get from BP!!!
What you pro wind people don't seem to understand is that you aren't getting all the 124 BP turbines you are desperate for. Somebody is going to get screwed and cut out. Why??? Because Cuomo has to be politically correct even with his rabid green agenda. His political future depend on being a popular politician who can bring everyone together on controversial issues. If he gives it all to BP then his Art X legislation will actually look just like we have been calling it...total corporate lobby community rights crushing bullshit. That doesn't sit very well politically in this day and age. So I doubt with BP's reputation as well he is going to just let BP walk away with everything they want. Especially since we are one of the first towns to go through Art X and a lot of eyes are on CV and Cuomo knows it.
Cuomo and his Art X board and the NY legislature have to show that they are "fair" and the system works and the input was heard from all us small people, and that they will "screw us fairly" but for the greater good and the bigger cause! That means a compromise as I see it, and maybe a significant one at that. And I think Hirschey and his key loyalists know this already. Their cover is they can walk away saying they did everything they could...sorry, it's not our fault it is all the States fault.
But the anti winds are foolish to think they can stop BP by playing in this Art X game. Cuomo after all does have an green agenda and he told local communities in a speech last summer they have to be "reasonable" That means compromise. My guess is with the current board on the path they are headed to appease the State and Art X that we get about 40 to 80 turbines as a compromise shoved back as far as feasible from the river and lake. And I think both BP and our board will take it! I think there is a good chance they both have a pretty good idea what is about to happen anyhow and a lot of Art X as a result is just eye candy and hoopla. Both BP and Hirschey are too well connected to Albany to not have a clue where this is going! And there are other back channels operating too! Maybe I will get into that at some point. But it is not pleasant!
So here is the thing for the pro wind side. Somebody is going to get screwed as a result. If Art X comes in with a 60 turbine compromise, that is a full 50% reduction in the project, and I'm guessing when that happens you will start devouring your own. The Hirschey side will probably try to convince us we avoided disaster and to walk away happy with the best we could get.
Where I part ways is don't think it has to play out this way if this board and other local towns and environmental groups were willing to stand up for our rights as communities and a region and take on Cuomo with a nasty political fight in public. Everything else is just appeasement and a path to a BP wind disaster, no matter who thinks they control CV now or in the future!!!
If either side thinks this Art X path is some how going to work out well for their side ... you better think real hard again and sit down and really think it through...because there are NO winners except those who would actually fight for our rights and self determination for our communities future. Doesn't matter which faction is in power locally.
We have all been relegated to the children's table while the powers in Albany and beyond play the big game at the big table.
Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet!!! - Try Answering That Loaded Question In Your Best Interest! - More On Cape Vincent Voter Fraud Claims
Seasonal voting in Cape Vincent? Here we go again!!!
So right up front let’s look at what the case law says from the NY Court of Appeals from the link below
http://www.countryvote.org/sources.html
"The key case from New York State’s highest court is Ferguson v. McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 598 (N.Y. 1983), which held that a person having two residences “may choose one to which she has legitimate, significant and continuing attachments as her residence for purposes of the Election Law.”
Note that there is NO language here that says one has to be a “primary residence”
The whole 2011 Cape Vincent election controversy surrounding seasonal resident voters is back in the news. I am sure you have seen the story on the other Cape Vincent blogs.
See the link below to the WDT article. Also note the link in the article to a letter sent to the Jefferson County Board of elections from an assessor in Canandaigua NY.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130321/NEWS03/703219936
The basics of the controversy are that the assessor removed the STAR exemption from a couple who have what they consider a primary residence in Canandaigua, and chose to register and vote in the 2011 CV elections.
Apparently Mr. Hirschey the CV Town Supervisor attempted to assist the couple in straightening out the voting and STAR tax exemption issue. The Canandaigua assessor is claiming voter fraud. That is a serious very serious charge on his part that does not appear to match NY voting laws and specific case law that is binding on the subject.
But note the assessors question to the husband of CV voting couple.
It is a loaded question that has no relevance to the issue. It’s like asking “ Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”…you can’t answer it yes or no and come out looking any good because it uses a completely false premise that you actually are a wife beater when you aren’t . The assessors question is somewhat the same.
The CV voters say they consider their primary residence as Canandaigua. The he asked the husband. (The assessor’s questions below)
The primary residence has NO bearing on the issue whether the husband is claiming it the day before the election of or 30 days prior. It is manipulative question and shows a gross lack of understanding of NY voter laws and the case law that supports them. And this Brown guy is not an election official for Christ’s sake , he is an assessor!
Maybe he should check the case law before he creates such a serious liability for himself. The highest court in NYS has said that if you own two residences you can vote at the one you want for the purpose of election laws in NY. And talking of case law. Maybe this couple should sue the assessor for his voter fraud claims. In fact maybe the seasonal voters of CV should ban together and stop dicking around and end this nonsense once and for all and form a class action law suit for voter intimidation against certain pro wind supporters in CV. In a case where someone could or has lost there STAR exemption and been impacted financially, maybe there is actual damages claim?
Here are the other voting requirements from the NYS Board of Elections.
Register to Vote
Qualifications to Register to Vote
• be a United States citizen;
• be 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);
• live at your present address at least 30 days before an election;
• not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction and;
• not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court;
• not claim the right to vote elsewhere.
Here is the link:
http://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html
Also here is a link to another article on this issue of seasonal voting.
http://www.observer-review.com/regulations-allow-seasonal-residents-to-vote-cms-678
Note in this article that a “significant attachment” to one of your residents is mentioned as a criteria to vote. Well I thought about that and considered that since I pay double the amount of taxes on one property in CV where I reside as a seasonal, as I do on two properties in AZ…I would damn well say I have a significant attachment and right to vote in CV!
As to Mr Hirschey’s involvement in this I have little to say other than it might have been best if he stayed out of the fray with his apparent good intentions. Let the lawyers bring up the binding seasonal voter case law and put this assessor in his place!!!
So right up front let’s look at what the case law says from the NY Court of Appeals from the link below
http://www.countryvote.org/sources.html
"The key case from New York State’s highest court is Ferguson v. McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 598 (N.Y. 1983), which held that a person having two residences “may choose one to which she has legitimate, significant and continuing attachments as her residence for purposes of the Election Law.”
Note that there is NO language here that says one has to be a “primary residence”
The whole 2011 Cape Vincent election controversy surrounding seasonal resident voters is back in the news. I am sure you have seen the story on the other Cape Vincent blogs.
See the link below to the WDT article. Also note the link in the article to a letter sent to the Jefferson County Board of elections from an assessor in Canandaigua NY.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130321/NEWS03/703219936
The basics of the controversy are that the assessor removed the STAR exemption from a couple who have what they consider a primary residence in Canandaigua, and chose to register and vote in the 2011 CV elections.
Apparently Mr. Hirschey the CV Town Supervisor attempted to assist the couple in straightening out the voting and STAR tax exemption issue. The Canandaigua assessor is claiming voter fraud. That is a serious very serious charge on his part that does not appear to match NY voting laws and specific case law that is binding on the subject.
But note the assessors question to the husband of CV voting couple.
It is a loaded question that has no relevance to the issue. It’s like asking “ Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”…you can’t answer it yes or no and come out looking any good because it uses a completely false premise that you actually are a wife beater when you aren’t . The assessors question is somewhat the same.
The CV voters say they consider their primary residence as Canandaigua. The he asked the husband. (The assessor’s questions below)
“When I asked him if he was voting in CV the following day (November 8th) he stated he had already voted.” I then asked him as of November 7th, 2011 what town he considered to be his primary residence, he answered Canandaigua.”
The assessor then accused the person of voter fraud, because he had not resided in CV for 30 day prior to the election. WHAT???? Where the subject considers his primary residence has no bearing on the issue for the purpose of voter laws as the case law shows AND is not proof of where he resided in the last 30 days. In my opinion this It is an idiot question!!!
Is the assessor dense with these statements???!!! The assessor then accused the person of voter fraud, because he had not resided in CV for 30 day prior to the election. WHAT???? Where the subject considers his primary residence has no bearing on the issue for the purpose of voter laws as the case law shows AND is not proof of where he resided in the last 30 days. In my opinion this It is an idiot question!!!
