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!
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.
How do you account for the statement made by Harold Wiley( and repeated by most Voters for wind/CFG) that this government has zoned out wind development with the restrictions in the zoning law? It may not be the ban you desire, but you yourself have referred to it as "a ban in effect".
ReplyDeleteDo you retract that assessment? In spite of the deficiencies of the law, you can't deny it presents a serious impediment to development,why else would BP seek a state pre-emption.
You paint an unrealistic picture of the contrast between the candidates for this election. Any CFG candidates will attempt to obliterate the zoning law, give free reign to any wind developer, and validate BP's claim of community support. An ART.10 review panel would have no basis to pre-empt our local law, since it would fall in line with Albany's agenda of promoting wind .
Admittedly, the Hirschey govt. is dancing the dance with this ART.10 process, but you are unfair in your mischaracterization of their position,and the realistic impact of the zoning restrictions.
There is a huge difference between CFG's platform of being blatantly pro-wind, advocating for unlimited development rights, propelling our community into an ethical and social nightmare, and the incumbents position . Although the measured course of action they have taken differs from your preferred more direct tact, it is both in practice and essence, in stark contrast to the CFG platform.
If you want to give the voters a dose of reality, then do so, but make sure you don't blur that reality by imposing your own personal litmus test of what constitutes "anti-wind".
Dave L
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI had a longer response but decided it was too complicated, so as far as anti wind or not anti wind let's keep it simple. And to answer your question. yes I have changed my view on whether it is a defacto ban.
1. Does our law allow wind development in CV?
2. Will the up coming election change the clause in the Power NY Act that removed our home rule and give it back ig Hirschey is elected?
3. Who will make the final decision on our zoning law. Will it be the Hirschey govt or CFG or the State no matter who is in power?
4. Is it possible that no matter who is elected to power in CV govt that Art X has it's own complete agenda that has no bearing on local politics and will give us a compromise anyhow?
5. Do you think the State and Art X board are stupid? Do you think they will actually look at our law and determine it is NOT too burdensome to BP?
And your last statement is very confusing to me...
"If you want to give the voters a dose of reality, then do so, but make sure you don't blur that reality by imposing your own personal litmus test of what constitutes "anti-wind"."
Every single voter who enters the voting booth in CV (including you) will very definitely be imposing a strict litmus test as to who they think is anti wind or not. Your statement here on my blog is nothing more that your own litmus test. Are you actually suggesting that since my opinion does not agree with yours and others I have no right to publicly express my opinion the way I see fit?
Which makes my point. To suggest that a law that allows wind, no matter how restrictive is anti wind, or to have people imply that we retain or will regain home rule by electing Hirschey instead of CFG is very definitely blurring reality!!!
Even though I believe CFG is deplorable!!!
Oswald continues to state vehemently she is anti-wind and I have heard from Byrne and Bragdon that they are too. I think they are a bit more able to be manipulated than she is but I think that's why Urban and Cliff have worked so hard to minimize her role on the board. I think they are abit more concerned about Byrne and Bragdon now that Oswald has shown them how to stand up to the pressure.
ReplyDelete