Sedona Search On Weather Channel

If you have a mobile device and have the Weather Channel App, you can see the search we were invovled in recently near Sedona,AZ.   Look at the video list for missing man in AZ.

Sorry for not having a  link, not sure if you can get it via computer on TWC website.  Very unfortunate situation.

One lesson to be learned.  When in remote areas rugged areas, or even not so remote leave a detailed trip plan and stick with it.  If you get in trouble it dramatically increases the probability of being found.  You know, like boating on the lake and river for example.  And if with a vehicle, DO NOT leave your vehicle.  From personal experience a vehilce is many times easier to spot from a helicopter or other aircraft. Although the man in this case was in a desigated wilderness and was not with a vehicle.

Busy, And A Break!

In the next couple weeks I will be involved in a number of things that preclude me from being around my computer as much.  I will only be able to get to it intermittently.

As a result I will have the comment moderation on.  This is not an attempt to block anyone's comments nor has anything to do with the rather dramatic increase in traffic on my blog...please feel free to comment.  It's just that you may not see it right away.

Besides if you are attacking my wind stance I am sure Pandy and JLL will accommodate you.

Mr. Richardson's Comment

 John Richardson left a comment on the Pandora blog a few days ago while I was on a SAR mission  out of town, but for some reason it  was removed.   John's  comment initiated a series of comments on my blog.  When I saw the comments on my blog I tried to look up John's comment on Pandy's blog, but by that time it had been removed.

John was good enough to email the comment to me.  He explained it may not be verbatim since he doesn't save his comments, but  he said it accurately reflects what was said in the original.  He gave me permission to post it with his name.

I won't speak as to what John believes about the CV wind issue, but as he  indicates we have agreed on things at times and vehemently disagreed at times and had numerous in depth heated debates on the CV wind issue as he said and we have agreed to disagree.  But John is one of a number of people in CV who would know first hand how anti wind I am, and  my history with the CV wind issue which validates my stance. 

As I see it people who twist my stance, no matter who they are,  are desperate to kill the messenger.

Thanks John for clearing this up for me and my readers.  John's comment below which originally appeared on Pandora's Box of Rocks blog.

“For anyone to say Art Pundt is pro wind is laughable and proves they clearly don’t know Art.   Art and I have had some serious and heated discussions over strategy on wind and politics and we have agreed to disagree, but I can assure anyone reading the blogs that Art is an anti-wind, anti-corruption guy.

 

Anyone who says Art is pro-wind or uses his name to support pro-wind only proves they are trying to stir up trouble or they have had their head stuck in a hole for the last six years.”

 

John Richardson

 

My Letter To The NYPSC

There have been a number of untrue accusations over time that I never wrote a letter to the NYPSC.   I find it interesting because anyone can easily look it up on the NYPSC website concerning BP's wind farm application.  Of course this is more likely just lies to make sure the marginalization campaign about my comments is continued. 

My comment is #141 on the website under public comments.  I have posted it below.  However, as you will see my comment is not slobbering all over the Art. X process and the PSC to save Cape Vincent from BP.


Dear Secretary Brilling.

The letter posted here is the most important part of a more inclusive letter that will soon be sent to your office by registered mail as well as the other parties Cc on this comment.  This site does not allow sufficient characters to post my entire letter and concerns.  I fully oppose the Art X process and the removal of critical home rule rights and have encouraged our town to not participate in it.  Our land use futures should be determined by local home rule and not be an arbitrary political system heavily influenced by politics and corporate power over politics.  The concern here is a matter of ethics.

The Town of Cape Vincent is engaged in the Art X process with BP and the NY PSC.    It has come to the attention of the Town of Cape Vincent, and its citizens via a Watertown Daily Times report that a high level NY Public Service Commissioner Maureen Harris is the wife of John S. Harris the attorney of record for BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm.  The Town has written to you for clarification on this matter.  Your agency's initial  official reply to the paper article was inadequate and distorted political cover. The Harris relationship is very questionable even if it is only a matter that a perception of a conflict of interest exists and  should be avoided to ensure public confidence in government and itss public officials.  This in fact is what is suggested in numerous NY AG opinions to public officials, and Mrs. Harris should be familiar with these opinions since she was once a litigator in the NY AG's office under Gov. Cuomo when he was the NY AG.

As I said this letter is not to plead a case for you to save Cape Vincent from BP's wind complex proposal. I have already outlined why the States contradictory laws make that irrelevant and why it is illegitimate for your agency of any other to administer the removal of NY citizen's rights already granted by other State laws.  

This letter is to put you and your agency on notice that I will be contacting the Governor's Office and the NYS Attorney General's Office and will encourage others to do the same to investigate this matter, and to investigate for example, whether Mrs. Harris should have officially disclosed, as a high level State PSC Commissioner, the relationship her spouse has with British Petroleum.  I will also be demanding to know from the Governor and the NY AG's Office the status of a precedent setting  investigation former NYAG Cuomo announced Aug 13th 2010 of former Cape Vincent town officials, some with BP wind leases. I was part of that investigation providing research to it's initial stages.  That investigation was never completed as far as anyone can tell by Gov. Cuomo or AG Schneiderman.

