It's election time in Cape Vincent once again. The election hoopla has started. This time the belief is by the bloggers, and other Hirschey govt. supporters that somehow if the rabidly pro wind BP friendly lease holding CFG group gains power in CV we are in big trouble in the Art. X process because CFG will gut our current zoning law to open the door for Art X to go along with CFG and give away the town to BP. It is implied that Art X will see no official resistance to wind and just give our town over to BP as a result.
I believe as far as the CV wind issue, the upcoming elections are going to have little if no impact since the State will make the final decision no matter who is in power in CV. I think through allegiance to Art. X we have committed to a compromise that neither side will have an impact on.
This in no way implies I am telling you not to vote for the Hirschey candidates. Nor does it imply I support the CFG candidates because I am repulsed by the entire CFG direction. HOWEVER...as far as the CV wind issue....
The horrendous negative impacts of industrial wind remain the same and are backed by credible science. So if the current board has taken this community so head long committed and this far into the Art. X process to the point of no return and truly believes it is fair and balanced, then they should also have confidence, if they think the system is fair and impartial as they claim, that the Art X process will make a rational SCIENTIFIC decision on the negative impacts of BP's wind development on CV and the 1000 Islands... NO MATTER WHO IS IN POLITICAL POWER OR NO MATTER WHAT ZONING LAW IS ON THE BOOKS IN CV!!
However, if now suddenly at election time they are trying to convince us all that a simple shift in political power in CV will change the entire dynamics of the system so the Art. X Board completely ignores the facts and science and just gives it all to CFG and BP...
....then they have made a horrendous, costly and reckless mistake blindly following this Art. X system if it is that tenuous. It would also mean that all those letters of input we were told would be absolutely critical would suddenly be rendered meaningless as well.
They can't have it both ways for election year expediency. So which way is it??? Is the Art. X process credible and will stand with our experts and the science and health safety and welfare? Because that is definitely what we have been told repeatedly. Our experts WILL prevail! Or will the Art. X system just fold up and completely ignore the experts and science and allow the destruction of our town simply because the Hirschey board may no longer be in power?
Keeping in mind that the Hirschey govt has willingly gone along with the Art X process as (in their own words) fair, impartial, even handed , and balanced, and completely trusting the final decision and fate of our community to the State. They and their supporters have repeatedly tried to convince us that this is the wisest path and endorsed by the zoning "experts"!
Yet at the same time they are now suddenly trying to convince you that the second they might lose power the entire State Art X system is so shaky, tenuous and irrational that it will completely implode on us and in a heart beat giving CFG and BP the power to destroy our community!
Geee...what is wrong with this logic picture.
Seems they are making my case for me that they should not be committed to gambling the entire fate of our community and the 1000 Islands on such a radically unstable State system,if all it takes to change the Art X board's mind is the absurd self serving thinking of CFG backed by blatant conflicts of interest!
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.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Voting For Anti Wind Candidates????? Please Let Me Know When You Find Some!
I noted today that some reader from Albany was surfing around my blog. Great!!! I hope it is somebody important!!
I was curious where this reader from Albany was surfing on my blog. What were they interested in. They found an interest in an older post where I was indicating that home rule was already gone, and removed by Art. X and the State, and no matter who we voted for in the upcoming 2013 CV election was going to change that fact. Neither faction in CV who is elected is going to bring back home rule, even though the Republicans are going to try to convince us they will not let our home rule be taken. It's already been taken!
In reviewing my post from about July 4th I note this comment left on my blog in response. Here is part of that comment. The person summed up their thoughts this way.
"I get what you say about home rule....I just don't believe that the Article X process cannot be politically influenced!
So I will vote for candidates that I believe WILL support my anti industrial wind development stand! And I do not care if I personally like them or not."
This comment was not an attack or nasty. It was intelligently stated but differed from my opinion.
But reviewing this today I decided to make an additional comment to this reader.
You claim you will vote for candidates that support your anti industrial wind development view. Ok fair enough...where are those candidates because I certainly would like to vote for them too?
There is only one CV town board candidate ( Michelle Oswald) who originally declared she was against industrial wind development in CV and has made no such declarations since. Mr. Hirschey has stated publicly on TV that he was not anti wind. Mr. Schneider has never to my knowledge publicly said he is anti wind. Mr. Bragdon is on video record indicating his willingness to work with BP if they abide by our law. That's not anti wind.
The 2011 campaign statement by the Hirschey candidates said absolutely nothing about supporting an anti wind position. John Byrne once made some hollow noises that he might be publicly against wind, but was beaten into submission by the Hirschey camp and I seriously doubt he has the brass to stand up and say he is anti wind against Hirschey.
And most importantly these town officials passed a zoning law that ALLOWS wind development! Although this law is restrictive to wind development is not anti wind. You might not agree with me on that, so let's defer to the chairman of the CV zoning committee who wrote the wind zoning regulations in CV zoning.
Mr. Bob Brown, the chair of the zoning committee said on the record on NPR radio that the new CV zoning was not intended to prohibit wind.
Clayton won't support our zoning because they feel it allows turbines too close to the river. So do you actually understand the premise of the debate between CV and Clayton? It is NOT about being anti wind. You can only have this debate about WHERE turbines are placed if turbines are allowed in the first place!!! And if turbines are allowed how is that being anti wind???? Please explain that too me!!!