The primary residence has NO bearing on the issue whether the husband is claiming it the day before the election of or 30 days prior. It is manipulative question and shows a gross lack of understanding of NY voter laws and the case law that supports them. And this Brown guy is not an election official for Christ’s sake , he is an assessor!
Maybe he should check the case law before he creates such a serious liability for himself. The highest court in NYS has said that if you own two residences you can vote at the one you want for the purpose of election laws in NY. And talking of case law. Maybe this couple should sue the assessor for his voter fraud claims. In fact maybe the seasonal voters of CV should ban together and stop dicking around and end this nonsense once and for all and form a class action law suit for voter intimidation against certain pro wind supporters in CV. In a case where someone could or has lost there STAR exemption and been impacted financially, maybe there is actual damages claim?
Here are the other voting requirements from the NYS Board of Elections.
Register to Vote
Qualifications to Register to Vote
• be a United States citizen;
• be 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);
• live at your present address at least 30 days before an election;
• not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction and;
• not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court;
• not claim the right to vote elsewhere.
Here is the link:
http://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html
Also here is a link to another article on this issue of seasonal voting.
http://www.observer-review.com/regulations-allow-seasonal-residents-to-vote-cms-678
Note in this article that a “significant attachment” to one of your residents is mentioned as a criteria to vote. Well I thought about that and considered that since I pay double the amount of taxes on one property in CV where I reside as a seasonal, as I do on two properties in AZ…I would damn well say I have a significant attachment and right to vote in CV!
As to Mr Hirschey’s involvement in this I have little to say other than it might have been best if he stayed out of the fray with his apparent good intentions. Let the lawyers bring up the binding seasonal voter case law and put this assessor in his place!!!
RENEWABLE??????
REALLY???
Something baffles me about label “Renewable Energy Project” "Renewable" implies “Forever”
OK so, wind turbines are supposed to last about 20 years. New evidence says wind turbines don’t actually last that long.
So they don’t actually last “forever” “unrenewed"! So to ”renew” them so they can capture more “renewable energy” we would have to have more "unrenewable" iron mined for steel, "unrenewable" fossil fuel for mining, production, and transportation, "unrenewable" chemicals for composites and lubricating and painting the turbines. Copper and other "unrenewable" exotic metals mined for electrical components and power lines etc.etc.
So explain that "renewable" part to me again??????
More Absurd Environmental Double Talk
Recently the Ontario Bays Initiative Inc.(OBI) group wrote a letter to the NY PSC. They are a non-profit conservation land trust group with a mission to protect land and water areas in Jefferson County near Lake Ontario. Sounds like a very laudable endeavor. Below is a quote from their letter. It is mind boggling what lengths these environmental groups will go to, to dance around the obvious, not be too controversial so they don’t lose donors, and remain politically correct in the face of an obvious environmetal disaster and tax scam.
“While we support the concept of renewable energy, we have serious concerns regarding the construction of industrial scale wind turbine projects in this area until more extensive studies are done, and more accurate statistics are gathered.”
I have some basic questions for the OBI group. After having wind developers in our midst for almost a decade and experiencing their insidious behavior, and how they have ripped our local communities apart, and after experiencing first hand the impacts a large invasive operating industrial wind complex right off the end of Lake Ontario on Wolfe Island, particulalrly the invasive impact on the viewshed and birds and bats...what the hell is it that you need more studies and statistics for?????
Do you really need more studies????
You mean to tell me after all this time with first hand experince with industrial wind they still don't get it and you need more extensive studies? You mean ten years of this industrial wind BS is not enough???? Good God, what is it going to take for these local environmental groups to take the obvious stand to protect our area??? And worse, implied in the letter is that some more studies and statistics could possibly make your concerns go away????? Seriously???? This is the trap that a process like Art X sets for you. Play nice and don't really state the painfully and overwhelmingly obvious!!!!
OK Ontario Bays time to step up with your political correctness to support "renewable concepts". Which "renewable concepts" DO YOU actually support and think would be compatable with our presious Golden Cresent environment and landscape near Lake Ontario and Cape Vincent?????
Maybe this industrial solar plant in Nevada where square miles of the endangered desert tortoise and other fragile desert habitat were literally scraped away and then covered with solar panels, industrial structures, and power lines!!! Let's see, doesn't CV and the land in Jefferson County have numerous field nesting bird species. Oh well Bye Bye!!! Oh yes and just a friendly green renewable reminder to OBI. BP's solar complex on Long Island cut down 42.000 trees!!!!
Note the corner of the one solar array where they have not put up panels yet. Scraped flat!!!
How about this wind farm near Palm Springs California which is only one of thousands of wind turbines that blight the land and have many old dead wind turbines which haven’t been removed.
Not to mention that the hundereds upon hundreds of red lights and strobes are a delightfull
"renewable concept" at night!!!
So OK Ontario Bays...are these the "renewable concepts" you support...so which of these nice little green "renewable concepts" is it you are supporting for Cape Vincent and the land near Lake Ontario so you remain not too controversial and politically correct??!! I'm sure political correctness "playing nice" was used in the examples above too, and look what it bought them. Big invasive destructive mostly unreliable tax scam industrial "renewable concepts."
Keeping in mind of the three that only the geothermal plant is a reliable, dispatchable, 24/7 source of electric energy.
Visit some of these places and you won't need anymore damn studies and statistics to make up your mind!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Cape Vincent Art. X Advisory Committee Meetings- What Does the Actual NYS Law Say?
I have been asking questions about the Cape Vincent Art. X Advisory Committee in several of my posts. Then a rumor surfaced about one or more of these meetings and where they may have taken place. As I said before I have no substantial comment on the rumor since I can’t confirm it, nor has anyone come forward to confirm it.
Forget the rumor for a minute and let’s look at what has transpired with this committee in FACT and what it means in actual law. Below is some information from NYS laws on meetings and committees. Emphasis is mine.
§ 4-7. Applicability of Open Meetings Law.
A. Applicability to town board and other bodies. The Open Meetings Law applies not only to town boards and other town bodies and commissions performing a governmental function, but to committees and subcommittees thereof consisting of two or more persons [Public Officers Law § 102(2)].
Note that it says 2 or more people…the Art X committee has 6 people.
A. Town board committees. Many towns find that there is a considerable amount of work a town board must do between meetings in order to gather the necessary facts on matters requiring town board decisions.
The town supervisor may appoint committees of town board members to make studies and report back with recommendations (Town Law § 63). These are committees of town board members and not citizen committees. If a town board committee is appointed, its expenses, mileage and so forth may be authorized in advance to be paid as a proper town charge.
The use of the town board committee technique can be a very useful tool towards good local government and can involve the board members more closely and effectively in decision making. Such committees can conduct formal or informal meetings and hearings, but cannot make any decision for the town board. Please note that these committees are considered public bodies and thus are subject to the Open Meetings Law (Comm. on Open Gov't. FOIL-AO-1258). All such decisions must be made at a regular or special meeting of the full board.
This committee was hand picked I assume by our town supervisor Mr. Hirschey since I don’t see any other information to the contrary that says the entire town board voted to appoint this committee. That is not illegal. Many committees in towns are appointed by either the board or the supervisor which it appears have equal powers to do so. Although one would think that if a committee is to be picked to advise the town board there would be significant consultation from all the board. Did that happen or did Hirschey just hand pick these people with no input?
Now note the word “advisory”. One would logically assume that a committee appointed to “advise the board” might be somewhat independent of the town board. In other words the town board is seeking advice from the committee to make important decisions later. So why would you appoint two town board members like Hirschey and Schneider to the committee? In effect, as town board members sitting on the committee they are advising themselves? I don’t think there is anything illegal about this but it seems goofy!
For example, let’s say you and your spouse are seeking truly unbiased independent advice from a financial advisor on important financial decisions. But then you tell him that you will help him make his decisions????? That doesn’t seem to make sense. If you are going to help him make his independent decision, why not just make them yourself? Of course maybe that’s the point. Maybe some on the town board are not looking for advice but rather trying to guide that advice in a particular direction!!! So why have an “advisory” committee?
