Simply NOT True! - A Little Reality Please!

Mr. Wiley at the Cape Vincent JLL blog is making an erroneous claim about CV town officials actions.

Here is part of a comment  he (or his friend said) in a recent post on his blog.

"...the Town of Cape Vincent who is fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting and other land use matters."

NO they aren’t. That is inaccurate. Jeeez I just explained this in detail in a recent post based on LAW!.

The idea the Town is fighting for rights to Home Rule is simply a convenient illusion acceptted without question to make the best out of a terrible situation, by believing something that is not reality.
The town may be fighting hard to defend their specific zoning law in Cape Vincent and fighting within a very set of specific and restrictive state rules that have already removed thier Home Rule...and fighting to be reasonable in fear of State preemption…I will give them that, but they ARE NOT fighting for our right to Home Rule.  That is a completely different battle and the Town IS NOT engaged in it at present!

Read this from the Art. 10 Law. I don’t know how this can be any clearer!!!

“1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency, municipality or any agency thereof may, except as expressly authorized under this article by the board, require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of a major electric generating facility with respect to which an application for a certificate hereunder has been filed…”

See that "no municipality" part...what do you think that means???   After reading this let me ask you again the questions asked in my previous post.

1. Does the Power NY Act and Art. 10 have the power to preempt our zoning law on behalf of BP? YES, it certainly does!!! Is that Home Rule…NO!!!

2. Who makes the final decision if Cape Vincent’s law will stand as is and be enforceable by the Town? Is it the State or the Town? It is very clear IT IS NOT THE TOWN unless the State says so! Is that Home Rule …NO!!!

3. Do you see anywhere in the above quote from Art. 10 law that says the Town gets to make the final decision on our laws by exercising autonomy through Home Rule on the wind power plant siting issue?

NO you don’t, and in fact it says the complete opposite! That is NOT Home Rule!

4. Now…if Art. X renders a decision on the BP power plant that upholds our zoning law, did the Town make that decision with Home Rule or was it the State? It will be the State!! Is that Home Rule!!! NO!

5. Has the Town done anything to directly and strongly fight against,  or strongly oppose the provisions in the Art. X law that allows the removal of Home Rule rights on the wind power plant siting issue?

NO THEY HAVE NOT! If so FIND IT!!!! And post it here!

They didn’t even pass a resolution to oppose Art. 10  like the County and a number of other counties and towns have done, In fact they are going completely along with the Art. X process, which in effect is tacit approval of the State’s local law preemption power, and validates it. Is that fighting for our right to Home Rule?...NO!

In fact can anybody find me anything, anywhere, where the Town has put up a real stink or shown real strong opposition to Art. X. and it’s removal of Home Rule rights on this issue?

 NO...Instead they call the Art. X process and its preemption of local law provisions , even handed and balanced , and the rules fair and impartial.   Now can somebody please explain to me how the that is fighting for our right to Home Rule????

There is this idea floating around that if the State upholds our law, that will be defending or protecting Home Rule rights , or our Home Rule rights will have been reestablished. NO!!!! ANY decision we get, bad or good, will still be a STATE decision and it will NOT BE THROUGH HOME RULE!!!! And either way the Town will have let that decision happen. That is NOT Home Rule or fighting for it! .

The Town may be defending its law by arguing with a bunch of third party bureaucrats in Albany who are also listening to BP telling them to preempt our law…but THAT IS NOT fighting for our rights to Home Rule!!!

And if we DID have Home Rule and were fighting for it we would NOT be battling and begging a State board to uphold our law.  Does it make any sense from a Home Rule defense position that you write a zoning law and then have to ask the State, who has removed your Home Rule  for money to defend your law from the very developer you are fighting???  How exactly is that Home Rule or fighting for our Home Rule rights????  A little reality please!!!!

And when the Art. X presiding examiner, Judge Agresta , comes to Town and says he is interested in the parties ( the Town and BP ) reaching a stipulation (agreement) to abide by our zoning law…Oh.... but maybe NOT 100%...is that Home Rule? Good luck finding a way to justify that as Home Rule rights!

So where was at least ONE, just ONE, town officer in the crowd to say to Agresta that we weren’t going to enter into ANY stipulations with anybody over our law  because we are fighting for our Home Rule rights?   Where were they? Just ONE!  They were sitting in the audience  trying to be "reasonable" to the Art. X  and its preemption power to remove our law and Home Rule rights. That is where they were.  Trying to be "reasonable" like they have from the start to the very  thing that has already stripped away our Home Rule rights!

You can't claim to be "fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting" when you are appeasing and trying to be "reasonable" and beg money from  the very thing that stripped away your Home Rule rights in the first place!

 In fact ask any town officer who was deeply involved in the formation of our zoning law if they wrote it with complete reliance on Home Rule or in defiance of Art. 10 taking away our Home Rule rights...or did they write it with the idea of being "reasonable" to Art. 10? 

The ones I talked to and all the hoopla about our law on the blogs was all about formulating a law with Art. X's preemption power in mind and being "reasonable".

Not exactly what I would call a spectacular display of fighting for our Home Rule rights???