Whether you like the candidates or not is not going to be your voting dilemma this election. It will actually be finding those candidates that support your anti industrial wind stance!
I was curious where this reader from Albany was surfing on my blog. What were they interested in. They found an interest in an older post where I was indicating that home rule was already gone, and removed by Art. X and the State, and no matter who we voted for in the upcoming 2013 CV election was going to change that fact. Neither faction in CV who is elected is going to bring back home rule, even though the Republicans are going to try to convince us they will not let our home rule be taken. It's already been taken!
In reviewing my post from about July 4th I note this comment left on my blog in response. Here is part of that comment. The person summed up their thoughts this way.
"I get what you say about home rule....I just don't believe that the Article X process cannot be politically influenced!
So I will vote for candidates that I believe WILL support my anti industrial wind development stand! And I do not care if I personally like them or not."
This comment was not an attack or nasty. It was intelligently stated but differed from my opinion.
But reviewing this today I decided to make an additional comment to this reader.
You claim you will vote for candidates that support your anti industrial wind development view. Ok fair enough...where are those candidates because I certainly would like to vote for them too?
There is only one CV town board candidate ( Michelle Oswald) who originally declared she was against industrial wind development in CV and has made no such declarations since. Mr. Hirschey has stated publicly on TV that he was not anti wind. Mr. Schneider has never to my knowledge publicly said he is anti wind. Mr. Bragdon is on video record indicating his willingness to work with BP if they abide by our law. That's not anti wind.
The 2011 campaign statement by the Hirschey candidates said absolutely nothing about supporting an anti wind position. John Byrne once made some hollow noises that he might be publicly against wind, but was beaten into submission by the Hirschey camp and I seriously doubt he has the brass to stand up and say he is anti wind against Hirschey.
And most importantly these town officials passed a zoning law that ALLOWS wind development! Although this law is restrictive to wind development is not anti wind. You might not agree with me on that, so let's defer to the chairman of the CV zoning committee who wrote the wind zoning regulations in CV zoning.
Mr. Bob Brown, the chair of the zoning committee said on the record on NPR radio that the new CV zoning was not intended to prohibit wind.
Clayton won't support our zoning because they feel it allows turbines too close to the river. So do you actually understand the premise of the debate between CV and Clayton? It is NOT about being anti wind. You can only have this debate about WHERE turbines are placed if turbines are allowed in the first place!!! And if turbines are allowed how is that being anti wind???? Please explain that too me!!!
Whether you like the candidates or not is not going to be your voting dilemma this election. It will actually be finding those candidates that support your anti industrial wind stance!
Cuomo's Campaign Against NYS Government Corruption Is A Bad Joke!!! And We In Cape Vincent Know Where The Skeletons In His Closet Are To Prove It.
My letter to the Watertown Daily Times posted today - 9/29/13
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130729/OPINION02/707299993
After you read the letter ask yourself...why is our town govt in Cape Vincent participating in the Art. X process designed by Cuomo on behalf of his corporate clients, and which took our home rule rights away not to mention that he and his Ag. Commissioner have outright encouraged corruption in our community. Aubertine holding wind leases in one hand and being paid by wind developers, takes the other hand and writes a letter to former CV officials to encourage them to vote despite their obvious blatant conflicts of interest...and this would be right as they are violating NYS and town ethics codes disclosure laws. And Andy Cuomo looks at all this over a seven year period and just says,
" Yup...don't see any problem there!!!!"
It boggles my mind knowing what we know about Cuomo's Cape Vincent ethics mess that we would completely capitulate, and our CV govt go completely along with his legislation that removed our home rule rights.
And it boggles my mind that our CV govt. would even go so far as to call this Cuomo designed system fair and impartial and even handed and balanced. Have we completely lost our minds!!!
What our CV officials and other local govts. under wind threat are doing is completely enabling this man and his tyranny and corruption on behalf of corporate power. And not only that ... we are kissing his ass in the process to help him do it!!!
It isn't enough for him to screw over CV the way he has, he has decided to make the process final and to suppress us further he will just stick it to us and remove our rights as icing on his cake!
What the hell is it going to take for you people to wake up? Cuomo is marching our communities to a lynching, and our CV government is sitting around suggesting what type of knot might be the most effective for the noose!!!
Good God people...we are far more frightening than he is!!!
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Who Is Helping Who??? What Does The Actual Record Show???
There is a discussion that cropped up on the Pandora blog about me. I did not initiate this discussion, but it prompted one such comment from one of her rabid Hirschey supporter readers.
Very, Very clever of Mr. Pundt. Have you ever read the hundreds of stories and seen the movies about how industrial giants take a town. They always have one or two who infiltrate the local opposition pretending to be with them but then doing crazy things that obstruct them at every turn much to the delight of the industrial giant? sure does make you wonder why a guy tries to the rug out from everything but then turns on everyone and sure does make you wonder why Harold Wiley wanted to meet Art Pundt.
Although this is an out right lie, it has become a common theme among the supporters of the current Cape Vincent govt. that I am somehow in bed with CFG BP and helping them. I don't know why the current govt. and its supporters feel a need to spread this type of lie to support their agenda...but that is apparently what they feel is appropriate in an election year. And the Pandora blog is more than happy to include these outrageous comments that are outright lies so as to further her Hirschey govt agenda. You would have thought one law suit would have made her be a little more careful!