Now this committee was appointed way back in early January. That is two and a half months ago, and you are telling me that with Art X and BP breathing fire down our necks they haven’t met to do anything since that long time that they were appointed? And if they did meet since Jan. then where are the announcements and minutes. There are no announcements on the town website calendar or minutes posted that say Art. X Advisory Committee meeting and i don't see any discussion of the committee finding at town board meetings.
Well as I have pointed out then , who is making all the policy decisions on these letters signed by all these town officers that are going to the PSC. These are major town policy statements regarding the wind issue and Art X and BP. Are these being made by this Art X Advisory Committee exclusively?
Note in the laws above that committees fall under the same rules as public bodies and open meetings laws, which means minutes and announcements. And that would be a committee of 2 or more. There are six on this Art X committee. And note that a committee can not make final decisions for the town board. Yet if the Art X Committee is sending out these letters of major policy directly to the NY PSC, I don’t see anywhere in public, video, minutes etc, that the town board is reviewing or discussion in public those committee decisions, yet all these town officers have signed on!!!
So once again, who and where are all these decisions are being made representing our town govt. on letters being sent to the NYPSC, with very critical policy statements and positions concerning Art X and BP???? Unless it is cleared up one could logically assume it is the Art X Advisory Committee that is deciding, drafting and sending these letters as a committee. That seems to be the job they were tasked with in focusing on the Art X process.
Problem is, if that is the case it doesn’t appear to conform to NYS laws, particularly open meetings laws. And here is the other problem. If in fact this process is not conforming to NYS laws…keep in mind the majority of our town govt. are signing these letters, and somebody should take responsibility to speak up and officially question this process. The sooner the better.
Let’s get a clarification ASAP of what is going on with this committee, the letters, and the resulting major town board decisions!
If I were a town officer in CV, I sure as hell would not sign any more of these letters to the NYPSC or anywhere else until I had some straight legal answers as to what is going on with this committee and this process!!!!
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
An Absolutely Frightening Letter!!!
On the Cape Vincent blog JLL, and to Mr. Wiley's credit, there is a very disturbing letter from US Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand - D - NY who represents NYS. I am not clear whether the letter is in response to a letter from Mr. Wiley or someone else, but it is frightening. You can see the entire letter at Mr. Wiley's blog JLL.
However, one part of the letter stupefied me. Is this actually coming from a supposed intelligent, well educated , experienced elected person, with a staff of researchers, elected to represent the best interests of NYS and all US citizens? If so it is very disturbing since it has NO basis in reality whatsoever. Here is the quote below. Underlining emphasis is mine.
"Alternative energies, including wind, have multiple important benefits. These projects offset carbon emissions by displacing electricity demand from traditional fuel sources such as coal, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy, thereby strengthening our national security. These efforts are crucial to establish energy price security and to keep the billions of dollars currently spent every month on foreign oil and energy technologies, in this country."
Really Senator????? I wonder if Sen Gillibrand has any freakin clue that basically everything she is saying here is nothing more than wind energy propaganda that has been dis-proven by credible scientific sources, yet she is still clinging onto this crap? I guess wind energy lobby money can make you say amazing things!
There is NO science that says renewables can offset any significant carbon emmissions. And I wonder if Sen Gillibrand can enlighten us as to how wind turbines reduce our dependence on foreign energy when they have virtually nothing to do with the displacement of oil, and therefore would have nothing to do with reducing "billions"even spent on foreign oil. I wonder if the Senator has a clue that even the wind industry has moved away from this claim knowing that anybody with a little intelligence and ability to research has figured out this is a lie.
For Christ's sake Senator go on the Energy Information Administration website and get some FACTS, where you can clearly see that the electric we produce from oil hovers around 1% and as a result even if wind energy replaced that 1% it would have virtually no impact since on oil imports. Which leads to another interesting question. If renewables are so great, then why have they yet to even replace this paltry 1% of oil we use for producing electricty???? Seems at least that should be achievable right??? I mean. come on Senator, if we can't replace that paltry 1% of oil for electricity how in the hell are we going to replace the nearly 89% from those other fossil fuel sources? You got a top hat and a rabbit magic trick for that one?
Here is a chart for Sen. Gillibrand to read! Also look at how little electricity we get from those non-hydro renewables. And that is after we have been throwing tax money at them for 30 or 40 years! So Senator, how the hell is wind and renewables going to take us of foreign oil????? And by the way Senator, you want to explain to us how that less than 4% renewables is going to replace that nearly 89% nuke, coal,and nat. gas? Especially when wind energy produces only about 20% or less of it's rated capacity, and solar is about the same or less?
Not to mention that anybody with a clue knows that the major use of oil in the U. S. is in the transportation sector, not producing electricity, and the last time I looked we aren't running vehicles with wind turbines to replace foreign oil! And it is a pipe dream to think we are going to run electric vehicles charged off wind turbines and solar. One report I read by some US utilities says that if we all started using electric cars and plug in hybrids a typical US household could DOUBLE it's electric demand!!! That would mean we would need very reliable powerful souces of electtric energy that could produce 24/7, unlike wind for example that produces about 20% or less of it's rated capacity. Here is another chart of energy realities for Sen. Gillibrand of how we use oil by the gallon in the U.S. and it ain't to make electricity.
Hey Senator...if enough unicorns run fast enough on a treadmill chasing butterflies, maybe they could produce enough electric energy to replace foreign oil too!!!!! Yippeee!!!
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Don't Be Nice - No Kinding!!!!
Over on the Cape Vincent blog JLL there is an interesting post on how to fight Big Wind.
I noticed a couple interesting suggestions. A lot of stuff that has been done in CV and local wind threatened communities. But 2 and 10 stuck out.
"2. Don’t be nice. These wind developers are your enemies: they want to destroy where you live, steal your money (property values), and are quite happy to literally drive you from your homes. They will lie, cheat, bribe, buy politicians, and do whatever else they can to win. They won’t be fair and you can’t trust them."
"10. Civil disobedience. Politicians and energy companies are terrified of this. Don’t be afraid to go to jail to protect the land and homes you love. On Molokai we planned if necessary to start a hunger strike on the island, and there were people ready to starve to death to protect our island. The level of your commitment is equal to the level of your success."
So why are we so willing to play NICE by going along with the Art X process as the State and Cuomo exactly expect us to do, where they even control all the rules and the process for BP's advantage to lie to us, cheat, buy politicians, take our property values and destroy our community and not think twice about doing it???? And this current CV town govt. and the wind "opposition" WPEG think writing nice letters to the PSC is going to solve our Industrial wind problems.
I guess JLL didn't want to ask or answer that critical question!!!!
I noticed a couple interesting suggestions. A lot of stuff that has been done in CV and local wind threatened communities. But 2 and 10 stuck out.
"2. Don’t be nice. These wind developers are your enemies: they want to destroy where you live, steal your money (property values), and are quite happy to literally drive you from your homes. They will lie, cheat, bribe, buy politicians, and do whatever else they can to win. They won’t be fair and you can’t trust them."
"10. Civil disobedience. Politicians and energy companies are terrified of this. Don’t be afraid to go to jail to protect the land and homes you love. On Molokai we planned if necessary to start a hunger strike on the island, and there were people ready to starve to death to protect our island. The level of your commitment is equal to the level of your success."
So why are we so willing to play NICE by going along with the Art X process as the State and Cuomo exactly expect us to do, where they even control all the rules and the process for BP's advantage to lie to us, cheat, buy politicians, take our property values and destroy our community and not think twice about doing it???? And this current CV town govt. and the wind "opposition" WPEG think writing nice letters to the PSC is going to solve our Industrial wind problems.
I guess JLL didn't want to ask or answer that critical question!!!!
More On The Article X Committee and Town Letters to the NYPSC - It Goes Against Human Nature
A response to comment 10:20 on the previous post about the Art X Committee.
