2009 Wind History - "One Dimensional Dribble"

                                                  Remember this 2009 WDT Ad???

Under my post “More Comments – Same Stuff  " this comment below was left in my email.

“I can’t believe that I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your dribble only to see that you are stuck in the same dimension you were stuck in back in 2009 when you told us that Hirschey and other running for Cape Town government was a waste of time. You and Dave were wrong then and I believe you are still wrong”.

OK fair enough, if this reader wants to take on this issue then let’s go back and really examine exactly what “dimension and dribble ” I was into in 2009.   Let’s look at the ENTIRE picture of 2009 not just this little comment bite.

But before we do that let’s look at the big picture today. I believe that performance and outcomes matter. Where are we in 2013,  a full 11 years since the wind met towers arrived in Cape Vincent!

2009 - we were under the very large and frightening threat that our town could be covered with giant wind turbines from giant energy corporations. We DID have home rule then.

2013 - We are under the very large frightening threat that our town could be covered with giant wind turbines from a giant energy corporation…except NOW in 2013 extremely powerful political forces are assisting one energy giant corporation that gobbled up the other, by stripping away our home rule, and our town govt’s approach to all of this is to be “reasonable” and “appease” those forces AND declare that rules that stripped away our home rule are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL!!!

Yet astonishingly enough considering our plight which appears to be getting worse...the entire focus of the debate over the past 4 days here is whether  I  will apologize in the future on pure speculation.  Honestly, look where we are...is that really important considering  BP may crush our community? No it is completely absurd!

I guess you could make the case we are actually worse off!!! Oh but we have  new wind regulations and comp plan!  Yup and it will be up to the State led by a green zealot Gov. that determines what happens to them since we no longer have any control over the issue and the town officers think that  is fair and impartial!!!!!!

However,  as you can see  this commenter above is another person not addressing the issue of the Hirschey govt. saying the Art X rules are fair and impartial!

So where were YOU in 2009?   Do you remember ad above in the WDT?  You should, it was very controversial at the time. Imagine that…controversial!   Seriously?  This is some of the “dribble” I was involved in in 2009.

 Could you possibly fathom today opposing this ad since ethics was THE main root of our problems and two elections focused directly on ethics???? 

OK, so let’s flash back to 2009. Now let me ask my readers who are “anti wind” and support this current CV govt who ran almost exclusively on ethics, if you would have supported the ad above, or opposed it?

Well some of the same influential officers running your town govt right this second opposed it!!! And others  had to be shoved real hard to understand its importance and suppiort it!

Back then  I had been pushing very hard on WPEG and Mr. Hirschey to do something aggressive about the REAL issue and that was the wind conflicts of interest of some town officers back then. And to keep things in the proper perspective this was early 2009 before the elections that year. It was a real long shot that WPEG candidates would make it on the board and if they did it would not matter since they wouldn’t have the votes needed for a majority to do anything. I said that right up front and was right.   We HAD to do something else in addition.    And you also have to understand that in 2009  wind development looked  imminent and another election in 2011 would be too late. Either way I thought we should  go after the conflicts, even if we won in the elections…it certainly would not hurt our cause to fully attack the conflicts.

But Mr. Hirschey ( head of WPEG then ) and some WPEG members were dragging their feet.  So this ended in a very contentious WPEG meeting, where some people I won’t name, aggressively confronted Hirschey on the conflict issue and told him he better get on the stick because a legal attack on the conflicts might be our only chance and would not hurt the election anyhow.  It was Jan. and I could not be there in person but was definitely part of that push and discussion.

After all ... these conflicts had existed for at least four years and no one in WPEG wanted to go after them aggressively even though it was our entire problem ! You can make  great arguments in sceince why wind shouldn't be here if they go before a conflicted board that ignores that input..then you get nowhere and are defeated.   Hirschey, Schneider, Byrne and many others in WPEG couldn't seem to grasp this really funadmantal concept.  They were going to do studies...all kinds of studies, birds, sound, economics, etc.  All of which would go NOWHERE and went NOWHERE with these conflicted officers in place! It is not rocket science, but it didn't matter...studies and research and a wind laws that would go nowhere was THE absolute answer.  Did the old planning board take all this input and then recommend a "good" wind law to the conflicted board...of course not just as I told them it wouldn't.  Oh no... but they had the "experts"!!!
So a WPEG legal committee was fianlly formed and I was on it, and one of the first things we did was develop and publish this ad in the WDT. I designed the ad and its wording and we all had input to the final product. It was the first time the conflicts had been exposed in such vivid detail so people could really see just how terrible our situation was. I thought it was just exposure of the truth and made perfect sense as a tactic. But it turned out to be controversial to people on our side!  This was some of the one dimensional dribble I was involved with in 2009!

However, at least two current influential town officers thought this ad was way over the top and opposed it, And they were not WPEG members. They couldn’t even see the point of it, and were asking if my entire point was just to PISS OFF the town board?  Once again I was ther 'radical" who didn't know what he was doing!

To this day it boggles my mind these two could NOT comprehend what this ad was intended to do and the importance. All they could think of was that WPEG and I were  putting it out there for no other reason than to piss off Reinbeck and the old board. Apparently they couldn’t fathom that their govt was RUN AMUCK with a cesspool off conflicts and ethics issues, and that had to be exposed and highly visible as a critical tactic if we were ever going to break down this govt and move forward. 
These two current town officers  thought this ad would piss off Rienbeck and the town board and they wouldn’t get the wind law they were working on. A wind law that to get it would have required the votes of a couple conflicted officers on that board!!!! They were willing to give a PASS to conflicted town officers that were the deep route of our entire problem AND one of these people later ran against these former town officers with a platform of ethics and conflicts!!!! AND they had watched the conflicts destroy our govt at this point for FOUR YEARS!!!!  Yet this ad was not appropriate???

We wasted  9 months of yada, yada, yada, with Rienbeck's 2008 / 2009 pro wind loaded BS wind committee on a BS law that was NEVER going to happen.  And it was obvious it was not going to happen, and history proves it was not going to happen.  When the wind committee was announced I wrote a letter to the WDT predicting it was a complete sham designed by the new fancy Albany wind lawyers and would go nowhere.  Yet these two town officers got taken in, and month after month got so embedded and over committed stand  convinced of the process that they reached the irrational point of considering allowing any law they had worked on to pass, requiring rabid conflicts of interest to do so. See anything similar to the board's blind obedience to appease Art X, and calling it fair and impartial?  Differnt year...same thought process...rather scary if you ask me!!!

Are these town officers getting sucked in again and taking the town with them this time.  Better think this over real careful because this time this is not a bullshit wind committee sham, this time there is one hell of a lot riding on the outcome of what these same officers do!!!

GO FIGURE!!!!!!!! And  people wonder why I question them!

And BTW folks I have this ALL documented. I ain’t making it up! And of course back then my approach to actually take on and expose these run amuck conflicts was just like NOW, too radical, too fringe, and a “rant” , one dimensional!!!

Now you have these SAME two current people in our town govt. in influential positions signing documents saying they think the Art. X rules are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.  They think rules that removed YOUR RIGHTS are fair and impartial.  And instead of explaining  what they are doing or mean, their supporters go on the immediate attack on any one who questions this statement  See any similarities to the 2009 ad issue?
And people wonder why I keep a close eye on what is going on in this CV govt. and question their actions.

 There is PLENTY of justification for me to question these people when they appear to be doing much the same they did back in 2009!!!  They were into appeasement of our conflicted town board back then, and now they are wiloing to appease the State and a run amuck governor!

OK…now do you remember this???? It was much more than one dimensional dribble in 2009!