But like everything there is usually a record one can turn too to find the truth of who is helping who in this issue.
So what do you say we stop the lies and look at the actual documented record. Let's do a side by side comparison.
Pundt: Has been consistently and very very publicly anti BP, and anti wind since 2006, 7 years.
Mr. Hirschey: Mr. Hirschey when asked on TV if his victory was a win for anti wind, he said that wasn't fair he wasn't against wind, which one would have to assume meant he is not against some BP wind development in CV. In fact the law the Hirschey Govt. wrote after they were elected would allow some BP wind development. Mr. Bragdon of the Hirschey govt. is on record saying that if BP abides by our law he is fully ready and willing to work with them!
Pundt: Once again consistently anti wind for CV and the region.
Mr. Hirschey: Over heard in public saying... wouldn't a few wind turbines be OK! Apparently he feels a few BP 500 ft. wind turbines would be OK! And that is what our law allows, so I guess Hirschey got his wish!
Pundt: 100 percent and very publicly opposed to the Art X process that stripped away our home rule rights and willing to take significant steps to oppose it. Supports the official unanimous County resolution in opposition to Art X. and removal of home rule rights. Not willing to appease or enable or validate the state Art X system.
Hirschey Govt: Twice refused to pass a resolution to oppose Art X and support the County position on removal of home rule. Steadfastly refuses to say anything negative about the Art X process that stripped away our home rule rights. Obediently is willing to follow the process with BP and in fact next week is willingly entering into the process to consider negotiations with BP. Although they may defend our law, it is on the agenda list in this negotiation. In official town documents also called the Art X process that has remove your home rule rights as fair, impartial, even handed and balanced!!!
The Art X process may allow BP to preempt our zoning law, and the willingness of the town to participate in this process gives BP a significant leg up to override our laws. Wrote our zoning to appease the state and Art X system. This gives BP a significant advantage.
Pundt: Fought for a CV zoning law to outright prohibit BP wind development in CV.
Hirschey Govt.: Wrote a zoning law that actually would allow some BP wind development in CV.
Pundt: Wants BP with their dismal record completely out of our community after they have already destroyed our small peaceful town.
Hirschey Govt. Fully knowing the BP record in our community and around the world they are still willing to do business with BP by requesting BP put up a large solar complex instead of wind.
Pundt: Fully opposed to any local PILOT tax subsidies for ANY BP or other CV wind or solar development.
Mr. Hirschey: Sat on a JCIDA committee to form the language for a resolution to let the county determine the PILOT agreements and take that power away from towns. This would have included PILOTS for wind developers. This would have been a reversal of previous JCIDA policy to allow towns to approve the PILOT agreements. Hirschey then voted to approve the resolution, and only at the last minute reversed his vote as County Legislature Docteur voted against it. Docteur was not willing to take that power away from elected town officials. Apparently Hirschey almost did! This can be documented in the WDT.
Pundt: As above fully opposes local PILOTs and Fed. PTC tax subsidies for wind and solar.
Hirschey Govt: Wanted BP to put up a solar project which would have required both a PILOT and Fed PTC tax subsidies.
Pundt: Fully supports banning industrial wind development in CV to equally protect all CV residents and those of neighboring towns.
Hirschey Govt. Wrote a zoning law that allows some wind development and pushes that development back from the river onto the interior residents of the town. Apparently they don't pay high enough taxes such as the water front people do!
Pundt: Believes the CV comp plan should be highly protective of the scenic beauty of the town, and the only way to not violate the intent of that comp plan with the zoning as NYS requires is to prohibit wind development.
Hirschey Govt. Wrote a comp plan very protective of the town's scenic beauty. Violated the intent of the comp plan by writing a zoning law that could allow some industrial wind development that in any form would be very detrimental to the scenic quality of the town and region. The Hirschey candidate campaign platform said any zoning law they wrote would be in compliance with the comp plan. They did not keep that promise since the zoning allows wind development which in any form would violate the comp plan intent to preserve the scenic quality of the town.
Pundt: Worked hard to expose and oppose the ethical conflicted mess of the previous town govt. This started with a petition to... and meeting with the Jeff. Cty DA. and proceeded to the NYAG.
Mr. Hirschey: Refused to sign the DA petition or attend the meeting. Then ironically ran twice for election on an ethics platform. Yet appointed a wind lease holder to the planning board, and a former very wind conflicted PB member as an alternate who is still under investigation by the NYAG's office for CV wind conflicts of interest. In addition in 2010 as supervisor let highly wind conflicted town officials participate on a wind zoning committee. And in 2012 apparently was willing to discuss appointing a very wind conflicted person to the town board to an empty seat to be "fair"
Pundt: When BP visited CV to a large public meeting with CV and Lyme officials on Oct 23rd 2012, I thought we should stage a large aggressive protest and shut down the meeting and not listen to BP officials. Why should we make the people who already destroyed our town feel comfortable?
Mr. Hirschey: Said we had to be respectful to BP and not bring the protest inside the meeting.
That would be the same BP that has already socially devastated our small community.
Pundt: Thinks there is no traditional zoning approaches or setbacks that can protect the scenic resources of the town from huge 500 ft. industrial wind machines.
Hirschey Govt.: Thinks 1.25 miles is an appropriate distance for massive BP wind turbines to protect the 12E scenic corridor and historic resources from the invasive visual impact of wind development. This is an absurd concession to BP!