Gov. Cuomo also has an Agricultural Commissioner, former Sen. Darrel Aubertine who along with his family have BP wind leases in Cape Vincent.  Gov. Cuomo apparently re-appointed Mrs. Harris knowing full well of the BP relationship and that his Ag. Commissioner  and his family have BP wind leases.

All of this questionable activity is directly attached to the Art X process and NONE of this lends itself to the integrity in NY government that Gov. Cuomo promised NY citizens, and I am sure you and your agency and ALL its staff endorse as well.  Art X is barely off the ground and already it is surrounded by very serious ethical and administrative questions.

I anxiously await your reply on this matter to further clear up this issue.
Sincerely,

Art Pundt.
Flagstaff, AZ
Seasonal resident Cape Vincent, NY

The John Richardson Comment On The Pandora Blog

When I came home from the SAR mission I was involved in for several days I saw a bunch of comment activity regarding something John Richardson had said on the Pandora blog.  I looked on her blog and was confused because there was nothing there from John Richardson.

Through some phone calls  I think I have pieced together what happened with this comment. 

Apparently Mr. Richardson put a comment on the Pandora blog that was at least in part favorable to me.  I am hearing it was in regards to our significant differences and opinions  but that he does not believe I am aligned with the pro wind side or their agenda...and he is right and if this is what was said then I appreciate it. 

Now I also understand Pandora on her blog posted the comment then took it off.  That doesn't surprise me but it seems weird to allow the comment then suddenly take it off. 

Did Pandy get a call to remove the comment from the inside Hirschey loyalists?  Was it just a little too truthful to pass the JLL Pandora standards and scheme to marginalize me and my message?

Now Mr. Richardson has been generally supportive of the Hirschey govt. and that is fine.  That is his right and we have had very in depth and heated discussions about that topic as I think he pointed out.

However, what I find interesting is Pandy removing John's comment.  Sounds like the circle of censorship is tightening inward.  Apparently she doesn't have enough respect even for
someone generally supportive of her side to let them freely express their opinion.  And as I recall John defended her and JLL in a special editorial in the WDT and numerous comments on the blogs.  Is the next step to require the Hirschey supporters to take a VFW type oath and wear a certain color shirt?  I did notice last summer that the rabid Hirschey supporters have the front row right reserved in town board meetings.  It sounds like the Hirschey circle is starting to devour its own.  It seems to me that one measure of integrity is the ability to deal with criticism without folding in on yourself with censorship.

What are she and JLL so afraid of?  If this circle of censorship continues Pandy and JLL might wake up some day and find out they censored themselves!!

I also find this very interesting for a couple of blogs that got sued over freedom of speech issues.

And I am guessing no matter what John's comment was he put his name behind it.

As someone on my blog said that takes integrity, no matter what we think of each other.

Heads Up Cape Vincent Women!!!

Apparently this Hirschey govt. has no problem appeasing the Art. X process  and  Cuomo and cronies who used it  to removed our home rule rights on this wind issue.  They have called it in letters, to the NYPSC fair, balanced, and even handed and measured. Seriously?????

But  there is a twisted irony in all this.

They have treated this egregious system that removed our rights on behalf of corporate power better than they have treat some of Cape Vincent's citizens, particularly women!

What you say?  Well let me explain. 

Let's start with Mary Grogan and the Alexander private wind mill and solar zoning issue.  Despite Mary's repeated pleas for some one in this govt to help her she has been completely  ignored!  In fact on the solar zoning issue they favored a well to do trailer park owner and scrambled around in a panic to find a way to  let him put up a solar project that is illegal under our new law.  Then they even admit the way the original permit was handled was not right and would not hold up in court, yet went ahead to approve it anyhow despite Mary's ZBA challenge to the project.

Then When Hester Chase of the ZBA voted NO on the screwed up solar project permit and supported Mary's challenge, and  then began to ask other tough questions when she realized how screwed up the zoning records and process was, the Hirschey crew turned on her.

Then we have Councilwoman Michelle Oswald.  She just lost in the 2013 election to a pro wind young non experienced conflicted candidate.  How does that happen with all the seasonal votes that floated Hirschey and Bragdon to the top?  I believe the word got out and the Hirschey crowd willingly sacrificed her  since she apparently wasn't willing to be as obedient as the Hirschey govt. crowd required.

So what you have her is a little men's insider crowd who treats the women mentioned above far worse than they treat the horrible Art. X process and its players who removed our precious rights to home rule and may allow the destruction of our community.

Looks like these guys cozy up to money and power as a first choice.

That is not a very good record.  They slobber all over the Art X process, yet vindictively  turn on some CV women who are dedicated to saving this community from disaster.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM FLAGSTAFF, AZ

The San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff.

Now You Are GettingThe Picture!

Ths comment came into my blog on another post below.  So I will post my response here.

AnonymousDecember 22, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Macsherry? Surely this is a joke. The people didn't elect him, do we not have anyone qualified now sitting on the town board? Let me get this straight, if this is true we would have an UNELECTED person running our government when the super is away, which by the way recently seems to be all the time.