Well if you have been around in the CV wind battle in 2009 you probably signed it. Those two irrelevant no account people Art Pundt and Dave Lamora started it. This  is more of the “dribble” they were into in  2009! 

Soon we were joined by numerous WPEG volunteers and others who did an incredible job helping us get the now famous 800+ signatures on this moratorium. And I still contend this, and the ad above, had a direct and positive result on eventually getting the WPEG candidates in 2009 and 2011 into office.  It wasn't the only thing...that is NOT my claim, but it sure helped!
 Rienbeck pissed off A LOT of VOTERS that went  to Hirschey when he and the board refused to do anything about this moratorium petition. Then you had the previous ad in the WDT that was circulating all around to show the raw truth of WHY this conflicted board would not accept a moratorium petition on wind.

Oh yes and WHO used this petition in their voting efforts. Oh that would be one Mr. Urban Hirschey and the WPEG candidates who DEMANDED they see a private research version we established with a lot more detailed and collated information . So how much effort did Mr. Hirschey put into this petition? ZERO!!! He didn’t even show up the night we presented it to support it.

That would be the same night Reinbeck tried to throw out John Byrne and his camera…and one influential current town officer agreed with Rienbeck!!! And people wonder why I question the judgment of some of these town officers and their current direction when some who are in influential places now directing policy where so wrong several times before!!!  Appease back in 2009...appease now in 2013!

And yes I did say I thought voting for Mr. Hirschey and the WPEG candidates in 2009 was a waste of time.  I thought that because they had already demonstrated some significant bad judgment on very critical issues and strategies, and with far too much willingness to compromise and appease.

How exactly do you think letting conflicted town officials voting on a weak wind law, that will be passed on to a badly conflicted planning board to administer is a good and responsible judgment ???? How could they be so out of touch to oppose an ad that exposes the ethics cesspool you are fighting that has caused your town govt to run amuck...how can you think opposing that is a good idea???  You bet I had an unwillingness to support this judgment in 2009!!!

When you consider that…it becomes absurd NOT to have some doubts and questions. And then we see this astonishing  statement by them that the Art X rules are ” fair and impartial!!!!  Looks  like more of the same inherent imbedded trend with these people that has existed since 2006 - through 2009 to 2013.  And history PROVES it was VERY WRONG at times in the past.   And people wonder why I question?

And when in office ALL the attempts of  Hirschey and this board on wind moratoriums were for 6 months…not one year as 800 people in this town wanted.  So it was not OK for Rienbeck and his board to ignore it but OK for Hirschey and his board to ignore the one year request?   That would be after Clif Schneider, also a current board member, who actually was very influential in the Save the River position of a THREE year moratorium to study bird impacts would not support that position or even a YEAR moratorium!

How do you spend a great deal of time and research on drafting a moratorium on such a critical matter as the bird impacts that he and everyone are screaming about, and when you get the prime chance to go after a moratorium several times to actually protect the birds they  just drop the opportunity and pass it off to  6 or 7 months?  Clif had the opportunity to support his very own organization Save the River, right in his hands and he dropped it.   Go Figure!!!  had they passed a three year STR sponsered n moratorium, thinj=k of the press tand credibility that would have brought to the Save the River bird study position!

And as I remember ALL the current town board officer signed this 2009 wind moratorium petition, yet when it was THEIR responsibility they dropped the ball!

I will give Councilwoman Michelle Oswald a pass since she was not on the board when these moratorium questions came up. But she DID run on a public anti wind platform, and claiming to want to reinstate or at least support home rule.  So it is beyond me why she would sign a letter saying the very thing that is significantly helping big wind and DID stip  away our home rule rights ...is fair and impartial!  Really Michelle?

And talking about Michelle...I have it from  very credible sources that some on the current town board were really not happy to have Michelle and her anti wind stance on the board.  IN FACT I was told at one time some on the board were willing to appoint her opponent Paul Aubertine...Why?  Well of course to appear  FAIR and IMPATIAL!!!   Geee any similarities their????

Wow... there is spectacular judgment!  More of the same trend of compromise and appeasement from 2006 to 2013  Talk about dribble!!!.  And people wonder why I question?????

 Of course to question any of this means you are just “stuck in one dimension with your dribble!!!

Oh geees I almost forgot this in 2009.

That dimension and dribble I was stuck in in 2009 was also the year that the NY AG's office  started to pay serious attention to our ethics complaints and I was deeply involved in that along with others. That led eventually to an investigation.

People will say “yeah but it didn’t go anywhere…yeah that is true, and you could say that this board recently passed a comp plan and wind law that the NYPSC will make the final determination on since the State took our home rule and now the board thinks those rules are fair and impartial, so that hasn’t really gone anywhere yet either!

But we got tremendous PR leverage from this AG action for our cause!

If you were  a WPEG / Hirschey candidate running for a town office and mainly on ethics, it certainly doesn’t hurt that in 2009 everyone knows the AG is in town and in 2011 your entire town govt is under a precedent setting and very embarrassing investigation by the State’s top legal agency and that is splashed all over the State news media AND carried by some national wind opposition sites.

Of course none of this is relevant right…as my commenter points out. Just dribble!

"I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your dribble only to see that you are stuck in the same dimension you were stuck in back in 2009"

That dimension brought the AG to town!!!

I don’t know…I would say  2009 was a pretty good year all in all, and because of the things that happened that year and my dribble and one dimension probably had at least some direct influence on why some of these current town officials are where they are today IN OFFICE!!!  I obviously can not, nor will claim full responsibility, but it certainly had some impact and was NOT dribble!

So in the end, one way or the other, even though I won’t answer the apology question based on a false premise argument…I really don’t have anything to apologize for.

Some of these Hirschey and current govt supporters have damnconvenient short memories and a rather distorted view of the ACTUAL wind history and how it unfolded when it comes to making their case.

When as I outline above some of them were inadvertently working AGAINST the main anti wind cause through bad judgment on critical wind issues and how to address them effectively.   A cause they would now like you to believe any gains of which are exclusively theirs and Hirschey’s and everyone else is just nuts!

The actual FACTS say something else. And it certainly wasn't dibble.  That is a wild distortion this person and the other commenter need to try to make you get behind an on going case to marginalize my questions of these town officials.

Think about it. Can you imagine being opposed to the ad above AND thinking it would be OK to let some badly conflicted town officers like Marty and Don Mason vote on ANYTHING wind related? THAT is exactly were several of your most influential town officers running current Art X policy were in  2009!!! 

AND as if that isn't bad enough if that wind law was passed...guess where it would go to be carried out in site plan review and SEQR environmental studies.  It would have gone to Edsall and his wind conflicted planning board.  How smart of a decision would that have been when to get your wind law and personal accomplishment  you would have effectively left in place the entire conflicted town govt to administer it???  Somebody want to show me the logic and good judgment in that?  And people wonder why I question this board and town officials
So my commenter friend...you  have the very luxury of the govt. you now have and ability to defend them at least in some part because of the "one dimensional dribble"  some of us were dedicated to in that 2009 year!!! And this is just PART of the story!

What is worse is that at least one town board officer I refer to who realized these lapses in judgment and I  tried to discuss them in light or future decisions, absolutely refuses to analyze the mistakes. Not interested, we just move on and look forward.  The trouble is he moved on to other similar mistakes in the past showing the exact same faulty trend in thinking!  Never learns.  This person right now is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN the current approach to appease Art X AND call it fair and impartial is the correct thing to do. The history of his actions are NOT on his or our side on that analysis!  And people wonder why I question!

To my commenter above... Maybe you should just shut your mouth and be grateful!!! Because some of your current town govt officers got way off the rails ON REALLY CRITICAL ISSUES AT REALLY CRITICAL POINTS, and had to be jerked back onto  the rails at times!!! 