Pundt: Thinks we should go to serious all out zoning efforts to protect the unique and precious scenic beauty of the town and region.
Hirschey Govt: On the advice of their zoning attorney says they can not defend a law that would prohibit something to protect the scenic beauty. As result the 2 mile setback from the shore is not about scenic protection for the town or region. It is for other criteria.
Pundt: (With others) Helped write and circulate an 800 name petition with CV citizens calling for a one year CV wind development moratorium. Better yet believed in the 3 year moratorium to support the Save the River position on bird impact studies was even better.
Hirschey Govt: In a panic over and to appease Art X, and under pressure from BP passes only a 6 month moratorium and rushed into a wind law that in the end resulted in them allowing some possible BP wind turbines. And now there is evidence that in the rush they haven't even applied the law they wrote correctly.
Pundt: There should be NO compromises with BP, any other wind developer or the State.
Mr. Hirschey: ( on video record) He believes there will be compromises. In addition when Mr. Hirschey originally took office he made a public statement that the anti wind people would not get everything they wanted and he wasn't the pro wind side's worst nightmare.
Pundt: Said Zogby poll would be an expensive waste of time and money. Take a stand against wind and defend it.
Mr. Hirschey: Does the poll. Poll shows more people in favor of wind than not. Hirschey supporters then work overtime to discredit a poll they paid for and supported which came out to favor BP's position! And supposedly I am the one helping BP???? Go figure!
Now I could go on but it's getting late. Take a hard look at the facts and decide how many concessions Mr. Hirschey and this govt have given to BP, CFG, VFW and the State.
So I will let the record speak for itself as to who has, and who hasn't helped the BP and State cause!!!
Very, Very clever of Mr. Pundt. Have you ever read the hundreds of stories and seen the movies about how industrial giants take a town. They always have one or two who infiltrate the local opposition pretending to be with them but then doing crazy things that obstruct them at every turn much to the delight of the industrial giant? sure does make you wonder why a guy tries to the rug out from everything but then turns on everyone and sure does make you wonder why Harold Wiley wanted to meet Art Pundt.
Although this is an out right lie, it has become a common theme among the supporters of the current Cape Vincent govt. that I am somehow in bed with CFG BP and helping them. I don't know why the current govt. and its supporters feel a need to spread this type of lie to support their agenda...but that is apparently what they feel is appropriate in an election year. And the Pandora blog is more than happy to include these outrageous comments that are outright lies so as to further her Hirschey govt agenda. You would have thought one law suit would have made her be a little more careful!
But like everything there is usually a record one can turn too to find the truth of who is helping who in this issue.
So what do you say we stop the lies and look at the actual documented record. Let's do a side by side comparison.
Pundt: Has been consistently and very very publicly anti BP, and anti wind since 2006, 7 years.
Mr. Hirschey: Mr. Hirschey when asked on TV if his victory was a win for anti wind, he said that wasn't fair he wasn't against wind, which one would have to assume meant he is not against some BP wind development in CV. In fact the law the Hirschey Govt. wrote after they were elected would allow some BP wind development. Mr. Bragdon of the Hirschey govt. is on record saying that if BP abides by our law he is fully ready and willing to work with them!
Pundt: Once again consistently anti wind for CV and the region.
Mr. Hirschey: Over heard in public saying... wouldn't a few wind turbines be OK! Apparently he feels a few BP 500 ft. wind turbines would be OK! And that is what our law allows, so I guess Hirschey got his wish!
Pundt: 100 percent and very publicly opposed to the Art X process that stripped away our home rule rights and willing to take significant steps to oppose it. Supports the official unanimous County resolution in opposition to Art X. and removal of home rule rights. Not willing to appease or enable or validate the state Art X system.
Hirschey Govt: Twice refused to pass a resolution to oppose Art X and support the County position on removal of home rule. Steadfastly refuses to say anything negative about the Art X process that stripped away our home rule rights. Obediently is willing to follow the process with BP and in fact next week is willingly entering into the process to consider negotiations with BP. Although they may defend our law, it is on the agenda list in this negotiation. In official town documents also called the Art X process that has remove your home rule rights as fair, impartial, even handed and balanced!!!
The Art X process may allow BP to preempt our zoning law, and the willingness of the town to participate in this process gives BP a significant leg up to override our laws. Wrote our zoning to appease the state and Art X system. This gives BP a significant advantage.
Pundt: Fought for a CV zoning law to outright prohibit BP wind development in CV.
Hirschey Govt.: Wrote a zoning law that actually would allow some BP wind development in CV.
Pundt: Wants BP with their dismal record completely out of our community after they have already destroyed our small peaceful town.
Hirschey Govt. Fully knowing the BP record in our community and around the world they are still willing to do business with BP by requesting BP put up a large solar complex instead of wind.
Pundt: Fully opposed to any local PILOT tax subsidies for ANY BP or other CV wind or solar development.
Mr. Hirschey: Sat on a JCIDA committee to form the language for a resolution to let the county determine the PILOT agreements and take that power away from towns. This would have included PILOTS for wind developers. This would have been a reversal of previous JCIDA policy to allow towns to approve the PILOT agreements. Hirschey then voted to approve the resolution, and only at the last minute reversed his vote as County Legislature Docteur voted against it. Docteur was not willing to take that power away from elected town officials. Apparently Hirschey almost did! This can be documented in the WDT.