8:03

Now you're getting the picture!

And...remember pre-election when Urban said he wasn't going to run again.  Then all of a sudden both Clif and Brooks stepped up saying they would run.  Then suddenly Urban does a 180 and decides to run.  His claim was he was worried that Clif and Brooks would split the vote and a pro wind person could win.

Geee I guess Clif and Brooks weren't "team players" and were willing to split the vote.
I guess that team player thing didn't matter as much if they wanted  a shot at the top spot for themselves.  The Hirschey/ WPEG crew accused me of the same thing when they though I might endorse another anti wind  TB candidate.   Didn't hear much from them when their very own Cliffy
and Brooksy were willing to split the vote.  Hypocrites!!!

It  makes me wonder if at that point Urban had a little discussion with Macsherry, telling  him Urban would run again, probably  win and guarantee Macsherry the dep. super job then step down and give it to Macsherry, or let Macsherry call the shots as Urban travels off to parts unknown.

Maybe Macsherry didn't want to run for super .figuring it he might lose,  and this is the scheme they hatched to get Macsherry to the top spot with no election competition.

Interesting that Macsherry just "happened" to step down from the planning board chairman spot a couple  months ago and it goes to Bob Brown.  Then only a few months later this rumor about Macsherry pops up.

We could have Macsherry as super. and Brown running the PB.  What a frightening thought. Why?

Macsherry and Brown were they guys that couldn't even read the law they wrote and created the zoning disaster that was slashed all over the paper.

These two guys are an embarrassment.

We should turn Mary Grogan's house into a monument of a colossal zoning f*#! up sitting under an illegal wind turbine that hasn't run for 4 years and became a bird;this town govt has refused to do anything about, and a permitted  illegal solar project next door...an illegal project just like the town supervisor's which he had to take down.

We could have a monument marker with Macsherry and Brown and Urban's heads as bronze bust sculptures on it, and embossed with Macsherry now infamous words...

"You should not take our zoning law literally!!!!"

Can you imagine how delighted BP must be right now? They have their  project up for sale and they can tell the next prospective buyer as an enticement.   "Hey...don't worry, the guys who wrote the CV zoning don't take it literally!  In fact they can't even read or apply their own law correctly!"  Just put the turbines up where you want, and threaten to sue them.  It will go to the ZBA for a ruling and they will fold up like a cheap lawn chair and approve whatever you want. They did it for the supervisor, and another rich guy in town"  Those industrial  wind setbacks aren't literal!!!"

Threatened???

I noticed this comment on the Pandora blog.

Anonymous said...

"Speaking of Art Pundt.
Pretty clever of Bp and the CV pro wind
to come in from that direction. Who would have
imagined that he would be one of them? Thank
God our TB did not fall for it. A 1500 mile buffer
on the inside all along."

December 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

To the commenter: 

I know where I stand and the people that know me and matter to me know exactly where I stand.  I can't worry about the rest.  They believe whatever they want to believe and I can't change that.

On  the other hand it appears your supposed anti wind Mr. Hirschey is a bit confused about where he stands, (see the video linked below) It does in fact look like BP is very clever and you may have NO buffer.  The very unfortunate and frightening thing for you that prompted your comment lies is that more and more people lately are  looking a bit harder at Hirschey and his insiders and their agenda!!!!

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Cape-Vincent-Supervisor-Urban-Hirschey-Wins-Republican-Primary-129775248.html

Macsherry As Cape Vincent Deputy Supervisor - God Help Us All!

So I'm sitting here having a nice evening enjoying the X-mas tree and new snow outside in the moonlight.  I look on my blog and some anonymous commenter says they have heard a rumor that Hirschey is going to appoint Dick Macsherry as deputy town supervisor.

Thanks for ruining my evening.  Would you like to put your name on the rumor and bring credible evidence to verify it????

Good God help us all.

Would this be the same Macsherry that campaigned  for office with the Rienbeck crew in 2009?

Or sided with Rienbeck when Rienbeck tried to arrest John Byrne for having a camera in a town board meeting.

Would this be the same Macsherry that was up to his eyeballs in the solar zoning fiasco along with Bob Brown our supposed zoning genius last summer where they couldn't  even read the law they wrote. And now the solar mess they created in our new zoning has to be corrected?

Would this be the same Macsherry picked by Hirschey in WPEG that was on the 2008/09 wind law committee to represent WPEG then bolted and said he wasn't representing WPEG.

Would this be the same Macsherry that after the 2009 wind law committee had finished a wind law draft, he then sat in a private meeting in town offices with Rienbeck and the wind developers BP and Acciona and let them go line for line through that draft and post their objections?  And that would be BEFORE the public had the opportunity to see  it or commented on it in a legal official public hearing?  Geee ...you know.... as long as cuurent buzz is  about secret meetings!!!!!  And he admitted it.

Is this the same Dick Macsherry the rumor is about?    Good God!

I checked  NY  town law and the town board can approve a deputy supervisor position, but then the supervisor can appoint just about anyone to it.  This position is in addition to the 5 town board members and has no vote.