One town official told me point blank not long ago that in the past they would have negotiated the town away to the wind developers as the appropriate thing to do. I give this person credit for that admission yet  today, that person's name is right there on the letter to BP that claims the Art. X rules are fair and impartial.  Are we now going to negotiate the town away to Art. X , Cuomo and BP???

And after watching this history you better damn well hope they are right now!!!

And based on all this I am certainly NOT going to answer some inane apology question framed as a trap in many false arguments. 

When you consider the history above, and where these officers might lead us based on past faulty decisions proven in history...do you really think that my apology and this soap opera on some speculated outcome way in the future is really an issue of critical importance?  

The commenter above says the other commenter  I argued with ate my lunch.  You better hope the direction of our town officers who are want to  appease the State and think Art. X is fair and impartial, don't eat ALL OUR LUNCHES!!!

More Comments - Same Stuff

The person who I was in the long debate with trying to get an apology from me has left two more attempts at a comment. They were  basically the same subject matter.

Now if this person wants to come on with a discussion that is not full of fallacy and loaded questions, and wants to discuss with my readers WHY they think I am wrong and the board WILL remove BP from our community using the Art X process I will be happy to post their comments.

If they would like to comment on my original post that raised all this controversy as to why they think the board is correct to say that the Art. X rules are fair and impartial and have a discussion on that, then that is fine too.

ENOUGH!!!!!

Now as you can see in the comment section of one post I removed the comment of the person who has been going on and on with NO point except to attack me WITH NO OTHER POINT ATTACHED. People can go on an on if they want about me blocking this person, but I gave them warning to get back on message on the big wind issue, or they would be gone.

But here is the thing. When I have gone after people like our town officials there has been some debate or POINT attached concerning the bigger issue. And I allow for accountability because I put my name on my comments so if people want to debate me or even attack back they actually know WHO that person is and what their long term beliefs are. This person is unwilling to show any accountability or responsibility at all considering the level of attack!

This person has had 3 days of opportunity to make some point on the big issue but refused to do so. So on that alone they wore out their dime. Keep in mind the original debate was on my questioning the appropriateness of the town officials comment that they thought Art X was fair and impartial. That still stuns me!!!

Now here is the other thing. This person is spreading information and accusations when my readers aren't privy to the whole picture of why in one respect I am upset with our town’s actions and WHO they’ re listening too or have been in the past! . And that ain’t opinion or defamation …it is carefully documented FACT! I have been using a lot of restraint to not impart information on the town's actions that could be extremely detrimental to some people or person. And SO FAR that has tied my hands a bit! This person should not inflame that situation any longer. They might even be aware of what I am talking about!

Now here is the question this person desperately wants me to answer with the false premises underlined.

"2. When the Elected and Appointed officials who are working diligently to protect this town throw BP and big wind out of Cape Vincent will you have the balls to say “I am sorry..”.

In addition he has required a YES OR NO asnwer.

1. There is no WHEN...since no one knows what will happen - false.
2. He makes the assumption that we all agree thet the town officials are working diligently and protecting the
     community-  up for serious debate.
3. They make the assumption that the town WILL throw big wind out - debatable...we can't know that.
4. Lastly this person tries to trick you into thinking he has the absolute last analysis on his false statements.

Kinda like a religious fanatic waving some religious  dogma  at you as THE one and only answer!!!

This is a trick...my readers should be intelligent enough to recognize it has so many false assumptions and fallacies that I will not answer it, nor will this person be happy even if I DID answer it.  That id NOt what theya re after...it is a false question set as a obvious trap.

Here is some additional explanations from a site on the web about this argument tactic.

Complex Question Fallacy

Explanation:

The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption.

Examples

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.

“Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”

Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex question, and a subtle false dilemma.

It is a riot that the site just happens to address almost the exact thing this person is attempting. It is a trap, and the reader’s agenda has NOTHING to do with me apologizing for anything…so basically I have completely rejected the question.

This person’s agenda is to marginalize me and anyone who dare questions the town. Apparently for some reason this person is working overtime to one way or another to make sure people don’t entertain my original debate on the Art X fair and impartial comment, because they realize the damage it has done and the damage control it needs as a result. It probably has town board and Hirschey supporters really scratching their heads…and we can’t have any questions or defections or doubts.

So why pose a question with so many fallacies that is an obvious trap? The only possible reason left IS to set a trap, not talk about issues, and then one has to say WHY? If I am irrelevant why does one need to set a trap, or even debate me??? THAT is the real question you should think about??? If the person feels the messengers message is dead and that person ahs no input left and doesn’t count, then what is the point of spend ANY time on me or Mr. Lamora. My conclusion is I am damn close to a truth, and they know what I know! Is the town up to something they know we aren’t going to like and I will go after, and that requires a pre-marginalization of my character to try to neutralize it???

Now that being said. This person can re-enter the discussion, but they must first put up a VERIFIABLE name to be accountable to all my readers and we can better determine honestly exactly what this person’s agenda really is, because in fairness everyone for 7 years knows exactly who I am and what I stand for.…and they must engage in the debate about the bigger wind issue debate on the town’s actions.

I don’t like anonymous comments, but I will tolerate them even if they attack me over the ISSUES! So if you are anonymous, and have an actual argument, or agreement then don’t be put off. Your comment will get put on. But this person is a different matter as I have explained. I am not wholesale blocking comments, or posting only ones that agree with me.

Now if this person wants to attack me IN THE CONTEXT of the bigger wind issue…fair enough!

 BP and the Art. X Siting Board:  

"Hey Andy, where do ya want us to put those wind turbines."

"Let me see, let me look at this NY map.  Oh yeah ...put them right over

 here near Cape Vincent where Darrel lives.  That is pretty far

from NYC and Albany isn't it????"

"But make sure you  make them feel good.

Give them  some INPUT!!!"

Cuomo's Art. X Code Speak!

Hey pay attention.  Don't worry about that Art. X siting board.  Listen to me...

I'll tell ya how that Cape Vincent Art. X thing is goin down!!!!

Because I am Fair and Impartial!!!

Let's review from a WDT article some of what N.Y. Gov. Cuomo said about Art. X during an Aug 2012 visit to Fort Drum.

Underlining is mine. And my commentary is embedded in white.

"Local governments will have input under Article X, Mr. Cuomo said.  True, but that's about all you will have.  Code talk for "yeah we heard your input..thanks for your great participation...but you are getting a wind farm anyhow!"  You will get LOTS of input, it won't amount to much, but you can feel good that you got it!

“Unless we want to go back to candles, we need energy,” Mr. Cuomo said, adding later: “The Article X law is, I believe, an intelligent balance between local input, but still a process that can be done and can be done expeditiously.”

Balance is another code word.  How does a balance work?  It has equal weight on either side. This balance will be that BP will get something, and the community will get something until there is "balance"  This is a code word for compromise.  Cuomo is telling us we are getting a BS compromise.  Anything else would not be balanced.

Mr. Cuomo stopped short of endorsing a local government’s ability to veto a project during Article X proceedings, suggesting that opposition on the local level will be balanced against the merits of a project.

Well now he is getting more honest. You can't veto the project by participating in the Art. X process, you are getting a balance (compromise)  And Cuomo will have his heavy political foot on the balance scale!!!

“I think home rule is very important, where a locality decides their destiny,” Mr. Cuomo said.  Even though he took it away!!! “There also has to be a reasonableness.

Ah yes...reasonableness!!!  But who is he asking to be reasonable?  Do you REALLY think he is talking to wind developers who will further his green agenda???  Balance, reasonableness, a community can't veto a project during Art. X.  Do a little political code speak math.  How do you think this "reasonableness" adds up for Cape Vincent????