Think of it this way also. In the Art X process there are a lot of very very complex choices and decisions to be carefully made by all these town officers signing these letters don't your think? I find it mind boggling that one or two people draft these letters and officers just sign these things without reading them or having some input to them. If that IS the case then these officers wouldn't be doing their jobs representing us effectively.
So you mean to tell me that all these 14 or so officers just automatically agree on everything? That there are no inputs or suggestions or discussions on such a critical and complex matter as to what should go into these letters? That would just be plain simple human nature, right, to have suggestions or doubts or want input on such a critical issue concerning the town's future? So where and how is this all taking place????
Point being I have not seen on video or seen mentioned in meeting minutes the discussion or signing or of these letters in public. So what are the logistics to get these letters from draft to presentation to the NYPSC?
Is one or two people drafting these letters and then they are sent around personally or by email, then at some point somewhere they have to actually physically sign the letters? Do the town officers one by one come to the town office to sign them after the letters are drafted by someone else? Or...do all these town officers meet all at once somewhere after the letter is drafted to sign these letters? If they all meet to sign these letters that would be town business and there would be a quorum from each town elected and appointed town board, and without public notice, or minutes etc. Even if 3 from one board met and signed at once.
That would be illegal!!!
So just exactly how is all this letter drafting, input, and signing carried out since there have been numerous letters prior to a public announcement of the Art X committee meetings that was in the WDT just this week? That committee was formed way back in early Jan!
Think of it this way also. In the Art X process there are a lot of very very complex choices and decisions to be carefully made by all these town officers signing these letters don't your think? I find it mind boggling that one or two people draft these letters and officers just sign these things without reading them or having some input to them. If that IS the case then these officers wouldn't be doing their jobs representing us effectively.
So you mean to tell me that all these 14 or so officers just automatically agree on everything? That there are no inputs or suggestions or discussions on such a critical and complex matter as to what should go into these letters? That would just be plain simple human nature, right, to have suggestions or doubts or want input on such a critical issue concerning the town's future? So where and how is this all taking place????
Point being I have not seen on video or seen mentioned in meeting minutes the discussion or signing or of these letters in public. So what are the logistics to get these letters from draft to presentation to the NYPSC?
Is one or two people drafting these letters and then they are sent around personally or by email, then at some point somewhere they have to actually physically sign the letters? Do the town officers one by one come to the town office to sign them after the letters are drafted by someone else? Or...do all these town officers meet all at once somewhere after the letter is drafted to sign these letters? If they all meet to sign these letters that would be town business and there would be a quorum from each town elected and appointed town board, and without public notice, or minutes etc. Even if 3 from one board met and signed at once.
That would be illegal!!!
So just exactly how is all this letter drafting, input, and signing carried out since there have been numerous letters prior to a public announcement of the Art X committee meetings that was in the WDT just this week? That committee was formed way back in early Jan!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Cape Vincent Art X Committee? - Letters to the PSC,- Who Is Making the Decisions?
There have been a lot of detailed letters going out to the NYPSC from the town of Cape Vincent on CV policies and decisions concerning BP and the Art X siting process. So who drafts or writes those letters? How are the subject matter and positions and details decided? Is it one person, say like CV Councilman Clif Schneider who drafts them and then everyone just signs on? There are after all a lot of town officers signing these letters in agreement. If somebody doesn't agree with a letter, or wants input, how is that accomplished? By private phone or conference call? Are they meeting somewhere as a group to discuss and have input to these letters before they sign them? If so that is a lot of town officers out of public view!
You mean to tell me there are 14 officers, the majority of our town govt, and they are all thinking exactly alike and in lock step on everything. That seems to defy the odds of typical human behavior.
I see no mention of meetings like that or minutes, or a listing on the town website calendar. I did see that on recent letters a little loyalty statement is attached that I thought was strange that says all the undersigned town appointed officers agree with the letters. That is kinda interesting. I also noted that Rockne Burns of the CV planning board who has a wind lease does not sign, and neither does Joe Martin of the CV ZBA. Does Mr. Martin not agree with the letters?
So where and how are all these Art X decisions being made? Are they at town board work sessions? I don't see any minutes on the town website or videos of TB work sessions. I don't see any real detailed discussion of these letters at planning board or TB meetings. So where are all these decisions and policies in these letters being made?
In early January Mr. Hirschey the town supervisor announced a hand picked Cape Vincent Art X advisory committee to guide the town's decisions and reactions to the Art X process with BP. It has two officers each from the CV ZBA, planning board, and town board. That is six town officers. Are they making the Art X decisions and drafting policy and decisions seen in these letters? If so where and when do they meet? Are the meetings public? I see nothing on the town board website calendar, or any minutes from these meetings. So when, where, and how do they meet and make decisions ? Have they meet already, once twice, more times?
So how exactly are all these Art X decision being made, where, when, who, and where is the record?
If you can't answer these questions definitively, then we may have an open and transparent govt problem!!!
If someone can enlighten us to the above questions PLEAE feel free to comment!
UPDATE:
Since I posted this post a few hours ago I did note on the CV blog JLL that the CV Art X Committee is meeting every Thur. at 1-3pm. However, that does not constitue a public notice. But the WDT paper is annoncing the same information and it is also dated march 12th. This committee was named in Jan. more than 2 months ago. So is this their first meeting or have they been meeting before?
Again...when I click on the town website calendar of meetings going back to Jan. 2013, all the meetings seem to be at other times like 7, 4, or 6 pm and there is no mention of any Art X Committee meetings.
Now there seems to be a lot of decisions and letters being made about the town's role in the Art X process. Did this Committee of 6 town officers meet before on these issues? If so where, when, and are there any minutes?
You mean to tell me there are 14 officers, the majority of our town govt, and they are all thinking exactly alike and in lock step on everything. That seems to defy the odds of typical human behavior.
I see no mention of meetings like that or minutes, or a listing on the town website calendar. I did see that on recent letters a little loyalty statement is attached that I thought was strange that says all the undersigned town appointed officers agree with the letters. That is kinda interesting. I also noted that Rockne Burns of the CV planning board who has a wind lease does not sign, and neither does Joe Martin of the CV ZBA. Does Mr. Martin not agree with the letters?
So where and how are all these Art X decisions being made? Are they at town board work sessions? I don't see any minutes on the town website or videos of TB work sessions. I don't see any real detailed discussion of these letters at planning board or TB meetings. So where are all these decisions and policies in these letters being made?
In early January Mr. Hirschey the town supervisor announced a hand picked Cape Vincent Art X advisory committee to guide the town's decisions and reactions to the Art X process with BP. It has two officers each from the CV ZBA, planning board, and town board. That is six town officers. Are they making the Art X decisions and drafting policy and decisions seen in these letters? If so where and when do they meet? Are the meetings public? I see nothing on the town board website calendar, or any minutes from these meetings. So when, where, and how do they meet and make decisions ? Have they meet already, once twice, more times?
So how exactly are all these Art X decision being made, where, when, who, and where is the record?
If you can't answer these questions definitively, then we may have an open and transparent govt problem!!!
If someone can enlighten us to the above questions PLEAE feel free to comment!
UPDATE:
Since I posted this post a few hours ago I did note on the CV blog JLL that the CV Art X Committee is meeting every Thur. at 1-3pm. However, that does not constitue a public notice. But the WDT paper is annoncing the same information and it is also dated march 12th. This committee was named in Jan. more than 2 months ago. So is this their first meeting or have they been meeting before?
Again...when I click on the town website calendar of meetings going back to Jan. 2013, all the meetings seem to be at other times like 7, 4, or 6 pm and there is no mention of any Art X Committee meetings.
Now there seems to be a lot of decisions and letters being made about the town's role in the Art X process. Did this Committee of 6 town officers meet before on these issues? If so where, when, and are there any minutes?
Friday, March 8, 2013
Close Your Eyes and Imagine!
Close your eyes and imagine a minute that it is 2008 or 2009, and you are in either a town board meeting, or a planning board meeting and either Tom Rienbeck and our former town board, or Rich Edsall and our former planning board and either one made this statement:
"We are now going into exec. session. I am going to make a motion that we go to executive session.