 Now it makes sense why Macsherry stepped down from the planning board.  He and Hirschey have bigger fish to fry!

So what happens to Brooks Bragdon who as far as I know is now the deputy supervisor?  Do they strip him of that office?  Geeee more reasons to be loyal to Hirschey!

Seems some members of the town board ought to vote to kill the deputy super. position so their is no office for Hirschey to appoint anyone too if his judgment says Macsherry is a good choice for a deputy supervisor.  

Not sure I like some official not duly elected by the CV citizens to have that much power, since he can step into the office in Hirschey's absence or if he steps down.  Especially Dick Mac with his past record.

Remember what I said.  This is a guy who had such a lack of judgment, he admitted to me and I believe he said it publicly that he would have negotiated the town away to wind development.

And then he has the severe lapse in judgment to throw WPEG under the bus and cozy right up to the Rienbeck crew and run for office shoulder to shoulder with them and their wind conflicted buddies!!!

And this guy with this gross lack of judgment is who we might have as deputy supervisor, or maybe being groomed for supervisor?  YIKES!!!!   This guy has a trend of severe lapses in judgments. 

That is real disturbing!!!  A staunch Urban loyalist once told me that if Dick Mac. said it was raining outside...then you better go and check for yourself to make sure.

Just a rumor, but let's see where it goes.  Anyone else know anything about this?

Confusion - Maybe There Was An Better Alternative!

I have read the NY Open Meeting Laws, and looked at numerous opinion letters from Robert Freeman to other towns on the matter of attorney client privilege relating to open meetings laws.

It appears the meeting of the town board and their attorney Paul Curtin was legal.  Apparently according to Freeman it was legal to have other people, like WPEG, at the meeting too. 

But  I am honestly confused a bit and hope some light can be shed on this matter.  If you look at the letter from Curtin to town supervisor Hirschey revealed last night at the town board meeting explaining all this, to me there still seems to be a point of confusion.

Here is part of that letter in Curtin's words.

"As such all the matters discussed were confidential and appropriate for the purposes of "executive" session."

What confuses me  in Curtain's letter is the "executive session" part. 

Freeman in his letters repeatedly says there are two ways for public bodies subject to  open meetings laws to hold meetings in private.  Go into executive session from a public meeting under very strict reasons of which attorney client privilege could be one, and give a general reason as to why.  And when the attorney stops giving advice, then come out of executive session and return to a public meeting...or apparently the town could just have a private meeting with the attorney and invoke attorney client privilege with no public meeting or executive session from a public meeting.  See if that is how you read this, and let me know.  Here is a letter from Freeman explaining this.

Second, as you are likely aware, the Open Meetings Law provides two vehicles under which a public body may meet in private. One is the executive session, a portion of an open meeting that may be closed to the public in accordance with §105 of the Open Meetings Law. The other arises under §108 of the Open Meetings Law, which contains three exemptions from the Law. When a discussion falls within the scope of an exemption, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law do not apply.

Of relevance to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law: "...any matter made confidential by federal or state law."

When an attorney-client relationship has been invoked, the communications made pursuant to that relationship are considered confidential under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Consequently, if an attorney and client establish a privileged relationship, the communications made pursuant to that relationship would in my view be confidential under state law and, therefore, exempt from the Open Meetings Law.

Here is what Freeman says in another opinion letter. Underlining emphasis is mine.

"Insofar as a public body seeks legal advice from its attorney and the attorney renders
legal advice, I believe that the attorney-client privilege may validly be asserted and that
communications made within the scope of the privilege would be outside the coverage of the Open Meetings Law.

Therefore, even though there may be no basis for conducting an  executive session pursuant to §105 of the Open Meetings Law, a private discussion might validly be held based on the proper assertion of the attorney-client privilege pursuant to §108, and legal advice may be requested even though litigation is not an issue. In that case, while the litigation exception for entry into executive session would not apply, there may be a proper assertion of the attorney-client privilege."

OK here is the confusion as I see it.  In the quote above from Curtin's letter he says the meeting was ..."appropriate for the purposes of "executive session."

But executive sessions as I understand it and have observed with this board and other public bodies,  takes place from inside a public meeting already underway.

So if Curtin and this board are talking "executive session" as the letter seems to imply, where was the public meeting, and the announcement of it, where they went into executive session?   As far as I can tell there was no public meeting to start with...so why is Curtain referring to an executive session and  the meeting being appropriate for the purposes of executive session?

It seems from the board's and Curtin's actions  that the board wanted to meet with him, and invoke attorney client privilege with no public meeting or executive session, and that would be perfectly legal according to Freeman.  Freeman seems to separate that from executive session.

So again why is Curtin referring to "executive session".  Help me out here.  In all the reporting and comments did I miss something?   Was there an officially  announced public meeting from which the board then went into executive session?   Did Pearson burst into an executive session that was in an already existing public meeting?  Was there an announcement, are there minutes of the general meeting and a reference to going to executive session?

The report in the paper didn't sound like there was a public meeting.  If there was you would think it would be at Rec Park not the town offices, and Pearson would have definitely been there.