We also have to remember at the end of the day that we need power. If you’re not constructing power plants or renewable plants or siting anything, you can’t power an economy. You can’t say no to wind and no to solar and no to biomass and no to power plants and then say, ‘I want jobs and a thriving economy.’”

Long story short you can't say NO...and the Art X system will make sure you can't say NO.  I also wonder if the BP lawyer being married to a NY PSC commissioner Cuomo  appointed is part of that "reasonableness"!!!

But now courtesy of our CV govt officials we can ad another couple terms to this code.  The Art X rules are fair and impartial!    I'm sure Cuomo would agree with that!

Mr. Cuomo must be so tickled  pink to see Cape Vincent officials conclude that his Art X rules are "fair and impartial" and we will be "reasonable". Cuomo obviously thinks his Art X rules are "fair and impartial"  So if the town officials agree that Art. X is fair and impartial, and agree to Cuomo's "reasonableness", which they obviously have by their actions and without objection to Art X, and in turn Cuomo thinks that "reasonableness" means you can't VETO a project in the Art X process...then what has our town govt signed onto?????

So CV...get ready for a BS COMPROMISE!!!  Our town board by continuing to operate under what they consider fair and impartial and reasonable Art X rules has set themselves AND YOU and all of us up for a compromise!   And they either knew this going in or they just plain don't understand it then or now!   Good God how else can you read this Cuomo bullshit!!!

 That is what BALANCE IS!!!  COMPROMISE!!!  What that means is that if you thought our zoning  law was not going to be negotiated by BP...well think again!!! becuase to get 'balance" and "reasonableness" your town zoning is going BYE BYE, and that is exactly what Art. X was designed to do.

I wonder who will have to live under the BP 500 ft. turbines in CV of Cuomo's compromise???? Certainly not Cuomo.  And I doubt seriously he will simply roll over to the idea that health, safety, and welfare should basically eliminate the States demand for renewable green wind turbines when he has said "you can't say NO to wind ."

Can you  read anything above that Cuomo said and honestly think that the town's obedient participation in Art. X is going to STOP BP!! 

So  exactly what frame of reference are these town officials working from????  Do they not understand what Cuomo's comments mean, and then their reaction is that his rules are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL?????

Fact is Cuomo in a couple hour visit to Watertown and a few brief media sound bites  just gave you your Art. X siting board decision for CV in a nice tidy code speak nutshell!!!  Everything else is just theater!

Bottom line.  Be nice, be reasonable, be balanced, play along and give us lots of input and feel good,  because you ain't saying NO to wind when I need it to create power and jobs, look green  and keep NY open for business!!!!

It's Deja Vu all Over Again!!!

Many people are all whipped up that the NYPSC, NYDEC  and other agencies and groups who have commented on BP's PSS are taking BP to task.  I think it is way too early to start that party.

Ahhh, how short our memories can be.

Do we have any other precedent to compare all this "hard nosed" review of BP's PSS document against?

Actually we do, but I doubt many remember.  It has all happened before.  So what happened back then?

Well...here is a letter from 2007 regarding the handling of Acciona's SEQR DEIS environmental study by our former wind conflicted planning board.  They hammer the planning board and St. Lawrence Wind in this letter. (note my old highlighting)  And it's funny that their comments cover many of the same things they are hammering BP for.  I am posting only the first page here since it gets at the meat of the issue and since the rest is simply on and on about what is deficient about the SDEIS

Note that in so many words they tell the planning board and SLW this DEIS is a joke, get serious, get some real experts and start over.  Oh...we were excited back then.  Man, this was it, we had it in the bag, this was our big ticket to defeat wind...really?...well not exactly!

So the big question is...what happened?    Did the planning board start over?  NO!.  Did they do a careful and cautious study and not rush?...NO.  So what happened?  Well basically NOTHING!  The PSC weighed in and the DEC weighed in etc just like now.  But the bottom line is the planning board and SLW may have made some adjustments and eventually the conflicted planning board,  by this time  with former town supervisor Tom Rienbeck on board, ,simply accepted the final FEIS.  And I don't remember either the PSC or the DEC doing anything about it that mattered.

It was so bad that WPEG and Clif Schneider, John Byrne and Mike Bell sued the planning board over the FEIS, and  even that was thrown out of court. And the "great and detailed arguments" to challenge this FEIS were never heard because the "expert" lawyer who I was assured many times WAS such an expert. caused a law school 101 oversight and the case was dismissed and the planning board and St. Lawrence Wind won.

So as for me...I've seen it before, and I just can't get all that excited.

And also keep in mind that this is the same DEC and PSC that had NO problem with Edsall and his conflicted planning board running the environmental studies.  Edsall who was and still is a BP lease holder.

As you can see I at least notified the NYDEC that the people controlling the SEQR process were badly conflicted and shouldn't be in control when a dispute arose whether Lyme or Cape Vincent should be the lead agency on the SLW and BP sSEQR studies.  Here is their answer!

They basically said not our problem man!  It doesn't matter if the environmental study is a pile or worthless toilet paper, we have no accountability to actually see if the study is worth anything.  We just put up the hoops and see that the applicant at least plays along and shoves something through the hoops! Oh we may comment on it, but otherwise take it to court... it's their problem.  Or.. gee we have no authority to see that the studies that are handed us are complete and bogus BS because of the rampant conflicts of interest that created it. 

 However, when it was taken to court it was thrown out. Is this the DEC you are all fired up over their BP PSS comments??????
So much for commentary from the NYDEC and the NYPSC.

Off course you will say...but oh...the process is "fair and impartial" and different now.  Well you would be partly right.  Back then we still had home rule to determine our land use issues, and those have been stripped away.  And now the Art X laws even regulate what the courts can look at in any litigation.  And the litigation goes right to the court of appeals so the developer is not inconvenienced by any regulatory delay!!! Yeah the system is different for sure!

Bottom line is the NYPSC and the DEC have to jump through these hoops no matter what happens.  It's political and they have to put on a good face that they are  "fair and impartial" and doing their job.  After all they are operating under brand new Cuomo legislation, and we are one of the first towns out of the box...so ya goota make sure there is some good" regulatory theater" everyone can get all excited about!!!


And people wonder why I won't write reams of letters to the PSC and play along in the Art X process!

Cumulative Evidence

Readers may wonder why I am concerned about the town's statement to BP and the NYPSC about the Art. X rules being fair and impartial.  I think this is important to grasp.

Well let's start our examination here in the top of their letter making the fair and impartial statement.  You can see it all at the NY PSC website with public documents filed on BP's CVWF.

April 19, 2013

Mr. Richard Chandler
Director, Development
BP Wind Energy North America, Inc.
700 Louisiana Street, Floor 33
Houston, TX 77002

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Mr. Chandler:  (this empahasis is mine)

Attached you will find comments from the Town of Cape Vincent pertaining to BP's Preliminary

Scoping Statement [PSS]........   Note WHO the letter is addressed to.  Although it is obvious that the NYPSC will read it, and it is posted as an official document at the PSC website, it is the WHO this letter is addressed to that makes their "fair and impartial" comments even more astonishing!  It IS NOT addressed to the NYPSC or the Art X board. They are in a discussion directly with BP!!!   The letter is addressed to Chandler and BP!!!  Why is this important?

 Well... what you have here is the town officials telling Chandler and BP, that the town thinks the Art X rules are fair and impartial!  OK so while we are at it why don't we just tell BP that we thought that the handling of their Gulf oil spill went quite well!!!   As a person who supports our town board, and a person who opposes the removal of home rule in your community, and a person who has suffered at the hands of BP for 7 years in our community... would  you honestly march up to Chandler at a BP open house and tell him you thought the Art X rules that allow them to basically make the justification to preempt or negotiate our town zoning laws is fair and impartial?