The purpose of the executive session is to discuss negotiations of, with (or about) the wind farm(s) and that will be a necessity of confidential information"
In 2008 or 2009 the wind opposition and the Cape Vincent blogs would have stroked out over that comment and the fact these boards went into exec. session on this subject matter as stated. Guaranteed!!!
In fact we were stroking out over what was being said in OPEN meetings by these boards, not to mention if they gave this reason to go to exec. session.
But when our current town supervisor says this statement to his board as he did verified on video, especially after this board was elected as an anti wind board according to many, and on open and transparent govt, ethics, and repeatedly saying our law is the final statement and they will NOT negotiate with BP... and NO ONE bats an eye, especially other board members!!!
How times change.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Were There Really Secret Negotiations By Our Town Board About BP?
A stunning quote from our Town Supervisor Mr. Urban Hirschey during the Feb. 21, 2013 town board meeting. Do they actually want to discuss secretly negotiations with or about BP and Art X???? Here is the statement as best I can decipher it from the Steve Weed videos.
"Ah...we are now going into exec. session. Ahhh… I am going to make a motion that we go to executive session. "
There were some interruptions about voting on vouchers, then Mr. Hirschey continues:
"The purpose of the executive session is to discuss negotiations of ...ahhh of ...ahhh how do I say... ahhh with (or about) the wind farm and that will be ahhhh be a necessity of confidential information”
Now I know the 1st reaction of many Hirschey loyalists is going to be Oh Pundt is just stretching the truth, mis-quoting, or again picking on Mr. Hirschey. Well…use this link to Steve Weed productions and see for yourself what Hirschey said.
http://www.steveweedproductions.com/TOCV2013.php
Save time by taking the video time slider and go all the way to the last couple minutes of the video. You will hear them talking about the vouchers and then Mr. Hirschey announces the exec. session. Listen carefully to what he says the exec. session is about. I think councilman Schneider tries to help Urban with the explanation saying it’s also about Art X.
So what you hear, despite what might have been meant, is that the town board is going into exec. session to talk about negotiations with the wind farm (BP) and Art X. and it must be confidential!!!! Is he kidding?????
First, you can’t just drop into exec. session on anything that suits your fancy that you want out of public view. NY Open Meetings Laws are very specific on that and you can see those rules below at the end of this post. Second what is so sensitive about negotiations with BP (the wind farm) and Art X that it has to be confidential and held out of public view?
Third, and this is the mind boggler to me, is that even though this may have bee a mis-quote by Urban and Clif, that NO ONE seemed picked up on this or even questioned it at all. The papers didn’t mention it as far as I can tell, and the other CV blogs only mention the exec. session in passing and nothing about the subject matter.
Let me get this straight….Our town board says it is going into exec. session to talk about confidential information about negotiations with or about BP and Art X, secretly and everybody just yawns and is perfectly OK with that and no one bats an eye or even asks a question? Have we reached the point of being so paralyzed in CV that this doesn’t even raise a question?
This is the “monkey” I was talking about in a previous post that was in plain view and it is as if no one even saw it happen!
Not to mention there is a record everyone can look at on video. Is CV completely paralyzed on the wind issue, is it complete blind faith of this town board, or are we all paralyzed that this kind of thing just slips unnoticed into oblivion???? Thank God for the video. Mr. Hirschey may have meant something else but he sure as hell said what he said!
Now I ran this by my wife and some others to see if I heard it right. They all verified the quote. Others have indicated that is not really what Mr. Hirschey meant. Well, Urban has this knack of leaving a trail of vague misleading statements on the wind issue that everybody later has to scramble to explain the real meaning of. I guess they have the secret decoder ring that allows them to understand what he really means no matter what he actually says.
Now let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say this is not what Hirschey or Schneider meant about the exec. session, or that in fact that wasn’t even the subject of the session. That would mean the video record, which is an official town record mind you, is badly in error on a very sensitive subject, and exec session is governed by strict clear rules. Haven’t we had enough of inaccurate or missing minutes on the wind issue??? So do we just leave this glaring error uncorrected? That leaves open some interesting perceptions. And as Councilman Byrne pointed out earlier in the meeting about ethics that he learned at the meeting of the Association of Towns…ethics can be ALL ABOUT perceptions? And the perception here is not a good one by any means if you are paying attention!
Of course we will never actually know because that is what exec. sessions are intended to do is keep things from public view. Hirschey’s statement still is what it is, and we probably will never have proof that the exec. session was about something other than what he, with Clif’s help said it was about. That is the rub! As it stands now the statement says they had a secret exec session meeting about negotiations with or about BP and Art X out of public view that must be confidential!
The laws basically say that minutes must be taken in exec. sessions but only if a final determination and vote are taken. So we may never have an idea what was discussed other than what Urban said was going to be discussed. BUT. why in the hell didn’t another board member speak up and say something to clarify and correct Urban’s statement if indeed he was incorrect or mis-quoting the subject matter? That is a very interesting question to ponder. This entire wind issue and how it is handled is extremely controversial, and hot and these kinds of things don’t help cool it down any! Fact is, not many people are willing to question Mr. Hirschey. And this is an example of the consequences of that blind faith!
Maybe some board member who was in the session would like to at least give a more clear explanation of what the meeting generally was actually about, because we have been told many times there will be open and transparent govt. and our zoning law is final, we will defend it, and there will be NO negotiations with BP.
In light of that alone and this exec. session statement by Hirschey, and considering the sensitive and controversial nature of the issue it seems to it would be irresponsible for some board member not to clear this up ASAP, preferably the town supervisor who said it and may have meant something else.
There are no minutes of this general town board meeting posted yet on the town website. It will be interesting to see if they quote Hirschey saying what he actually said on video about the exec. session. Now at the next TB meeting minutes must be approved. If they are not accurate, or this question still lingers on this issue, or what was said, let’s make sure the minutes reflect the video as to what was actually said, no matter what was meant, and then the board can clear it up and vote to amend the minutes for greater accuracy and public understanding and confidence. Seems to me certain of our current board members were real upset with our past CV govt about what they perceived as “secret meetings”, so what do ya say we clear this up ASAP! My blog is open to any town board member who wants to respond and I will make it a priority post.
Below are the rules for exec. session. I certainly don’t see anything that would allow them to talk about negotiations with or about BP or Art X out of public view. And if Hirschey only mis-spoke then what was the exec. session generally about? You will note in section 105 of open meetings laws they DO need to give a general public reason why they are going to exec. session and one would assume that must be an ACCURATE explanation.
God help us that it wasn’t actually what Urban said it was about because then we have some very serious problems!
Below is a list of rules for exec. sessions from the NYS Dept. of State. In light of Mr. Hirschey’s explanation…or if he mis-spoke, see if you can figure out on this list what they needed to go to exec. session for and keep it confidential from the public. Were ANY issues about BP or wind discussed? If so what…and why keep it secret?
Also here is the link to the exec session rules:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/openmeetlaw.html
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
"Ah...we are now going into exec. session. Ahhh… I am going to make a motion that we go to executive session. "
There were some interruptions about voting on vouchers, then Mr. Hirschey continues:
"The purpose of the executive session is to discuss negotiations of ...ahhh of ...ahhh how do I say... ahhh with (or about) the wind farm and that will be ahhhh be a necessity of confidential information”
Now I know the 1st reaction of many Hirschey loyalists is going to be Oh Pundt is just stretching the truth, mis-quoting, or again picking on Mr. Hirschey. Well…use this link to Steve Weed productions and see for yourself what Hirschey said.
http://www.steveweedproductions.com/TOCV2013.php
Save time by taking the video time slider and go all the way to the last couple minutes of the video. You will hear them talking about the vouchers and then Mr. Hirschey announces the exec. session. Listen carefully to what he says the exec. session is about. I think councilman Schneider tries to help Urban with the explanation saying it’s also about Art X.
So what you hear, despite what might have been meant, is that the town board is going into exec. session to talk about negotiations with the wind farm (BP) and Art X. and it must be confidential!!!! Is he kidding?????
First, you can’t just drop into exec. session on anything that suits your fancy that you want out of public view. NY Open Meetings Laws are very specific on that and you can see those rules below at the end of this post. Second what is so sensitive about negotiations with BP (the wind farm) and Art X that it has to be confidential and held out of public view?