And here is the other thing.  If the board can meet privately either way, with executive session from a public meeting as one alternative where they could meet with their attorney legally behind closed doors, why not be as open as possible and have  an official announced public board meeting to discuss the Art. X judges visit and the issues, and then legally go into executive session and give a general reason why as possible litigation involving the Art X application?  I'm mean gee whiz after all this hoopla that is what Curtin's letter says now in public anyhow.  Why not explain that up front?

Now think about it.  It might have been a little more process for the town, but it would have removed any justification for Pearson to create such a fiasco in the first place.  Hirschey or the attorney could have explained it right up front.  And if there were questions about WPEG being in the meeting, that could have been explained too.

Seems to me if nothing else based on what I posted above this private meeting was bad judgment in a town so volatile, and they could have avoided a lot of problems, and still had a perfectly legal meeting just like they wanted by a better slightly more open process and an upfront explanation as to why.  Pearson and pro wind might not have liked it but under those circumstance explained up front and legal they are defused and out of luck.

Judgment!!!!!  Just like the solar zoning fiasco and a lack of it!!!!

Litigation? - So Who Is Suing Whom???

In all the Dennis Pearson “secret meeting” hoopla, it doesn’t mean something interesting was not brought to light. It appears the meeting was legal, Freeman said it was legal so move on.  Yet to me there still seems to be some confusion on a few points as I read open meetings laws and the numerous Freeman opinion letters on attorney client privilege related to open meeting laws.  I’ll get to that in another post.

But first… last night at the town board meeting a letter was revealed from attorney Curtin to town supervisor Hirschey.   It is posted on the other blogs so I won’t post it in whole again here. 

However, in part Curtin in his own words says the following in this letter.

“All the individuals who were present were represented by me, and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss  the potential of litigation as it related to the Article 10 application.”

Litigation????  So who is suing whom and why is WPEG there?  Apparently Curtin is now the WPEG attorney?   Is the litigation being referred to simply the defense of our law in the normal Article X process, and if they get a bad siting decision going to the court of appeals as the Art. X process outlines.

Do they think BP or another developer is going to sue if Art. X upholds our law because it is too restrictive?    Is the board going to sue the State if Art. X does NOT uphold our law?  Would they take a stab at defending our law AND home rule going beyond the appeals court process outlined in Art. X regulations?  Like sue the State over the Art. X process and our right to home rule and our laws.   Now THAT could be interesting…real interesting!  I doubt that is the case but it would get to the real heart of the matter.  I might be able to get behind that, if they showed some backbone on that approach.  Obviously I would prefer if they intend to do that to say NO to wind development outright and fight on their right to say no and prohibit wind in our community based on the comp plan. 

Or is the town thinking of suing BP or the State and/or BP for leaving us hanging in the Art. X process?   Or would they sue over a new developer and the BP sale, or that the State might let a develop pick up the pre-application process as is and not start over?

So what litigation are we talking about????  Some interesting possibilities.

Can Art. X Force A Wind Developer To Produce An Alternative Project That Abides "Somewhat" With Our Zoning Law?

The short answer is NO...well maybe!  According to the Art. X judge Agresta who visited Cape Vincent recently.

I think some people prematurely have interpreted what Agresta said at his first meeting about the town and BP sitting down in the stipulation phase as that means BP has to compy with our law. Not true.  He indicated as part of that phase he would like to see if they would  come up with an alternative to the BP project that would comply with CV's law...then he said maybe not 100%.

Now some people quickly interpreted that as BP had to abide by our law. 

Councilman Bragdon at the recent judge Agresta meeting asked the judge if BP could be required to study and present such an alternative project. Basically the judge said he can't  require the developer to enter into a stipulation.  But he then sort of reversed himself saying he thought this stipulation of producing a study of an alternative project would be an important part of the record, and he might require that as part of the record.

Now the conversation by Bragdon and the judge was as if this study of a project alternative that would sort of comply to our law was only on the developer.  However, the judge in his previous visit clearly indicated the "parties" should enter into this stipulation.  BOTH parties...that would be BP AND the town.  Don't lose site of that.

However ,none of this means they WILL FORCE a wind develop to abide by our law.  All it means is as part of the stipulation process  they would like the developer and town to present such a study for them to look at.  Its just checking off another box. And I have always been curious what that "not necessarily 100%" means.  How many more turbines would that be beyond what our law allows already????

Bragdon and the town seem to want to do this alternative project study with BP as requested by the Art X judge.  But is that wise and should Bragdon and the town be pushing the issue?

Seems to me the town would not want to go down this path at all.  They have a law, they had vowed to defend it as is.  Seems like there is no benefit to them to starting to entertain any alternatives or comprommises.  They should tell Art. X...we have a law, and expect any developer to abide by it...end of story.  We have no interest in debating any alternatives.