 Rules you can be assured BP and the wind industry had inordinate lobby money and influence upon while you were basically excluded!   So again why does this particularly concern me?  Is it just this one isolated statement?  

Well consider this statement made on video at a public town board meeting by our town supervisor.   It is verbatim from the video.  And this is NOT an attack...Mr. Hirschey made this statement, it is public record, no one forced him to say it.  these are his words which as a public official are fair game for close examination.

  "To get through this very, very contentious and difficult issue about the wind turbines. Yes, no, or where?  And somewhere along the line, at some point there will be compromises, and there will be decisions one way or another.  In my own mind.  I don't know if that's...whether you agree with it....    ... somewhere that is going to happen" 

  So we have a town supervisor saying in his mind there will be compromises in the wind issue, and that somewhere that is going to happen... and now we have him along with the majority of town officials signing a  letter to BP saying the Art X rules that BP will use to try to negotiate and preempt our laws is  fair and impartial.   BP will use these rules they and the wind industry, and renewable organizations like Carol Murphy's ACE NY  lobbied, and threw money at, and those rules are fair and impartial?  

Now if YOU were truly impartial, and read these statements from our supervisor and the town officials over time, would any red flags go up?  AND keep in mind that virtually none of our town board or officials have publicly declared an anti wind position, only a willingness to participate int he Art X system, and them call those rules fair and impartial!   What would be your conclusion?  And mind you these are only a couple of the questionable statements that have surfaced over time by our town  to appease the Art. X system.  

We will examine that closer in an up coming post.  

Pundt Won't Apologize, Boo Hooo Hoo - Our Community Is In Deep Crisis And This Is All You Have????

I have been having an extended  debate with one of my blog readers.  And I have finally boiled it down to the essence.  There is nothing relevant to the crisis wind Cape Vincent is mired in.  It is the age old desperate attempt to divert the messenger and the message.  Our board made the astonishing declaration that the Art X rules are fair and impartial.  That is the focus of my recent blogging, so don't let this person take your eyes off the real question they are desperately try to do damage control on. Look closely and you will see what I mean.  They offer no explanation on this comment, they offer no solutions, they only make you look elsewhere on what is a stunning statement by town leaders who are supposed to be leading a community that was stripped of it's critical community right.  This person is attempting to keep you and I entertained on personal soap opera BS away from the critical question!  Age old diversion.  Don't answer the original uncomfortable question...just get the messenger defensive by asking another one!

Here is my comment to this person.

I went back and read all your comments.

Here is actually the sum total of what you have said… or if you haven’t said it directly, you are certainly implying it with sarcasm when you remove your high brow debate bullshit!!!.

1. I’m always twisting your thoughts.
2. Pundt doesn’t have the balls to apologize WHEN he IS wrong.
3. I make stuff up to pad my arguments.
4. I’m not capable of debating the facts.
Of course on this one you have presented NO facts releant to the cape Vincent wind issue or our board’s recent Art X fair and impartial comments…NONE, so I’m not sure how you reached a conclusion I can’t debate them when they don’t exist!!!
5. Always taking things out of context.
6. Implying I should crawl under a rock.
7. I am not self depreciating.
8. Implying I am not very smart and will need a lot extra time to answer your lofty.
   questions and debate.
9. I am always taking things out of context. Oh wait I said that already!
10. I am not capable of blogging or posting competently.
11. I have no courage.
12. Can’t speak honestly ( 11. and 12 are really ironic coming from someone
      frightened to put their name on their comments in public!!!!
13. I’m a legal idiot that should have no opinion and shut up.
14. I side step the issues and am incapable of answering.
15. Can’t stick to my story.
16. I have no input.
17. I am toxic.
18. I have been sidelined.

I’m sure there may be some I missed! Oy and  let me make it clear. It is not offense to this stuff I take issue with. That is the price of the ticket for having the balls to take stance and put my name on it.

Now I’m wondering…is there actually a relevant POINT buried in here somewhere that relates to the actual debate surrounding the wind issue in Cape Vincent and how the board is handling it???? I don’t know if you even live in CV, but our community is under attack by powerful political and corporate interests that have already stripped away our critical home rule rights and may destroy our community. And this is the sum total of your argument…Pundt is bad guy and should apologize? Really… That’s it???? On this critical issue THAT is all you have?  the future of the community actually rests on my apology on something that is pure speculationmaybe a couple years away.  That is really your concern...really????  Man... you need another hobby!!!

Please tell me the with the severity of what we are facing and the critical nature of it that you have actually have something more that might address the crisis we are facing as a community for at least 7 years. Please tell us you have something much more relevant than the "Days of Our Lives" or the Young and the Restless"!!!

You are asking me to apologize for my “attacks’ if I am wrong, yet when you boil down your comments, among your supposed high minded bullshit is nothing more than the exact same. Attacks!

Now one might conclude that the sum total of you comments are that you have been assigned the specific task to make sure the actual message I am debating about the town thinking Art X is fair and impartial , gets quickly side lined. You seem to be spending a great deal of time on this apology nonsense, for some reason, and it isn’ to make a relevant point about the CV wind issue or your board!

And what the hell difference does it make in the big critical picture of the crisis in our community, if I apologize or not…there is NO relevant point to that one way or the other. It is tiny inane personal attack minutia that has NO bearing on anything! Well other than a desperation to marginalize the messenger and his message. Then it makes perfect sense.

Now when I go after the town or a town officer, at least I do so with a POINT to the relevant argument and trying to add something to a critical debate about the disaster we are facing. There actually is a critical and very often well thought out and often documented POINT.

Your diatribe, however, when actually boiled down is nothing more than a diversion. Make sure you do the best to make Pundt look not credible so God forbid…somebody might do a little independent thinking, pay attention, and might agree with me, and my question might raise some eyebrows and catch on, where others might say WTF!!! Maybe a lot of others who thought they had a board that was fighting for home rule instead of appeasing it and calling the system that stripped it away fair and impartial!

That after all was the start of this entire debate on a critical subject that you are desperately trying to divert  and do damage control on. There is NOTHING else in your arguments.
I…asked THE original question. Do you think the Art X rules and process are fair and impartial as our town board has stated.?

Your answer, was not yes or no but this clever attempt at a dodge:

" I personally would not have made the statement that the Art X process was fair and
   balanced”

That is a bullshit diversionary answer, it is NOT YES or NO, as you have demanded of me and it is not even directly answering my question as to if you think Art X is fair and impartial as your town board does. I don’t give a damn what you would have personally said…do you support this statement?   Do you think the Art X rules are fair and impartial and your board is justified in saying that?
You avoided the question just as you claim I did yours.
That question is my point, has been my point, it was the original question you are desperately trying to divert!

Now how about you go back and make at least an attempt at a relevant point on my ORIGINAL QUESTION about the town’s apparent willingness to bend way over backwards to appease Art X. with their ridiculous fair and impartial comment.

A move you and I full well know has probably left a lot of their supporters really scratching their heads wondering how to deal with this and what the hell is going on!!!

Edward Abbey Quote

  I am often accused of not being a "team player"  I like what Edward Abbey had to say about that!

Abbey has long passed on but is still an icon of old style western environmentalism. And that style saved a lot of precious places in the West. I was lucky enough to see his speak in his prime here in Flagstaff.

Many of those precious places were, like Cape Vincent, under the direct threat of obscene big corporate profit schemes backed by big govt.rules or impotent regulation, and took sometimes radical political  and personal or group civil disobedience actions to stop the insanity.

Wow how times have changed!  Today we oppose this type of political and govt. over reach by just conceding such rules are "fair and impartial!!! 

