Pro wind in this community has no credibility (credit score) to be asking the State for intervenor funding and there is actual history to prove it. It isn't really about how Voters For Wind gets BP money, that is only a part of the picture. It is much deeper than that.
In a post below I showed a WPEG ad I helped produce from Feb. 2009 about the former Cape Vincent town govt's wind conflicts of interest. This really upset former town supervisor Tom Rienbeck. So much so he says in the Feb. 2009 WDT article below that he was basically considering trashing the wind law efforts he started in 2008/09 with a pro wind stacked wind law committee.
But note the IMPORTANT part, and this isn't being addressed yet in this current funding controversy.
Note that Rienbeck claims that $15,000 was spent on that 2008/09 wind law effort. And in the end he and the old town board did trash this effort and no wind law resulted. $15,000 of public tax payer money wasted for EXACTLY NOTHING!!! And that was pretty much a personal vendeta because he was pissed off at our ad! Actually he would have trashed the law anyhow, this was just an excuse.
And what if we go back to the 2006 wind law fiasco? A pro wind friendly town board trashed that effort too. How much tax money was spent on that effort??? And in addition they LIED about how that law was stopped. They said it was a vote from Clif Schneider that killed it, Clif, then a CV Councilman. Outright lie that can be easily dis-proven in town record. As a result of a vote failing to stop the wind law effort they should have never stopped the 2006 wind law, yet they just trashed a demcratic vote and the law with Clif actually in opposition to them doing so.
Then fast forward to 2010. Mr. Hirschey is now the town supervisor and trying to get a wind law, but he doesn't have the votes to get it. Once again after several months and who knows how much money spent pro wind trashes the efforts and result in the 3rd time no wind law is produced!
If you were to add up all the money spent on these efforts, who knows how much money was wasted by CV pro wind and VFW for NOTHING!!! And then the town in 2010 had the expensive Edsall produced pro wind Albany lawyers on board racking up big bucks!
In 2011/ 2012 the Hirschey board spent money, and even though I still have major disagreements with them... wanting a ban instead and opting out of Art. X , at least they have a track record for the money spent and produced an actual product, a new zoning with wind regulations AND a newly revised comp plan? And outside of the wind regulations I think should be a lot tougher ,we still have a good updated zoning law and comp plan product!
Now correct me if I am wrong, but in general when you ask for money, like say a bank or other source, don't they do a credit check to see how responsibly you have handled money in the past? Keeping in mind in this case we are talking essentially about PUBLIC money, even though BP will provide it.
So who here has the better track record of using money to produce a tangible product? Who would have the better track record to be credibly requesting money? Pro wind (essentially Voters For Wind) had 3 long detailed attempts at a wind law and they failed, or purposefully killed it each time, and wasted our public tax money. They have already had one hell of a lot of money spent on their behalf so far with NO results for the community at large!
Basically they have a really crappy credit score to be once again asking for money to defeat another wind law they could never even produce themselves and wasted a lot of money NOT producing it!
So what they are doing is asking one more time (4th time) for money to trash another wind law!!! The PSC is NUTS if they even give them a dime!
Seems to me somebody should enlighten the NYPSC to this when they come to hand out money to be used responsibly! Maybe the PSC should first ask VFW what they can show for the CV tax payer money spent on their behalf so far!
Asnswer: CREDIT -ability SCORE - ZERO!!!!
And if you think about it this is just like the wind industry...asking for more tax money that produces NOTHING!!!!
Art, this seems like a valid question-who should get intervenor funds?
ReplyDeleteSince it appears there will be no rebellion to oppose or defy this heavy-handed bureaucratic theft of Home Rule, the alternative approach seems to be to demand as much "fairness and equitability" as possible from the process. The goal seems to be to embarrass the State legislature,Andrew Cuomo, and his corporate influenced review board into somehow acting responsibly towards the citizens of New York by demanding this process be "fair and reasonable" according to real world standards,in contrast to wind industry/renewable energy zealots, arbitrary standards.
Hard to come to grips with this approach when the criteria for determining "reasonable" is reserved by the State, who also retains the right to pre-empt local standards, but so be it, this is the chosen path.
Most of the conversation to this point seem to dwell on whether or not the Voters for Wind are directly or indirectly funded by BP.Unless I have missed some related section of the ART.X laws, this point does not seem to be addressed directly. Here are two excerpts from the rules-
(8)Following receipt of initial requests for pre-application funds, the presiding examiner shall expeditiously make an initial award of pre-application funds, and thereafter may make additional awards of pre-application funds, in relation to the potential for such awards to make an effective contribution to review of the preliminary scoping statement,thereby encouraging early and effective public involvement.
(9) The presiding examiner shall award funds on an equitable basis to participants during the pre-application phase whose requests comply with the provisions of this section, providing use of the funds will make an effective contribution to review of the preliminary scoping statement, thereby providing early and effective public involvement.
As with the general scope of the ART.X process, this indicates to me the final determination of who does or doesn't qualify is left to the examiner,s judgement.
Of course "reasonableness" would dictate that the Voters for Wind are an obvious arm of BP,as previously stated,whose sole reason d'etre,and function is to promote and facilitate their project,as per their lease requirements.
Certainly seems to eliminate them as anyone who could contribute to an effective review of BP's preliminary scoping Statement.
May be an early test of whether the State has any intention of acting responsible .