Pundt: As above fully opposes local PILOTs and Fed. PTC tax subsidies for wind and solar.
Hirschey Govt: Wanted BP to put up a solar project which would have required both a PILOT and Fed PTC tax subsidies.
Pundt: Fully supports banning industrial wind development in CV to equally protect all CV residents and those of neighboring towns.
Hirschey Govt. Wrote a zoning law that allows some wind development and pushes that development back from the river onto the interior residents of the town. Apparently they don't pay high enough taxes such as the water front people do!
Pundt: Believes the CV comp plan should be highly protective of the scenic beauty of the town, and the only way to not violate the intent of that comp plan with the zoning as NYS requires is to prohibit wind development.
Hirschey Govt. Wrote a comp plan very protective of the town's scenic beauty. Violated the intent of the comp plan by writing a zoning law that could allow some industrial wind development that in any form would be very detrimental to the scenic quality of the town and region. The Hirschey candidate campaign platform said any zoning law they wrote would be in compliance with the comp plan. They did not keep that promise since the zoning allows wind development which in any form would violate the comp plan intent to preserve the scenic quality of the town.
Pundt: Worked hard to expose and oppose the ethical conflicted mess of the previous town govt. This started with a petition to... and meeting with the Jeff. Cty DA. and proceeded to the NYAG.
Mr. Hirschey: Refused to sign the DA petition or attend the meeting. Then ironically ran twice for election on an ethics platform. Yet appointed a wind lease holder to the planning board, and a former very wind conflicted PB member as an alternate who is still under investigation by the NYAG's office for CV wind conflicts of interest. In addition in 2010 as supervisor let highly wind conflicted town officials participate on a wind zoning committee. And in 2012 apparently was willing to discuss appointing a very wind conflicted person to the town board to an empty seat to be "fair"
Pundt: When BP visited CV to a large public meeting with CV and Lyme officials on Oct 23rd 2012, I thought we should stage a large aggressive protest and shut down the meeting and not listen to BP officials. Why should we make the people who already destroyed our town feel comfortable?
Mr. Hirschey: Said we had to be respectful to BP and not bring the protest inside the meeting.
That would be the same BP that has already socially devastated our small community.
Pundt: Thinks there is no traditional zoning approaches or setbacks that can protect the scenic resources of the town from huge 500 ft. industrial wind machines.
Hirschey Govt.: Thinks 1.25 miles is an appropriate distance for massive BP wind turbines to protect the 12E scenic corridor and historic resources from the invasive visual impact of wind development. This is an absurd concession to BP!
Pundt: Thinks we should go to serious all out zoning efforts to protect the unique and precious scenic beauty of the town and region.
Hirschey Govt: On the advice of their zoning attorney says they can not defend a law that would prohibit something to protect the scenic beauty. As result the 2 mile setback from the shore is not about scenic protection for the town or region. It is for other criteria.
Pundt: (With others) Helped write and circulate an 800 name petition with CV citizens calling for a one year CV wind development moratorium. Better yet believed in the 3 year moratorium to support the Save the River position on bird impact studies was even better.
Hirschey Govt: In a panic over and to appease Art X, and under pressure from BP passes only a 6 month moratorium and rushed into a wind law that in the end resulted in them allowing some possible BP wind turbines. And now there is evidence that in the rush they haven't even applied the law they wrote correctly.
Pundt: There should be NO compromises with BP, any other wind developer or the State.
Mr. Hirschey: ( on video record) He believes there will be compromises. In addition when Mr. Hirschey originally took office he made a public statement that the anti wind people would not get everything they wanted and he wasn't the pro wind side's worst nightmare.
Pundt: Said Zogby poll would be an expensive waste of time and money. Take a stand against wind and defend it.
Mr. Hirschey: Does the poll. Poll shows more people in favor of wind than not. Hirschey supporters then work overtime to discredit a poll they paid for and supported which came out to favor BP's position! And supposedly I am the one helping BP???? Go figure!
Now I could go on but it's getting late. Take a hard look at the facts and decide how many concessions Mr. Hirschey and this govt have given to BP, CFG, VFW and the State.
So I will let the record speak for itself as to who has, and who hasn't helped the BP and State cause!!!
Saturday, July 27, 2013
More Cape Vincent Zoning Notes
To this day almost a year after the 2012 Cape Vincent zoning and comp plan were passed something still baffles me. Let's look at the overall scenic protection intent of our zoning and comp plan.
In the months before passing the law while formulating the zoning, a debate came up. I believe this was initiated by CV Councilman Schneider, about protecting the scenic views from the CV islands from huge industrial wind turbines on the CV mainland. As I remember he wanted a setback that would have preserved the island property viewshed. The zoning lawyer they hired said you can't do that!
As I remember it, the zoning attorney indicated he could not defend a law based on that premise, or basically zoning based on not liking something because of the way it looked. Or I would have to interpret that to mean based on the beauty of the scenic view.
But isn't that a great deal of what CV is all about???? Go figure!!!
What happened instead was a setback from the water of 2 miles for industrial wind turbines, but even that was not based on protecting the scenic view, it was to protect the health safety and welfare and property values of the highly taxed water front properties. In fact that is what our zoning says.