And in Cape Vincent we not only have the impending environmental disaster, but the removal of our basic rights to stop it as well.  Govt and corporations  learned critical lessons from the old battles they lost.  Don't screw around, with the environmental logic and science that could defeat your big corporate clients... just get to work on  removing the basics of democracy by removing the critical rights any opposition  needs to ward off any govt. or corporate environmental  insanity.  Then anesthetize them with rules and regulations and reams of paper work so they will accept it as legitimate, and  frighten the opposition into submission by demanding they be "reasonable" AFTER we have taken the radical and obscene action to removed their rights.

Yet our best shot back is that these rules are "fair and impartial"?????

 I would have loved to hear what Abbey would have said about the corporate green wash and wind energy!!!  He must be spinning in his grave...which is in some secret place in the SW desert.

"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork."

Edward Abbey


One of Abbey's book that lifted him to fame and is still an icon...is Desert Solitaire.  I highly recommend it!

Also here is a video by George Carlin. 

WARNING:    Like much of Carlin's stuff it is rather raw, but hits right at the truth!!! So be warned!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AB9LZiOh1I

My Answer

If you have been following this blog for the last couple days you would have seen the on going debate between myself and an anonymous commenter who refuses to stand behind their comments with a name.
Since they take the luxury of being anonymous. I will take the luxury of a longer explanantion.

So here is my answer to the pimary question they asked.

To my commenter:  Your question is answered in this post but I am going to make additional comments as well.

First of all right up front. You have actually established no credibility to ask your question, since you are not willing to put your name on your comments, establish who you are, and what makes you credible and experienced enough on the CV wind issue to even be credibly in this debate. You have the luxury of being anonymous, where you can hide and slink away. In the end If I am right…you CAN actually "crawl under a rock" as you said,  and go on as if all in the world is well and you harbor absolutely NO risk, accountability or responsibility for your comments or for your beliefs and statements. No one will ever know who you are. My statements might be aggressive but I don’t hide. Everyone knows who made those statements and who has to be accountable. You on the other hand have given yourself a chicken poop escape route.

So I guess my second question to you is…what are you frightened of. Most like the the junior high peer pressure of your group!!!

So on that level of lack of credibility I shouldn’t even answer your question…but I will.

I’m sure this will not be enough for you, but I will try anyhow. And as I said I will NOT play this ridiculous Yes or No game. If you need it that simple go to the other blogs or get comfortable among a circle of your like minded associates who want to think that way.

To answer your question the way you would like would require me to accept a completely false premise and give it a yes or no that the town will in certainty defeat BP with Art X and wind will be driven out of town. That is an unknown that no one can be certain of, at least anyone with a little intelligence.

Assuming you are a man for this example. It is like the set up of asking you “ have you stopped beating your wife yet” It is a trap based on a false premise that you actually DID beat your wife and that may be completely false. You can’t win answering that question yes or no.

Now for your question. For reader review here is the question you asked me.

 “ Okay, now tell me, when you are proven wrong and wind is driven from this town are you going to apologize to the people you offended with your personal attacks or are you going to just crawl under a rock and pretend all is well with the world?”

Tell ya what…why wait…I will do you one better. How about I apologize right here right now? That good enough for you? Even my closest friends have suggested my comments are too abrasive at times. OK I will work on that. So here goes!

I apologize to anyone, town officer or other wise, if my sometimes acid comments have unjustly offended or hurt someone. I will attempt to temper that approach in the future.
Now that being said let me clarify some very important points. First I will NOT apologize for my core beliefs…end of story!!! Like in your statement WHEN I am proven wrong, and wind IS driven from this town …jumping the gun a bit aren’t you????

What if I am right?????

All this “who is going to be right” in the end is absolute pure speculation and pointless to the real argument. It’s a diversionary tactic. . You are asking me to make an apology based on something neither of us can actually be sure of, and as if I am already wrong. Look at your statement. Your question is actually a clever attempt at a setup. You are asking me to apologize for my “attacks” and doing so on the premise you and the town are absolutely right about the end result already, as if it is at this moment an absolute certainty, and you clearly know it IS NOT a certainty!!! Your debating me proves that truly you don’t really believe it is the certainty you suggest.

My comment style and my beliefs are two very distinctly different areas, and I am not going to conceded to a ridiculous setup that tries to say that since A is wrong B is too.

Note I DID NOT and WILL NOT apologize for my beliefs on the wind issue and that the town is going in a terribly wrong direction to appease the State and Art X. that stripped away our fundamental community rights, and I certainly do not think those rules are fair and impartial!!!

I can say it with acid, or I can say it nicely the core belief is still the same . Art X IS NOT fair and impartial and it is astonishing the town would say that or appease a system so obviously tilted to corporate and political power and that you would defend that in any way!.

That is what you really want more than you want an apology for my “attacks”. You want obedience! You want me to admit right now that I am WRONG. That is what you really are after. What you want is to stop what makes you uncomfortable and that is the debate itself! I MUST agree with you and Hirschey! Why is that? Because you well know you want to be just as right as I think I am in the end so you can kick me around as a result. Any intelligent person can not stand there and truly believe with absolute certainty that BP will be driven out of town by the Art. X and the town. I don’t even think many of the town officers truly believe this is a done deal. That would be just plain foolish.

Your issue is you are constrained by the confines or need to be a “team player” with in the restrictive beliefs of your group. I don’t carry that baggage, and hopefully that gives me a more impartial view.

So let’s be honest. You want to do that kicking right now to extract your pound of flesh and doing it on an absurd premise that the deal is sealed and big wind is already defeated and I am wrong right now.

Sorry, nice try, but no cigar. There are two separate issues here. One is my comment style, which as you can see I have apologized for, and the other is my beliefs. My core beliefs remain exactly the same. What you really want is for me to change my core beliefs and completely align with the Hirschy govt. That in the end is really what you can’t tolerate! It’s not really my approach.

Not my problem…that is your problem!

And what is driving you to the edge right now is that despite this Art X fair and impartial comment by the town that you know is wrong, you still have to somehow justify it and defend it when you clearly know it was out of line!!!

The other thing to consider is the end result. What makes a good end result that would prove me wrong and you right? Again that can’t be dumbed down to a simple yes or no. I am not going to accept a compromise as an acceptable result as to me being wrong and the town right. NO turbines are a good end result if the town achieves that. Not 5, not 10, not 60, or 95 or 120 instead of 124! AND not some industrial solar project sprawling over hundreds of acres that neither our town comp plan or zoning would allow and would require the same absurd tax subsidies to support. And NOT ANYTHING from BP…or big wind, after what they have done to destroy our community already.
That is where I really think this is going. We will get a BS compromise from the Art X board with no follow up litigation from the town and you and the town will somehow pan that off as a victory and that they did everything they could! See… Pundt was wrong.

The town is so over committed to the Art X wind law be reasonable approach, that if they get something far less than desirable (desirable being NO TURBINES) they will have to somehow package it as a victory. And if that occurs then the town govt supporters will work overtime to rationalize it.

And if you are conflicted now about the town’s comments, just wait. If that is the end result you are going to have a real tough time running around explaining how following Art X that stripped our rights away and preempted our laws for some BP turbines was somehow a good idea. Especially when there were people clearly telling you it would be a disaster.

And lastly you have a very short memory. If you where to look back, you would see that there were just as many nasty attacks on me from the supposed anti wind side. For example I have never called anyone an arrogant prick as I was called by one Hirschey supporter!!! That came from your side of the debate!!!

So now that I have apologized for my sometimes abrasive approach I will be waiting for an apology from the persons who attacked me just as strongly. And that would include YOU! I won’t hold my breath.