Third, and this is the mind boggler to me, is that even though this may have bee a mis-quote by Urban and Clif, that NO ONE seemed picked up on this or even questioned it at all. The papers didn’t mention it as far as I can tell, and the other CV blogs only mention the exec. session in passing and nothing about the subject matter.
Let me get this straight….Our town board says it is going into exec. session to talk about confidential information about negotiations with or about BP and Art X, secretly and everybody just yawns and is perfectly OK with that and no one bats an eye or even asks a question? Have we reached the point of being so paralyzed in CV that this doesn’t even raise a question?
This is the “monkey” I was talking about in a previous post that was in plain view and it is as if no one even saw it happen!
Not to mention there is a record everyone can look at on video. Is CV completely paralyzed on the wind issue, is it complete blind faith of this town board, or are we all paralyzed that this kind of thing just slips unnoticed into oblivion???? Thank God for the video. Mr. Hirschey may have meant something else but he sure as hell said what he said!
Now I ran this by my wife and some others to see if I heard it right. They all verified the quote. Others have indicated that is not really what Mr. Hirschey meant. Well, Urban has this knack of leaving a trail of vague misleading statements on the wind issue that everybody later has to scramble to explain the real meaning of. I guess they have the secret decoder ring that allows them to understand what he really means no matter what he actually says.
Now let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say this is not what Hirschey or Schneider meant about the exec. session, or that in fact that wasn’t even the subject of the session. That would mean the video record, which is an official town record mind you, is badly in error on a very sensitive subject, and exec session is governed by strict clear rules. Haven’t we had enough of inaccurate or missing minutes on the wind issue??? So do we just leave this glaring error uncorrected? That leaves open some interesting perceptions. And as Councilman Byrne pointed out earlier in the meeting about ethics that he learned at the meeting of the Association of Towns…ethics can be ALL ABOUT perceptions? And the perception here is not a good one by any means if you are paying attention!
Of course we will never actually know because that is what exec. sessions are intended to do is keep things from public view. Hirschey’s statement still is what it is, and we probably will never have proof that the exec. session was about something other than what he, with Clif’s help said it was about. That is the rub! As it stands now the statement says they had a secret exec session meeting about negotiations with or about BP and Art X out of public view that must be confidential!
The laws basically say that minutes must be taken in exec. sessions but only if a final determination and vote are taken. So we may never have an idea what was discussed other than what Urban said was going to be discussed. BUT. why in the hell didn’t another board member speak up and say something to clarify and correct Urban’s statement if indeed he was incorrect or mis-quoting the subject matter? That is a very interesting question to ponder. This entire wind issue and how it is handled is extremely controversial, and hot and these kinds of things don’t help cool it down any! Fact is, not many people are willing to question Mr. Hirschey. And this is an example of the consequences of that blind faith!
Maybe some board member who was in the session would like to at least give a more clear explanation of what the meeting generally was actually about, because we have been told many times there will be open and transparent govt. and our zoning law is final, we will defend it, and there will be NO negotiations with BP.
In light of that alone and this exec. session statement by Hirschey, and considering the sensitive and controversial nature of the issue it seems to it would be irresponsible for some board member not to clear this up ASAP, preferably the town supervisor who said it and may have meant something else.
There are no minutes of this general town board meeting posted yet on the town website. It will be interesting to see if they quote Hirschey saying what he actually said on video about the exec. session. Now at the next TB meeting minutes must be approved. If they are not accurate, or this question still lingers on this issue, or what was said, let’s make sure the minutes reflect the video as to what was actually said, no matter what was meant, and then the board can clear it up and vote to amend the minutes for greater accuracy and public understanding and confidence. Seems to me certain of our current board members were real upset with our past CV govt about what they perceived as “secret meetings”, so what do ya say we clear this up ASAP! My blog is open to any town board member who wants to respond and I will make it a priority post.
Below are the rules for exec. session. I certainly don’t see anything that would allow them to talk about negotiations with or about BP or Art X out of public view. And if Hirschey only mis-spoke then what was the exec. session generally about? You will note in section 105 of open meetings laws they DO need to give a general public reason why they are going to exec. session and one would assume that must be an ACCURATE explanation.
God help us that it wasn’t actually what Urban said it was about because then we have some very serious problems!
Below is a list of rules for exec. sessions from the NYS Dept. of State. In light of Mr. Hirschey’s explanation…or if he mis-spoke, see if you can figure out on this list what they needed to go to exec. session for and keep it confidential from the public. Were ANY issues about BP or wind discussed? If so what…and why keep it secret?
Also here is the link to the exec session rules:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/openmeetlaw.html
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
Right In Plain Sight!!!
Have you ever lost something in your house, like say your car keys and because you were so sure in your mind the keys had to be somewhere else that it completely paraliyzes your ability to see what you are looking for and it is actually right in front to our face and when you find your keys you are stunned because they were right there in front of you in plain view all the time?
Maybe you are looking for something like your writing pen you dropped , and you are covinced it is red, but it actually it is green and since you are so convinced you are right that the pen you are looking for is red it's right there in front of you and you don't see it?
Ever have that experince? You end up operating in such a frozen paradigm and thought pattern that nothing gets in, even stuff that should slap you wide awake to awareness. Something in your mind is occurring...you are absolutely sure of it, and sometimes it is reinforced by others to the point that it has no relationship to reality.
In my search and rescue training I read of a study once on preconceived thoughts and observations. That becomes something you need to be aware of if you are looking for lost people in difficult environments. If somebody tells you the lost subject has Levi's and a red shirt, do you screen out all other information and possibilities? That is not very effective. It's also called situational awareness. As I remember it, the gist of the study was that a bunch of people were told to watched a basketball game on TV and were told to watch for something specific in the play of the game or about the players, like how many times the ball was passed and who passed it the most etc. After a while in the bacground there was a monkey running around. When the game was over people were asked what they saw.
No one saw the monkey!
Now let me ask you something.
If you were sitting somewhere in Cape Vincent with a highly reinforced preconceived idea you bought into, and supported by many other people including your peer group for several years ... would you be alert and situationally aware enough to pick up on anything unusual???
Or would you be paralyzed by your own thinking even though what you may have missed was actually right in plain sight like a lost set of car keys?
So did you see the monkey(s)?????
Maybe you are looking for something like your writing pen you dropped , and you are covinced it is red, but it actually it is green and since you are so convinced you are right that the pen you are looking for is red it's right there in front of you and you don't see it?
Ever have that experince? You end up operating in such a frozen paradigm and thought pattern that nothing gets in, even stuff that should slap you wide awake to awareness. Something in your mind is occurring...you are absolutely sure of it, and sometimes it is reinforced by others to the point that it has no relationship to reality.
In my search and rescue training I read of a study once on preconceived thoughts and observations. That becomes something you need to be aware of if you are looking for lost people in difficult environments. If somebody tells you the lost subject has Levi's and a red shirt, do you screen out all other information and possibilities? That is not very effective. It's also called situational awareness. As I remember it, the gist of the study was that a bunch of people were told to watched a basketball game on TV and were told to watch for something specific in the play of the game or about the players, like how many times the ball was passed and who passed it the most etc. After a while in the bacground there was a monkey running around. When the game was over people were asked what they saw.
No one saw the monkey!
Now let me ask you something.
If you were sitting somewhere in Cape Vincent with a highly reinforced preconceived idea you bought into, and supported by many other people including your peer group for several years ... would you be alert and situationally aware enough to pick up on anything unusual???
Or would you be paralyzed by your own thinking even though what you may have missed was actually right in plain sight like a lost set of car keys?
So did you see the monkey(s)?????
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
WDT Takes a Slap at the Lafargeville Solar Project - But Wait the Cape Vincent Town Board Wants to Tinker With Our Tax Dollars and Put Solar on Its Government Buildings Too!!!
In an opinion piece by the Watertown Daily Times they take issue with the Lafargeville solar project. Some people, like Pandora’s Box of Rocks blog, and some of her readers are upset that the WDT is not taking a slap at BP and the wind issue in Cape Vincent.