AND 2 miles from the water is NOT going to protect the island scenic view! Look across the river!!!
But wait a minute!!!
The scenic view is in large part what makes up the extremely important CV tourism, second home, and even 1st home economy, AND view is a large part of property values too!
Not only that, our comp plan's intent, that our zoning must be in accordance with, is in very large part about protecting the scenic resources of Cape Vincent near the water AND in the CV interior. In fact you could make the case it is all about protecting the scenic resources of the town and village.
Not to mention that the scenic protection idea pops up many times in our zoning.
OK so in this appeasement of Art X., which way is it? Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we????
So if this is the case how can the attorney basically claim he can't defend a law that protects how something looks (scenic view) when our law and our comp plan in the end have an awful lot of scenic protection language in them?
Not to mention that in the end the town zoning committee wrote a zoning law that allows industrial wind turbines, and the town board accepted it and passed it. But any industrial wind turbines in CV will have a dramatic impact on the scenic quality of the town...even a few. Once again...go figure!!!
So once again in our irrational hoopla appeasement of Art. X the town is running around in circles.
Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we?????
Remember that 800 name petition that wanted a 1 year moratorium on wind development in CV? Maybe the current town board should have honored that, instead of a rushed 6 months in fear of Art. X so they could figure out some more of the details and gray areas that appear to have them running around in circles.
And you ain't heard the half of it yet!!!!
In the months before passing the law while formulating the zoning, a debate came up. I believe this was initiated by CV Councilman Schneider, about protecting the scenic views from the CV islands from huge industrial wind turbines on the CV mainland. As I remember he wanted a setback that would have preserved the island property viewshed. The zoning lawyer they hired said you can't do that!
As I remember it, the zoning attorney indicated he could not defend a law based on that premise, or basically zoning based on not liking something because of the way it looked. Or I would have to interpret that to mean based on the beauty of the scenic view.
But isn't that a great deal of what CV is all about???? Go figure!!!
What happened instead was a setback from the water of 2 miles for industrial wind turbines, but even that was not based on protecting the scenic view, it was to protect the health safety and welfare and property values of the highly taxed water front properties. In fact that is what our zoning says.
AND 2 miles from the water is NOT going to protect the island scenic view! Look across the river!!!
But wait a minute!!!
The scenic view is in large part what makes up the extremely important CV tourism, second home, and even 1st home economy, AND view is a large part of property values too!
Not only that, our comp plan's intent, that our zoning must be in accordance with, is in very large part about protecting the scenic resources of Cape Vincent near the water AND in the CV interior. In fact you could make the case it is all about protecting the scenic resources of the town and village.
Not to mention that the scenic protection idea pops up many times in our zoning.
OK so in this appeasement of Art X., which way is it? Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we????
So if this is the case how can the attorney basically claim he can't defend a law that protects how something looks (scenic view) when our law and our comp plan in the end have an awful lot of scenic protection language in them?
Not to mention that in the end the town zoning committee wrote a zoning law that allows industrial wind turbines, and the town board accepted it and passed it. But any industrial wind turbines in CV will have a dramatic impact on the scenic quality of the town...even a few. Once again...go figure!!!
So once again in our irrational hoopla appeasement of Art. X the town is running around in circles.
Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we?????
Remember that 800 name petition that wanted a 1 year moratorium on wind development in CV? Maybe the current town board should have honored that, instead of a rushed 6 months in fear of Art. X so they could figure out some more of the details and gray areas that appear to have them running around in circles.
And you ain't heard the half of it yet!!!!
Friday, July 26, 2013
As I posted earlier, Mr. Roger Alexander, the owner of the Lazy Acres Trailer Park and the defunct private wind turbine on Cty Rt 7, has now applied for a permit to place a large solar array on the same property.
You can see the letter in my previous post that one of his neighbors received as a notice of a public hearing for the solar array site plan review.
Note that the array size is two arrays at 10 x72 ft. each. That would be 720 sq. ft. per array and 1440 sq. total. Alexander wants to place these arrays on his property that is located in the River Front District (RF).
If you look at table 8 below which is copied directly from our Cape Vincent zoning law it appears that Mr. Alexander's solar system is not allowed in the RF District due to it size of far more than 100 sq. ft.
Go down the list to SECS (Solar Energy Conversion Systems) and then across to the River Front District (RF). You will see an X in the box for SECS over 100 sq. ft. which Mr. Alexander's system would be. The X indicates "prohibited". Indications are that the system he is asking to permit is not a roof mounted system but a free standing array, which in itself opens up other interesting permitting issues. There are also other issues about this requested solar array siting but I won't get into them right now.
You can see the letter in my previous post that one of his neighbors received as a notice of a public hearing for the solar array site plan review.
Note that the array size is two arrays at 10 x72 ft. each. That would be 720 sq. ft. per array and 1440 sq. total. Alexander wants to place these arrays on his property that is located in the River Front District (RF).
If you look at table 8 below which is copied directly from our Cape Vincent zoning law it appears that Mr. Alexander's solar system is not allowed in the RF District due to it size of far more than 100 sq. ft.