Seems to me the town by agreeing to sit down in a stipulation (agreement) with BP on a project that is somewhat in compliance with our law could have the town in a trap.  If the town is so over anxious to get to this stipulation alternative, have they clearly thought what they might have to give away, and how that plays out.  The judge is asking BP and the town to compromise.  So what is the compromise?  Certainly BP is not going to agree to what our law requires. Each side would have to give up something, but on the town side...how much?

If for the Art. X judge,  BP and the town sit down and come up with such an alternative project, and it isn't 100% in compliance to our law, what if  Art.X board says..."geee we like this alternative you guys have hammered out...and guess what, this compromise study you came up with in the stipulation phase is our final ruling on your law.  The developer  can put up the alternative and you have both agreed on it!"

So where does this leave the town?  What if there is another developer and they are happy with a smaller project but maybe not one that completely complies with our restrictive law?  Maybe 20 or 40 or 60 turbines.  Who knows?

I think it is a clear message that the Art. X process wants the town and any wind developer to compromise because that would take the political heat and repercussions off the State. 

But this could leave the town holding the bag where they let the Art. X process talk them into a wind farm.

Bottom line... the town should NOT enter into this stipulation on our law and alternative project and abide by the process,  or encourage BP to do so, no matter what the judge wants.  And Bragdon or anyone else representing  the town should not seem so eager to do it.  But once the town agrees the Art. X process is fair, and want to appease it, then they will likely enter into a stipulation compromise on our law because the judge said so and they are rabidly faithful to the Art. X process.

And that could end in a real dangerous place.  You have a law, you claim to defend it to the end, then do it, there is nothing else to discuss really.  And agreeing to enter into any studies with the wind developer over agreements on alternatives to our law is just a plain cop out!

But you watch...if this moves forward this town govt. will suck up and do it. 

Group Think - For What It's Worth

From Irving Janis 1972

What is Groupthink?

 

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

 

 References  

 

Janis, Irving L.  (1972).  Victims of Groupthink.  New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, Irving L.  (1982).  Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.  Second Edition.  New York: Houghton Mifflin.

 

 

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

 

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Art. X Administrative Law Judge Agresta Gives Cape Vincent A Way Out!

When Judge Agresta who administers the Art X process between BP and the town visited, not much changed, and he left the town twisting in the wind till BP gets its poop together and sells their wind project that will still leave us twisting in the wind.

But that doesn't mean he didn't say something important along the way.  He read a letter the town wrote to the NYPSC where they indicated they would not give a PILOT tax break to any wind developer that didn't comply with our new comp plan and zoning.  Of course keep clearly in mind that our zoning allows some wind development so as to appease the State Art. X process so we look "reasonable" 

After he read the town's letter aloud,  he then indicated the Art. X process has no power over PILOT agreements.  That is strictly between the town and other taxing jurisdictions and the wind developer. In other words even if the Art. X board allows a wind developer to violate our law and develop a large number of wind turbines, the State can't force the taxing jurisdictions to give a PILOT tax break.  Somewhere about here in the meeting our county legislator  Mike Docteur clarified that all the  taxing jurisdictions impacted would have to agree in order for a PILOT to be granted.  In other words if the town doesn't want wind development they can nix the deal.  That would be assuming the wind develop would then not be able to make the anticipated profit and would walk away from the deal.  Of course they would probably find a reason to sue over the issue.

Geee.... any more questions?????? So what is Agresta saying...wake up!!!

For a couple years I have been asking this question to apparently deaf ears. Agresta clearly answered it.  So I have been saying for a couple years that the town should right now up front pass an actual  resolution and put a CV law on the books that says we will give no PILOT to ANY wind developer because industrial wind will not comply with our community comp plan's intent to preserve the scenic resources in our community...both along the river and lake and in the agricultural interior.  I don't care if it is one turbine, five or 124!

END OF STORY!!! 

So why are they screwing around not doing this, especially when they have written a letter with that apparent intent. Forget the powerless letter and make it a damn law and tough stance.  Do SOMETHING to take back control of our community for God's sake !

Apparently the Hirschey board feels they will deal with the PILOT issue when the time comes...but why?  What are they waiting for if they can kill the deal now and take some control to get this community out from under the horrible ongoing threat of industrial wind.  Are they waiting for a good  offer from the developer or to see who else buys out BP CV project and make a deal, and then they will decide on a PILOT or not? What possible point is there in waiting?  Maybe they can have another closed door meeting with their lawyer and figure it out!

Next time you see one of them why don't you ask them!  I think it is clear after Agresta's meeting and his deferring to BP over the town till BP sells their project, and a new developer may not have to start over in the Art X process, makes it clear how the Art X process works,  and it isn't us.  We should do use this PILOT denial as away  to take some control now... a way to still exert that home rule everyone is harping about.  Well apparently this is a way to do it.

Now there are three important related stories to this PILOT issue.

 Hirschey himself told  me once in a passing conversation in Aubreys a couple years ago that when he and Bragdon had no majority on the board they figured they would not vote for any PILOT unless they got some kind of wind law, and not leave it to the conflicted planning board to site the wind farm.  The reasoning was the old board would need at least one of their votes to pass a PILOT since the 2 conflicted members of the board should not vote. That would be assuming the conflicted guys would  follow ethics laws and not vote.