You can see the WDT piece at this link:
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130306/OPINION01/703069978
Last spring about this time I said basically what the WDT is saying now about solar…especially in NNY. I was saying it then because the Cape Vincent Town Board and their green agenda was asking BP to bring a commercial solar project to CV like BP’s in Brookhaven NY on Long Island.. Not to mention that solar project removed 42,000 tress!!! It is a pipe dream. And of all the companies in the world they were asking BP to do the project. But BP is no longer in the solar business. I guess they figured what our CV board has not figured out with their green aspirations.
As I pointed out on this blog last year, I know a little bit about this since I have lived in a passive solar home for 26 years here in the cold mt. climate at 7000 ft. above sea level in N.AZ. We have about 300 mostly sunny days a year on average. I have also had the opportunity to visit many of the old and brand new massive commercial solar projects here in the desert SW, both thermal and voltaic systems. And those visits include projects under construction right now in CA. and NV. One that is now owned by Acciona in NV too. If you ever experienced one of these projects first hand I doubt you would want it in CV any more than you would want industrial wind turbines.
According to the Energy Information Administration solar still gets only about a 15% or so capacity factor and they are very expensive. With that capacity factor wind actually out performs solar in expense and production.
Now apparently the CV town board with its green agenda is considering solar voltaic arrays for some of its govt buildings. That is what the WDT should also be questioning. Believe me, it would be another green fiasco experiment with our tax payer money especially in cloudy NNY.
Look at the solar input maps U.S.at this link. It tells the simple story.
http://store.sundancesolar.com/ussorama.html
Heres on e for January
What also bothers me is that apprently our town board's green emotions have gotten the better of their thinking, research and logic on this green and solar thing so they can all look green and feel better.
One reader commented on the opinion piece and said solar was a green unicorn and rainbows fantasy. I guess that is where our board is on solar and perfectly willing to waste our tax money on the fantasy. Like asking BP of all people to put up a commercial solar project that would require BP get a PILOT taxing agreement to be feasible.
One commenter on Pandora’s blog wondered why the WDT isn’t taking a shot at industrial wind and BP in CV. There is a reason. Just start putting together the puzzle pieces of who is connected to who and friends with who!!! That should get you started toward the answer. And keep in mind our town board has a wish list of things they want to get from BP...that should help you figure it out too.
I would have put this comment on Pandora’s blog, but I am sure she would have blocked it since it questions the solar and irrational green agenda of the Hirschey govt of which her husband is a town officer. So my comment would have been like a solar voltaic array in the dark of night. It would not have seen the light of day!!!
You can see the WDT piece at this link:
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130306/OPINION01/703069978
Last spring about this time I said basically what the WDT is saying now about solar…especially in NNY. I was saying it then because the Cape Vincent Town Board and their green agenda was asking BP to bring a commercial solar project to CV like BP’s in Brookhaven NY on Long Island.. Not to mention that solar project removed 42,000 tress!!! It is a pipe dream. And of all the companies in the world they were asking BP to do the project. But BP is no longer in the solar business. I guess they figured what our CV board has not figured out with their green aspirations.
As I pointed out on this blog last year, I know a little bit about this since I have lived in a passive solar home for 26 years here in the cold mt. climate at 7000 ft. above sea level in N.AZ. We have about 300 mostly sunny days a year on average. I have also had the opportunity to visit many of the old and brand new massive commercial solar projects here in the desert SW, both thermal and voltaic systems. And those visits include projects under construction right now in CA. and NV. One that is now owned by Acciona in NV too. If you ever experienced one of these projects first hand I doubt you would want it in CV any more than you would want industrial wind turbines.
According to the Energy Information Administration solar still gets only about a 15% or so capacity factor and they are very expensive. With that capacity factor wind actually out performs solar in expense and production.
Now apparently the CV town board with its green agenda is considering solar voltaic arrays for some of its govt buildings. That is what the WDT should also be questioning. Believe me, it would be another green fiasco experiment with our tax payer money especially in cloudy NNY.
Look at the solar input maps U.S.at this link. It tells the simple story.
http://store.sundancesolar.com/ussorama.html
Heres on e for January
What also bothers me is that apprently our town board's green emotions have gotten the better of their thinking, research and logic on this green and solar thing so they can all look green and feel better.
One reader commented on the opinion piece and said solar was a green unicorn and rainbows fantasy. I guess that is where our board is on solar and perfectly willing to waste our tax money on the fantasy. Like asking BP of all people to put up a commercial solar project that would require BP get a PILOT taxing agreement to be feasible.
One commenter on Pandora’s blog wondered why the WDT isn’t taking a shot at industrial wind and BP in CV. There is a reason. Just start putting together the puzzle pieces of who is connected to who and friends with who!!! That should get you started toward the answer. And keep in mind our town board has a wish list of things they want to get from BP...that should help you figure it out too.
I would have put this comment on Pandora’s blog, but I am sure she would have blocked it since it questions the solar and irrational green agenda of the Hirschey govt of which her husband is a town officer. So my comment would have been like a solar voltaic array in the dark of night. It would not have seen the light of day!!!
Well, Booo Hooo Hooo - What Do We Do Now????
As with many in Cape Vincent I have been watching with interest the letter exchange between the Cape Vincent govt. officials and the NYPSC concerning BP and their PIP and upcoming scoping process for Art. X concerning BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
Some of the quotes in these letters from the Town to the PSC are truly mind boggling and a bit frightening.
A quote from one letter:
“Our belief is that BP has no intention of being transparent and fully informative as they press forward with this project. Their past history with us suggests this will be the case."
Geee whiz…no kidding, how long has BP been ripping our town apart?
A quote from another letter:
“Mr. Cohen, the elected and appointed officials who represent the Town of Cape Vincent firmly believe BP and its representatives continue to pursue the PIP in an intentionally provocative manner. It seems clear that they perceive the Article 10 process as merely a pro forma exercise.”
SERIOUSLY!!! What the hell did they expect? Are they just now figuring out that this is what BP would do after the disaster BP has turned our community into right on their doorsteps for closing in on a decade? Jesus…what kinda bubble are these people living in? Do they watch TV or read the newspapers? Are they aware that the US govt charged BP as criminals, felons, and liars?
This letter has to be a joke right? It just can’t fathom that these town officers seriously believe that with BP’s record around the planet AND right in front of their faces in our community that BP was somehow coming to CV as a fully reformed company and ready to turn over a new leaf and play nice and fair by all the rules just as the town is willing to do. They even ASKED BP for a solar project!!! Yup..let’s ask a company that has one of the worst records on the planet, has been charged as felons, and liars to bring us a solar project so we can all feel better and green!!! Oh yeah, and let’s ask then for a “wish list”
They are felons…we should be able to get something out of them!
Or wait… I guess they thought that they were just so much smarter, and their logic and zoning was so overwhelmingly convincing that they could convince BP to role over and play nice and fair, and they could convince BP to just up and change the paradigm of its entrenched business model and environmental record used around the planet for decades.
Yup that must be it.
And BTW have you noticed anything funny in these letters?
I counted 14 CV town officials that signed one of them. So let me get this straight. You mean to tell me we have 14 town officials…virtually all of the town govt., and they are all thinking EXACTLY alike??? WOW that kinda pales to the attacks that Dave LaMora and I think alike at times. 14 town officers in lock step!!! In this day and age I didn’t think you could find 14 people in lock step on anything. Hell even in the old Rienbeck govt there were at least some dissenters. I guess this govt all are thinking that BP was going to play nice and fair in the Art X process despite its record and despite what BP has done to them right in front of their faces in our community ? What town have they been living in the last 10 years? Not to mention Cuomo’s green agenda and what he has done in our community…or has NOT done and his willingness to strip away our rights on behalf of wind developers like BP! Yup this going along with BP in the State’s Art X process is a brilliant idea and is shaping up real well so far!
And these are the people we entrusted our community to and were supposed to protect us from the industrial wind take over of our community and region? And they honestly think BP was going to play fair and not do everything it could to manipulate and distort the process.