Go down the list to SECS (Solar Energy Conversion Systems) and then across to the River Front District (RF). You will see an X in the box for SECS over 100 sq. ft. which Mr. Alexander's system would be. The X indicates "prohibited". Indications are that the system he is asking to permit is not a roof mounted system but a free standing array, which in itself opens up other interesting permitting issues. There are also other issues about this requested solar array siting but I won't get into them right now.
| DISTRICT | LF | LR | RF | AR | LM | RP | I | M |
| Restaurant/Inn | X | S | S | S | S | S | SU | X |
| Retail | X | S | S | S | S | S | SU | X |
| Salvage/Scrap Yard | X | X | X | S | SU | X | X | X |
| SECS – Ground Based 100 sq. ft. max. | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | X |
| SECS – Ground Based over 100sq. ft. | X | X | X | SU | SU | X | X | X |
| SECS – Roof Top | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P |
| Self-Storage Facility | X | X | X | S | S | S | X | X |
| Single-Family/Household Dwelling | P | P | P | P | P | X | P | X |
| Storage Shed | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | X |
| Telecommunication Tower(s) | X | X | X | S | S | X | SU | X |
| Utility | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | X |
| Veterinary Practice | X | S | S | S | X | S | X | X |
| WECS – Industrial > 50kw | X | X | X | SU | X | X | X | X |
| WECS – Industrial > 10 to < 50kw | X | X | X | SU | X | X | SU | X |
| WECS – Residential < 10kw | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | SU | X |
| Workshop/Studio Building | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | X |
Thursday, July 25, 2013
A Victory? Really?
I noticed in the WDT that both Cape Vincent bloggers have now settled in part or in whole on the CFG law suit brought by Gary King and others. No one seems to know what those settlements were.
What did the plaintiff's win in the settlement if anything? Some are congratulating the bloggers for a win and standing tough, even I did initially...but we will never know what they gave up, and whether there really is a victory for free speech or anything else.
Personally I think what CFG did by bringing this suit stinks. But with settlements, I'm not sure what we won if anything.
Had enough yet??????
What did the plaintiff's win in the settlement if anything? Some are congratulating the bloggers for a win and standing tough, even I did initially...but we will never know what they gave up, and whether there really is a victory for free speech or anything else.
Personally I think what CFG did by bringing this suit stinks. But with settlements, I'm not sure what we won if anything.
Had enough yet??????
Roger Alexander Now Wants Solar!!!
Remember Mary Grogan. She's the nice lady who has suffered under the private wind turbine placed too close to her house by Roger Alexander. This was also the turbine illegally zoned by former ZEO Alan Wood. The same one the former CV ZBA declared illegal. The same one the court upheld the ZBA ruling that it was illegal. The same one that has sat there since 2009 and never worked. The only time it spun was when the brake failed. Recently the CV new ZEO has written Mr. Alexander saying the turbine should come down or be completed to operate.
Now Mr. Alexander wants a solar array, and the letter below is public notice of a public hearing to Mrs. Grogan and other nearby property owners of his plans. It was sent by the CV Planning Board.
Mary Grogan sent me this letter.
Alexander's defunct wind turbine being repaired after the brake cable failed and it dangerously free wheeled for many hours in a high wind storm. Picture taken from Mrs. Grogan's back porch!
Now Mr. Alexander wants a solar array, and the letter below is public notice of a public hearing to Mrs. Grogan and other nearby property owners of his plans. It was sent by the CV Planning Board.
Mary Grogan sent me this letter.
After the zoning mess Alexander and Alan Wood created with this turbine the planning
board should deny any request for anything on his property until that turbine which has
not operated except as a flaw, that is now a dangerous and expensive Osprey nest is removed.
I hope Mr. MacSherry and the planning board or somebody in this CV govt. will finally stand up for this poor woman and the suffering she has been through at the hands of CV govt. and Mr. Alexander!
I highly suggest we all show up for this public hearing and support Mrs. Grogan!
END OF STORY!!!!
A Work In Progress - A Preview of Possible Things to Come
A Photographic Website - 1000 Islands Region Photography - And Beyond
For Sale
Work By Cape Vincent, NY Photographers
Art Pundt and Rollin Hanson
Please Stay Tuned!
All Images Are Copyright Protected
By Art Pundt
Just Water
Zion National Park - Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rollin V. Hanson
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Zoning Notes - The Cape Vincent Islands Zoning District
As we all know Cape Vincent has several islands in the Lake and River. Here is a quote from CV zoning about the Island District.
"The land-use plan for this District is focused principally on encouraging quality residential development ..."
Very good I would agree with that. In fact I agree with a lot of our zoning and think it and the comp plan was basically well done...except zoning and accommodating industrial wind.
However, the Islands District is an absolutely prime example of how traditional district zoning fails
when monster industrial wind turbines are introduced into the land use mix.
The island properties are extremely visually sensitive because some look back at the CV mainland across large flat expanses of water, which will exaggerate the impact of any high structure on land. And any island shore property looking inland will also get an exaggerated height view since any object or tower can be elevated on terrain 100 or more ft. from the viewers shore level. A simple boat ride looking back at CV will show this effect by looking at existing structures like the prison water tower, the CV water tower, radio and cell towers and of course the new wind company met towers.
And where are most island properties? Most are near the island shore taking advantage of scenic water views. There is little if anything that can be done to mitigate the view of tall structures on the mainland...especially numerous 500 ft. turbines with bright red flashing lights and huge spinning rotors. Placing them 2 miles from the mainland shore is NOT going to help, even thought that 2mile placement wasn't even a scenic consideration...go figure!!! . And people on the island shore are not going to want to plant trees to block the turbines AND their water view that they paid dearly for!