He figured he could use that threat of no PILOT to convince Orvis to side with he and Bragdon to get a wind law and take the power out of the hands of Edsall and the planning board.  So Hirschey and crew are not unaware of how to yield the power of a PILOT.  So why not now when they have a clear super majority even without councilwoman  Oswald who was just defeated in the last election?

The second part of this PILOT issue is that several months ago maybe more on video several pro wind members tried to convince the board they should stop trying to oppose wind so much and figure out what we could get from BP if their wind farm was approved.  To my amazement both Hirschey and councilman Schneider seemed to indicate WHEN the time comes they assured the pro wind people they would certainly do that to get everything they could.  WHAT???

That seems convoluted to me...why not just try to kill the deal with NO PILOT since they have the power to do that, instead of approving a PILOT.  They make it sound as if a wind development is approved by the State contrary to our law, then they will try to get everything they can from the developer.  Do they want some wind development in the community so they can suck up the developer's  money???  That made no sense to me and is disturbing.

Seems Judge Agresta gave the CV board an inadvertent message how to kill any wind development with no PILOT, so what the hell are we waiting for town board?????

Here is what the town said in its letter to the NYPSC.

 "Any developer that ignores what Cape Vincent wants for its future should expect a fight; it should not expect any PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes), and it should expect that the town will work tirelessly to ensure that other taxing authorities will follow the town's lead."

Now that is great, but stop screwing around with letters and make this a resolution right now in a law.  Of course you have to keep this in context.  Our law actually does allow for some wind development.  But how much? 3 turbines, 5 maybe 10?  Who knows? 

So are they saying it would be ok for a developer to comply to our wind zoning regulations  with a few huge industrial wind turbines, in the interior  and then we would give them a PILOT agreement?

Is that why they are waiting on the PILOT issue and not cutting it off at the knees right now? 

That is disturbing!  Since it is absurd to think any  industrial wind development of any size will comply to our comp plan, then what the hell are we waiting for?

What Ever Happened To Cape Vincent Councilwoman Michelle Oswald? Was She Sacrificed?

Remember on PBS TV there was a kid's program and the line was "Where in the World Is Carmen San Diego?"

But my question is..."What in the World Happened to Michelle Oswald?"

As I recall Ms. Oswald has been the only official town officer, particularly on the
 CV Town Board that declared outright she was against industrial wind development CV. Good for you Michelle!

Oh yes... John Byrne made a passing anti wind in CV claim when he first declared to run in 2011.  But he was quickly whipped into submission by the Hirschey crowd about publicly declaring to be anti wind, if the agenda is to appease the State and actually write wind zoning regulations that allow some wind development.  Then being anti wind which actually makes sense to protect the community, is a real NO NO!!!

I hope Byrne is paying close attention to what happened to Michelle Oswald if he thinks he has a political career ahead.  

But stop and ask yourself this question.  Does it strike you odd that she didn't win in the 2013 CV  elections. Stop and ask yourself...how did she lose?   I mean, why wouldn't the seasonal/absentee votes have translated over to her as well and put her over the top like the other Hirschey candidates?  Maybe there is something odd about those seasonal votes!!!  Or is it just because she is a woman?  The seasonal/absentee vote put her over the top as expected over Paul Aubertine in her election in 2012...why not now?

A little history might explain it.

Back when former CV councilman Mikey Orvis resigned, there was talk among the Hirschey camp about appointing someone to that seat. By then as I remember both Michelle Oswald and Paul Aubertine were making noises about actually running for that empty seat. I have it from a very reliable source back then, actually 2 sources, that at least Hirschey and Bragdon (to be fair was the excuse) were willing to appoint a pro wind person to the board, and the name that popped up was  Paul Aubertine.   The discussion of some kind of appointment till years end was even in the WDT.  Geee did someone owe his father Darrel Aubertine a favor????     Now that struck me odd.  Why give away that seat to a pro wind Democrat?  In the end Oswald ran in a Rep. primary for that seat and won against Ed Hludzenski  and ultimately won against Dem. Aubertine in the 2012 general election.

Now one of these sources said the Republicans put a stop to that thinking of appointing the Dem. Aubertine and they left the seat unfilled till the 2012 election. 

Of course the rumor had it that Hirschey and Bragdon were not real happy that Michelle was billing herself as anti wind publicly and did so at the candidates night before the Meet the Candidate's night.

Note that nowhere in the Hirschey political or campaign camp or on the town board will you ever see true outright anti wind statements.  In fact they actually drafted and passed a wind law to appease the state Art X process.  Which I find it odd that Johanna Richards of NPR did a recent piece were she called the current town board anti wind as if that was a given.  Wonder how she came to that conclusion?  In fact if you search on WWNY TV back when Hirschey was running in the 2011 Rep primary against Harvey White, Hirschey says he is NOT anti wind right on a TV interview.  Maybe . Ms. Richards missed that interview?

But back to my original question...what happened to Michelle Oswald?  Is it possible the Hirschey supporters got the quiet word and in this case were willing to politically sacrifice one of their own who has declared to be truly anti wind, and didn't always roll over completely to the Hirschey demands?