Did it even register when they found out that a top NYPSC commissioner is the wife of BP’s CVWF lawyer? Oh I forgot … that BP and the PSC said everything was OK don’t fret about it and the town was good to go after that little love letter. Then when BP doesn’t play nice in their CV sand box Booo Hooo Hooo they are asking advice from the very process, and PSC, that has a commissioner with a CVWF BP lawyer as a husband that is helping to manipulate the process for BP….and they are asking that PSC for advice on what to do???
What the hell kinda pill did Hirschey slip into their water?
Some of the quotes in these letters from the Town to the PSC are truly mind boggling and a bit frightening.
A quote from one letter:
“Our belief is that BP has no intention of being transparent and fully informative as they press forward with this project. Their past history with us suggests this will be the case."
Geee whiz…no kidding, how long has BP been ripping our town apart?
A quote from another letter:
“Mr. Cohen, the elected and appointed officials who represent the Town of Cape Vincent firmly believe BP and its representatives continue to pursue the PIP in an intentionally provocative manner. It seems clear that they perceive the Article 10 process as merely a pro forma exercise.”
SERIOUSLY!!! What the hell did they expect? Are they just now figuring out that this is what BP would do after the disaster BP has turned our community into right on their doorsteps for closing in on a decade? Jesus…what kinda bubble are these people living in? Do they watch TV or read the newspapers? Are they aware that the US govt charged BP as criminals, felons, and liars?
This letter has to be a joke right? It just can’t fathom that these town officers seriously believe that with BP’s record around the planet AND right in front of their faces in our community that BP was somehow coming to CV as a fully reformed company and ready to turn over a new leaf and play nice and fair by all the rules just as the town is willing to do. They even ASKED BP for a solar project!!! Yup..let’s ask a company that has one of the worst records on the planet, has been charged as felons, and liars to bring us a solar project so we can all feel better and green!!! Oh yeah, and let’s ask then for a “wish list”
They are felons…we should be able to get something out of them!
Or wait… I guess they thought that they were just so much smarter, and their logic and zoning was so overwhelmingly convincing that they could convince BP to role over and play nice and fair, and they could convince BP to just up and change the paradigm of its entrenched business model and environmental record used around the planet for decades.
Yup that must be it.
And BTW have you noticed anything funny in these letters?
I counted 14 CV town officials that signed one of them. So let me get this straight. You mean to tell me we have 14 town officials…virtually all of the town govt., and they are all thinking EXACTLY alike??? WOW that kinda pales to the attacks that Dave LaMora and I think alike at times. 14 town officers in lock step!!! In this day and age I didn’t think you could find 14 people in lock step on anything. Hell even in the old Rienbeck govt there were at least some dissenters. I guess this govt all are thinking that BP was going to play nice and fair in the Art X process despite its record and despite what BP has done to them right in front of their faces in our community ? What town have they been living in the last 10 years? Not to mention Cuomo’s green agenda and what he has done in our community…or has NOT done and his willingness to strip away our rights on behalf of wind developers like BP! Yup this going along with BP in the State’s Art X process is a brilliant idea and is shaping up real well so far!
And these are the people we entrusted our community to and were supposed to protect us from the industrial wind take over of our community and region? And they honestly think BP was going to play fair and not do everything it could to manipulate and distort the process.
Did it even register when they found out that a top NYPSC commissioner is the wife of BP’s CVWF lawyer? Oh I forgot … that BP and the PSC said everything was OK don’t fret about it and the town was good to go after that little love letter. Then when BP doesn’t play nice in their CV sand box Booo Hooo Hooo they are asking advice from the very process, and PSC, that has a commissioner with a CVWF BP lawyer as a husband that is helping to manipulate the process for BP….and they are asking that PSC for advice on what to do???
What the hell kinda pill did Hirschey slip into their water?
Saturday, March 2, 2013
More Secret Meetings?????
Well OK...maybe not a "secret meeting" but just a quiet unannounced "consultation" between BP and our two most important town officers, and as far as I can tell no detailed accounting or record of what was discussed or decided at the meeting!
Recently on the PSC website I noted BP's spreadsheet of PIP activities. You can look at it at this link. Right now it is the top document.
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=40867
Among the PIP outreach items by BP this item caught my eye!
23‐Jan‐13 Stakeholder Consultation
Meeting with Town of Cape
Vincent Fire Department, Town
Supervisor of Cape Vincent, and
Planning Board Chairman of
Cape Vincent
So along with the CV Fire Dept. the town supervisor and planning board chairman were present in the "consultation." This item also indicates that BP's project status and turbine array were discussed as you can see below from BP's spread sheet bullet point comments on the meeting. If an updated turbine array was a part of the consultation I sure would like to know what they were consulting about! Here is what BP says...
• Project status update including
proposed turbine array
• Information regarding the
Article 10 permitting process
• Discuss fire and safety measures and equipment/resources
available to address
Now maybe I missed something while I was away traveling but I have caught up on most CV wind news since and I don't recall any notification or discussion publicly of this little get together. I checked the WDT, the minutes from the plannng and town board and the other CV blogs. There is not a mention anywhere other than BP's brief mention of this meeting on the PIP spreadsheet to the PSC. So what project or turbine array details were discussed? Apparently two of our most important town officers, Mr. Hirschey and Mr. MacSherry were "consulting" with BP, and were presented project updates and turbine array information as part of the discussion according to BP's spread sheet. Was this a meeting with Chandler himself or some other BP rep? Are there any detailed official minutes or notes other than the BP spreasheet on this meeting since two of our most important town officers were in attendance and details of the BP project and array were apparently discussed. Like I said I can't find anything about it except what BP put in their spreadsheet. Was different information presented about the project status or the turbine array? Funny that the town has been complaining that BP has not provided enough information on the project or maps of the array etc. But apparently Hirshey and MacSherry got a private update.
So let me get this straight. A private meeting occurred somewhere between our town supervisor Mr. Hirschey, and our planning board chairman Mr. MacSherry, and with some one from BP, probably the project manager from BP, Chandler. And apparenttly according to BP's spreadsheet the project was discussed as well as the turbine array. And apparently a very few CV citizens were aware of it and there is no information that I can find about it on a public level. Interesting.
Now I don't know about you, but based on all the bitching about secrecy and secret meetings in the past, and our current govt's mantra of open govt, I would be a hell of a lot more comfortable if there is a need for BP and two of our most important town officers to meet that it be done in public and not in private, and there be public notification of it or a detailed follow up on it somehwere, and I don't care what the subject matter is about, but certainly if the updated details of BP's project and the turbine array are part of the discussion.
In fact Mr. MacSherry as a member of a previous wind law committee should be more sensitive to this idea since he once met unannounced and privately with Rienbeck and wind developers concerning one of our previous wind laws as the wind developers objected to it and privately, not in a public hearing as the public is only offered, and the developers took that law apart line by line in private.
Now why does this concern me? Well for one there has already been enough secrets and deals and meetings in this town with wind developers and because not long after Mr. Hirschey originally became our town supervisor he said this publicly in a town board meeting...
"To get through this very, very contentious and difficult issue about the wind turbines...Yes. no or where...And somwhere along the line, at some point there will be compromises and there will be decisions one way or the other. In my own mind. I don't know if that's whether you agree with it. Sometime. some where that is going to happen."
At some point there will be compromises? Really? So are we at that point now? Well Mr. Hirschey, you wanna enlighten us to what those compromises are going to be with BP and when they are going to occur? You have already told us there is going to be a wish list as to what to get after BP puts up their wind farm.
With this mind set I would much prefer any meeting between our town supervisor and our planning board chairman and BP's Chandler or any other BP rep...that they be announced and held in public...not in a private forum were a discussion could start away from the public view on a possible compromise. And there should be a full detailed acounting of what was discussed and decided. Now that may not be what the open meeting laws require, but after all we have been through on this issue it is just pure common sense!
Help me out here. Did any of you know about this meeting and can you provide details of the discussion?
If such a detailed account exists then I expect it be posted on the town website ASAP! Or maybe Mr. Hirschey or Mr. MacSherry can enlighten us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)