The CV zoning also allows huge wind industrial wind turbines. And if you look at a USGS topo map you can see those wind turbines will be placed in areas inland a good 100 ft. or more above water level. So for an Island District shore observer a 500 ft. wind turbine back on the mainland is in effect 600 ft. or more above the water. I did considerable study on this early on in 2006 when wind became controversial. If you want to get a taste of the impact take a boat ride around the N. side of Carleton Is. and look at what those island shore properties look at in the Wolfe Is. Wind Farm. There views, particularly the scenic sunset views have been radically altered.
ANY wind development in CV is going to highly impact the Island views, particularly the S. shore of Carleton Island...not to mention Wolfe Is. which has no control over our zoning at all. Like us looking at them, they will be stuck with whatever we do.
So here we have zoned the Island Districts for high quality residential uses, yet in another complete district (res. ag.) we allow huge industrial wind turbines that will be seen from the islands and any other district and will likely reduce property values of island properties, even a few turbines. Point being the districts will not provide sufficient mitigation or protections because the bottom line is these industrial monsters are just too damn BIG to be zoned like they are houses, decks, or trailer parks!
Separation by traditional district zoning miserably fails!!! And we are not splitting zoning hairs here, it is OBVIOUS it fails (once again, look a cross the river!!!) Yet in our irrational panic over Article 10 and even before, we just move ahead and zone for these industrial wind monsters anyhow, when they have completely rearranged the zoning paradigm.
Prohibiting them is the only rational answer...especially in our topography!
Zoning note to town board: A house and a monster wind turbine are radically different structures, in case you haven't noticed. District, and traditional zoning has no relevant application to zoning 500 ft. monster industrial structures with huge spinning rotors and bright flashing night lights.
The State, on wind regulation, has you chasing a zoning paradigm that is a complete failure!
"The land-use plan for this District is focused principally on encouraging quality residential development ..."
Very good I would agree with that. In fact I agree with a lot of our zoning and think it and the comp plan was basically well done...except zoning and accommodating industrial wind.
However, the Islands District is an absolutely prime example of how traditional district zoning fails
when monster industrial wind turbines are introduced into the land use mix.
The island properties are extremely visually sensitive because some look back at the CV mainland across large flat expanses of water, which will exaggerate the impact of any high structure on land. And any island shore property looking inland will also get an exaggerated height view since any object or tower can be elevated on terrain 100 or more ft. from the viewers shore level. A simple boat ride looking back at CV will show this effect by looking at existing structures like the prison water tower, the CV water tower, radio and cell towers and of course the new wind company met towers.
And where are most island properties? Most are near the island shore taking advantage of scenic water views. There is little if anything that can be done to mitigate the view of tall structures on the mainland...especially numerous 500 ft. turbines with bright red flashing lights and huge spinning rotors. Placing them 2 miles from the mainland shore is NOT going to help, even thought that 2mile placement wasn't even a scenic consideration...go figure!!! . And people on the island shore are not going to want to plant trees to block the turbines AND their water view that they paid dearly for!
The CV zoning also allows huge wind industrial wind turbines. And if you look at a USGS topo map you can see those wind turbines will be placed in areas inland a good 100 ft. or more above water level. So for an Island District shore observer a 500 ft. wind turbine back on the mainland is in effect 600 ft. or more above the water. I did considerable study on this early on in 2006 when wind became controversial. If you want to get a taste of the impact take a boat ride around the N. side of Carleton Is. and look at what those island shore properties look at in the Wolfe Is. Wind Farm. There views, particularly the scenic sunset views have been radically altered.
ANY wind development in CV is going to highly impact the Island views, particularly the S. shore of Carleton Island...not to mention Wolfe Is. which has no control over our zoning at all. Like us looking at them, they will be stuck with whatever we do.
So here we have zoned the Island Districts for high quality residential uses, yet in another complete district (res. ag.) we allow huge industrial wind turbines that will be seen from the islands and any other district and will likely reduce property values of island properties, even a few turbines. Point being the districts will not provide sufficient mitigation or protections because the bottom line is these industrial monsters are just too damn BIG to be zoned like they are houses, decks, or trailer parks!
Separation by traditional district zoning miserably fails!!! And we are not splitting zoning hairs here, it is OBVIOUS it fails (once again, look a cross the river!!!) Yet in our irrational panic over Article 10 and even before, we just move ahead and zone for these industrial wind monsters anyhow, when they have completely rearranged the zoning paradigm.
Prohibiting them is the only rational answer...especially in our topography!
Zoning note to town board: A house and a monster wind turbine are radically different structures, in case you haven't noticed. District, and traditional zoning has no relevant application to zoning 500 ft. monster industrial structures with huge spinning rotors and bright flashing night lights.
The State, on wind regulation, has you chasing a zoning paradigm that is a complete failure!
My simulated 400 ft. wind turbine compared to the
prison water tower. Picture taken from near
Wolfe Is.
2008 accurate engineering simulation done for me by a Univ.
of Maryland engineer of the old Acciona 96 turbine proposal.
Photo location is off Dodge Bay.
View of Wolfe Is, Wind Plant.
The back turbines in this view is similar to what property owners
on the S. side of Carleton Island will see with
our current CV zoning for industrial wind.
Good luck with that!!!