But be clear…I still think the town is wrong, and I will still question it especially when they make mistakes so blatant like calling the Art X rules fair. That is democracy!
And here is the discomforting part for you. Legitimate disagreements are an essential of democracy and open govt. If I object to the town’s moves and direction, and do so in a more measured way with no “personal attacks” …that is going to leave you in a real quandary, because you will have to address the actual issues in the debate, with no excuses of using my approach as a scape goat and diversion.

That is of course that you are in support of democracy and the open debate it requires.

I wish you luck with that!

BP's PSS And A Lack of Up To Date Maps - Stay Ahead of Them!

A common complaint about BP's PSS is that lack of up to date topo maps.  Further down in this post I will show you the USGS website where you can downlaod all Cape Vincent area topos to help study BP's wind nonsense.  Could be handy.  I will also show you how handy these topo maps and a GPS were in my CV industrial wind research

These are likely the exact maps BP will use too.

I designed the land navigation trainings for my search and rescue team and teach land navigation for them our sheriff's dept. and other groups like ski patrol, S.W.A.T. and National Park Rangers and our new deputies.  So maps and GPS are kinda my thing!

So here is a little info for anyone who might be interested in more detail on the mapping aspect of the BP wind disaster and a way to keep an accurate monitor on it.  BP does have  current mapping available as does anyone with a computer. If you are going to talk setbacks, turbine locations etc, mapping and GPS and coordinates can be  critical skills.

The old  1958 "St. Lawrence" USGS topo of Cape Vincent

with setback estimates I drew on it. 

I used this to estimate  turbine setback  distances  being

argued in the original 2006 wind law efforts.  Kinda scary to

 think even anti wind was willing to possibly accept some of these

setbacks  at one time.  How times have changed....well maybe!

Also later I entered the exact location of the Wood's property

met tower from a map plot then entered it into my GPS. That tower  

is about 263 ft high, or the hub height of an older 1.6 MW wind turbine.

Then I could drive to different viewing distances all over town and

know the exact view distance to the met tower

(or it's annoying strobe) from a accurate GPS reading.  Add

about 135 ft for a  blade tip and the viewshed impact

became real obvious, and that wind developer photo

simulations were pure bullshit!!!  I did this for other  cell and

radio towers of known height in CV as well, and the impacts

 quickly became real obvious.  I even used the prison water tower.

I did this from my boat as well for various viewing distances on the river.

It was then it stunned me with this accurate information what a visual

 disaster industrial wind turbines would create for the

1000 Islands region.  It helped to formulate my early anti wind stance that

NONE belong here and some of the setback distances even

anti wind was suggesting were a terrible mistake, and the impact on

Wolfe and  Carleton Is would be staggering.  Of course we now

 graphically know that with the Wolfe Island Wind project.

As a result of these river view distance GPS and map research efforts,

I argued to the old planning board that NO pictures had

been taken by Acciona from the water.  And it was obvious why

and that Acciona was trying to hide the terrible impact over flat water. 

I demanded they do  simulation photos from the water and  Edsall

to my amazement finally  forced Acciona to do so in their SEQR SDEIS.

One other thing I could do is enter a location in my GPS by either standing in that

location or plotting it from a map.  Then I could drive down say the Millens Bay road

 into the CV back country to see accurately were a proposed setback location

 was located, or maybe a setback from 12E.  That became a real wake up call.

In another GPS experiment at Maple Ridge, I would walk to a turbine base, enter

that exact location in a GPS, the walk or drive away and I could measure

 the accurate distance for view impact, or sound.  After a few of these experiments it became

 painfully obvious that even one and two mile setbacks were  a crazy idea!

Really handy stuff!!!

This is a Cape Vincent topo map downloaded from my Back Country Navigator

 app to my phone.  Note that I have plotted (red dot) the location of the met tower near

Constance Rd.  Now I can drive anywhere in town and know the exact

distance to the tower.  This could also be done with any location BP comes up

with for their turbine array plan. Measure the location from a map in UTM coordinates,

and enter into your Smart phone...or GPS.  Real handy!  Wanna know the EXACT

distance of any BP turbines from your residence of property.  Can easily be done, and

 they can't run some distance scam on you!  Of course with an exact location measured

 and entered into a GPS you could walk  to it exact location outdoors too and

see what is there...like Karst topography or other terrain problems . 

 But that would be trespassing but could be handy and legal

for a town officer studying this mess!

Takes a little map and GPS training but is fairly easy!

In 2012 and 2013 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed an update of their topo maps that cover the entire U.S. You can view these new maps and the old ones at the following USGS Website which is the USGS Map Store.

http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/(xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd)/.do

This is a cool site if you are into hiking or have any need for maps.  They download as PDF files and best of all are FREE.  I use them in my wilderness hiking and some search and rescue activities.

What you can do is download  Cape Vincnet area  maps from the USGS Map Store Website to a flash drive, and then view it on your cvomputer or take it to an office store with a big printer plotter like Staples, and they should be able to print you out a full scale map, maybe even in color.  About $4 for a black and white. 

Once on the USGS Website go to the map locator/downloader.

Zoom the map into the area of interest or put in the name Cape Vincent, NY and it should take you to the CV area and show you the maps available.  Use the cursor tool to click on the map. A red marker will appear.  Then click on this marker and it will list the maps around  where the marker is placed.  Click another place  on the screen map to get another map.  When the list comes up you can download the map you want. 

Make sure you select the 2012 or 2013,  7.5 x 7.5,  minute US Topo.  This will give you the latest map of 1:24,000 scale which is the best scale map you will need and BP should use, and I believe is even the scale suggested as the size by the NYPSC.  1:24,000 scale is a ratio that means  one unit  ( like an inch for example) on the map equals 24,000 inches out on the ground.

The maps available to cover the BP area project should be.

Cape  Vincent  North
Cape Vincent South
St. Lawrence
Chaumont
and maybe Clayton

When you view the map you will see a grid on the map.  That is a coordinate grid called Universal Transverse Mercator or UTM.  It relates to little coordinate numbers all around the map edge.  Each square is exactly 1000m or 1 kilometer on a side, or square, or each square is approximately 0.62 miles on a side. This is handy for quick distance reference.  Of course there is a scale of miles, kilometers and feet on the bottom of the map as well.

UTM is basically  a relatively simple military designed coordinate system and much better that Lat. Long. for a ground navigator.  Especially if you are using a map and GPS.  This is the system we use on SAR missions except when we are guiding in helicopters that only use Lat. Long.  It is usually used by people doing planning and research, like arc studies on the ground.

With a little training and the correct scale UTM map tool ( which I can provide you if you want) this coordinate system is really handy to measure the exact coordinate locations of things on  the map, like turbines and other BP structures and then they can be entered into a GPS...but not a car GPS since most of them don't read UTM.

For example maybe you would like to measure the exact location of BP's turbines and then see in a GPS or mapping software how far they are apart from other objects like property lines or houses, wetlands  etc.

  If you have mapping software on your Smart phone or tablet or computer, you can enter coordinates in  in mapping programs available for them as well.  All in all if you are interested it will put you in a really advantageous  position with BP or the NYPSC on mapping issues.  In the end you may have more mapping information and skills than they do.

An important note.  If you take locations from this map or any map, make sure the "datum" on the map   matches the "datum" you can set in your GPS settings or Smart phone.  Otherwise the locations can be off significantly.

The horizontal datum for the new US Topo maps is NAD83 or WGS 84, they are virtually the same
datums.  The old maps datums are NAD27 CONUS in your GPS.   Look in the map information block in the margin, usually lower left for this datum information.  The datum and the coordinate system of any map BP presents should be listed on their maps as as well.  Don't worry about the vertical datum.

 I did note the road names are up to date on the new USGS topos but it appears there are no buildings shown on the new US TOPO I looked at for CV.  I find that odd.   The various squiggly lines are contour lines that attempt to show the shape of the land.  The closer they are together like near Angel Rock Lodge  the steeper the terrain feature.  When they are spread far apart, it indicates flatter or flat terrain. The "contour interval" listed at the bottom of the map will show you how far apart VERTICALLY the lines are.  If the contour interval is 20 ft, then   the rise of land between any two  lines is UP 20 ft. If it takes a mile horizontally for the land to rise 20 ft. then the lines would be spread a mile apart.

If you have an Android Smart phone or tablet you can get really neat topo mapping apps.  I use Backcountry Navigator Pro.   Costs about $10 and if you are into hiking, or whatever it is worth it.  It will use the older topo maps but is still really good. When on a wireless or cell data connection you can pre- download the maps you want and then use them off line like hiking, or in a car (or in a meeting arguing BP map issues!) with no data or cell phone connection and even track your location real time, or where you have been if you have a GPS in your phone or tablet, which most do.  You can imagine how handy that is on a pitch black night in rugged confusing terrain on a SAR mission!  I can call a helicopter right to my exact location.

One thing I have suggested to Mr Hirschey our town supervisor is that we should survey places around CV that would safely accommodate the landing of an EMS or Ft Drum large helicopter in case there was an emergency or disaster in town. Record those location by GPS.   Then fire or EMS could quickly give exact locations for them to land, and would reduce confusion.  And believe me trying to get a helicopter to your location otherwise can really confuse things and delay life critical situations. All this can be done on a Smart phone...it's amazing!

I have used all these mapping and GPS/ Smart phone techniques and maps in really difficult hiking and SAR missions in very difficult terrain and at night, and they really work, and are great!

I am sure Apple has similar mapping apps.

Anyhow, probably more info than most people wanted...but could be a way to keep BP in line on the mapping issues.  Look at it this way at least this post wasn't about me taking the town board to task!!!.

Rescue helicopter landing to pick us up from a remote location on a search in the Grand Canyon.

A Smart Phone and map were used to report our exact location and give  the

helo a safe place to land in rugged terrain.

                    If anyone has mapping or GPS questions feel free to email, phone, or comment.

Of course then there is Google Earth and all the super things you can do with it and a GPS!

Art. X Rules Are Fair and Impartial - I Wonder What COAXNY Would Say About That?

Do you remember the grassroots organization called Coalition On Article X  (COAX NY) ?

http://coaxny.org/

This is a grass roots organization formed to oppose and keep an eye on Cuomo's Article X legislation.

Here is their mission statement and purpose in their own words.  The underlining emphasis is mine , not COAX.

The Coalition on Article X mission statement


"As a diverse, grassroots, statewide coalition we will act as advocates for the Towns of New York State that have lost their home rule to Albany bureaucrats in critical community planning and zoning decisions."

PURPOSE

"Our purpose as Coalition on Article X (“COAX”), is to protect and reinstate “Home Rule” regarding siting of energy facilities and to involve the public, elected officials and appointed officials in this cause."   And remember this last underlined quote for my discussion below.  It is important! 

The following are not necessarily all together in one letter or comment, but from various places on the COAX Website

“What’s at stake is our long-held, Constitutional right to “home rule” — the right to decide for ourselves what we want our communities to look like 20, 40, and 60 years down the road."


"Article 10, as currently written, has put the decision-making regarding the siting of all energy facilities in New York State into the hands of five (5) distant, unelected Albany bureaucrats. Neither we, nor our duly-elected local officials, will have a vote on these very important matters."

"Make no mistake, Big Corporate has been lobbying the state hard to make changes to this law that best suits them and their bottom line, and completely removes our right to self-determination through Municipal Home Rule.”


Every New Yorker should revile this bill and its’ passage process. This bill was passed with zero transparency, deliberately kept under the radar by the legislature because the assembly and senate knew how outraged the towns and counties would be once they learned the contentious details. The Power NY Act was passed in only one day — with absolutely NO public input! While Governor Andrew Cuomo ran on promises of upholding only the highest of ethics standards and transparency in government, the passage of the Power NY Act and the theft of freedoms it includes have proven otherwise. "

Now as you read these things do you think COAX NY would agree with the statement from our town of Cape Vincent officials that the Art X rules are ..fair and impartial????
But here is another quote that I particularly like where COAX makes several recommendations to towns on how to unite and show opposition to Art. X taking their critical rights away.  And as I understand it the the directors of COAX are veteran NY wind fighters. So I would say their advice should be well taken and credible!

"4.) Work together with your respective Boards to develop and pass a resolution AGAINST Article X!"

Well isn't that an interesting recommendation? 

  Twice last fall I went before our CV town board to try to encourage them to pass just such a resolution in opposition to Art X, exactly as the Jefferson County Legislators had done earlier. They would have NO part of it and weren't really even willing to discuss it.  Even in a private meeting myself and Dave Lamora met with Supervisor Hirschey and Councilman John Byrne and  Mr. Gebo the town attorney to try to convince them to among other tactics pass an opposition resolution to Art X.  Again Mr. Hirschey and Councilman Byrne would have no part of it.

Now notice I mentioned that CV Councilman John Byrne was in this meeting.  That is important. He was also present when I proposed the resolution to the board in the privilege of the floor portion of tow  town board meetings.

So why is this  important to know?  Well..last I knew Councilman Byrne was an active member of COAX!!! Now to be fair maybe he is no longer with the COAX group or no longer supports their beliefs against  Art X.

The reason I say that is because if you review the letter the town sent to the NYPSC where they make the statement that the Art. X rules are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL,  our very own Councilman Byrne's signature is clearly shown on that document! 

It seems one would have to conclude as a result that he supports the town's belief that the Art. X process and rules are fair and impartial.   It would seem this is very contrary to the mission of the COAX group he either belongs to or did at one time.  I know I am baffled!  Well not really, we will save that for election time!

During the two times I presented the idea of a resolution to oppose Art. X Councilman Byrne sat quietly, he listened respectfully, but never supported the idea, never called for a discussion of the idea among his fellow board members, or for a committee to draft the language of a resolution ( which would have been easy since I  had one drafted that was exactly like the County's) and certainly did not get behind me or the idea, even though his group seems to consider it a very  important recommendation, and even though our County apparently took the COAX recommendation and passed an Art. X opposition resolution!

What we get instead is a public statement to the NYPSC from our town baord including Councilman Byrne  that the Art. X system and rules are  fair and impartial!!!

Now I know right away supporters of this CV govt will immediately try  to claim I am just attacking Councilman John Byrne.  Not the case.  Does any of this make sense to you?

I believe since  Mr. Byrne is an elected official (who I supported and voted for when he came to my residence and personally asked for my vote ) and as a result has to be accountable to the public for his actions and his beliefs.  In my opinion there is something here that seriously does not add up on a credibility level, and it  is important for a public official to account for what appears to be such a glaring inconsistency, and that is not an attack  but a reasonable question. I know that reasonable questions seem not to be allowed by our current govt. or their supporters but I am going to ask this one anyhow!

This glaring inconsistency makes me wonder how clear the judgment is of our town officials especially Mr. Byrne at this point.  Did he not consider the cross fire his associations and the town comments he supports would put him in?

More importantly based on Councilman Byrne's COAX association and his important position as a town officer directly at the heart of the NY wind and Art. X battle, why is he not more aggressive to oppose Art X, but instead goes along with it  AND signs a letter declaring Art X is fair and impartial?

I would have thought the administrators at COAX NY would have popped a blood vessel by now after seeing one of their members signing a document declaring the Art. X rules are fair and impartial. Seems like the Cape Vincent officials including Councilman Byrne, one of COAX's own members, just sucker punched them right in the head!!!
Unfortunately these are not the types of examinations you will see from the other CV blogs.