Here is what Michelle said about wind development in CV at the Oct 2012 Meet the Candidates Night.  Underlining emphasis is mine. 

"But, right now our town faces a huge issue. It's wind. It's a struggle for this community.

I don't support industrial wind development for Cape Vincent. I don't think it's the right place for it to be sited. Our town has spent months working on a Comprehensive Plan; to update it and update our zoning laws. And, I think those documents should be respected. 

Bp is in the process now of starting Article X. And what Article X does is take away that decision making process of siting those large industrial scale turbines. I think these are five hundred feet now."

I think the people of Cape Vincent know what's best as far as development for Cape Vincent. And, I support any efforts that would lead to bringing that decision back to the town. 

 

She clearly says she is against industrial wind  in CV and CV is not the right place for it. That is a pretty direct out right stance.  None that I can recall in the Hirschey govt have said this outright.  There is always a hedge of some sort.  Like 124 500 ft. turbines are not appropriate, or they must comply to our law , or I'm not against wind energy but.... That law allows some wind development.  That would be at odds with Oswald's apparent belief AFTER the Hrschey board had already passed the law earlier that summer on Aug. 1 2012.  Maybe this didn't sit well with the Hircshey players.  Even though she says the law should be respected, that would not align with her NO wind development in CV since that Hirschey zoning law allows some wind development.  And she doesn't seem to grasp that any wind development allowance in our zoning makes it incompatible with our new com plan which is so protective of CVs scenic resources.  How do you justify a few industrial turbines without
violating the idea of strict scenic protection.

 

Seems that in order to lose, Oswald would have had to lose some of the local vote AND the seasonal/absentee vote, the seasonal/aansentee vote which still went strong for Hirschey and Bragdon...so what happened, how did she lose?  Makes you wonder doesn't it?  Was Paul Aubertine really such an attractive candidate for BOTH sides.

  Certainly being a women doesn't play well with the local good ole boys...no matter if you are a Dem. good ole boy, or if you are  a Republican good ole boy!

I also find this comment odd from Mr. Hirschey after the absentee mostly seasonal votes were counted and he won. 

"I’m very very happy that it’s all over and I’m very happy that I won,” Mr. Hirschey said. “I’m also happy that Brooks Bragdon won. Now we have a supermajority and we can continue our good work for the town.”

What?????  He apparently expresses no feelings that Oswald lost???  And  "NOW" we have a supermajority...NOW?  But he had a super majority...and more... with Oswald.  He had all 5 seats voting his way.  Didn't she count???  This is like a real slap in her face!

In the end  the Hirschey camp could afford to sacrifice Oswald if they wanted too because she may have been too much of a true anti wind wild card, with more of a mind of her own than the other Hirschey players, and they still retain a super majority anyhow without her.

I think Oswald was considered expendable and was sacrificed by her own side.  Looks like Hirschey and Bragdon got the board they wanted back when they were willing to appoint Aubertine!

You could say that  Hirschey and crew are right not to be outright anti wind and Michelle being publicly anti wind is why she lost the election with the overall community local and seasonals.  I don't believe that, but if it were true then what does that say about the stance of the community?  Maybe not as anti wind as everyone would like to think, and BP's Chandler was right that the community gives his wind farm wide support?  Was Hirschey's Zogby poll  right?  As I said...after all the Hirschey govt. did pass a zoning law that did not prohibit wind, it actually allows some.  Is some industrial wind development what Hirschey and the community are shooting for...is that why they stick so faithfully and appease the Art X process?  After all my strong anti wind stance and stance against Art. X certainly has taken a hard beating.  So why is that???

And if you have been paying attention to videos there were some times both Oswald and Byrne presented some very mild questioning (not quite opposition) to the other Hirschey players.

Of course without Oswald  this kinda leaves Byrne now politically twisting in the wind by himself now doesn't it. 

Better behave John!

Michelle's loss when you critically examine it raises a lot of interesting questions.  Personally I wish she had won, but I wish she had been much more forceful in her view against industrial wind  and Art. X  instead of being so willing to tow so much of the Hirschey line. 

Answer To Reader's Comments On My Last Post

Since the comment box would not take a long comment I am responding here instead to commenters on my last post. Thank you for your comments.

First to Jim...I doubt seriously there is a video of this meeting.  Maybe some private notes, but probably no official minutes the public can look at.  My experience says that Clif Schneider is pretty good at documenting with his notes. Check with him!  Good luck.

There is a reason this meeting was behind closed doors...legal or not.
Now as one commenter above pointed out...yes admittedly the story has changed with Freeman's change in opinion.  Question is...is anybody at the state level putting some pressure on him?  His comments sure look contradictory now based on a previous letter he wrote to another town and now in the WDT.

And I still think WPEG's involvement is odd.  They are a separate entity as a supposed anti wind group...which in fact publicly they are not anti wind...just like our town board is NOT anti wind.  They partnered with the town on certain intervenor funding issues which I think is awkward.
I still think in the end Freeman brought one very good point to light.  The town knows how controversial the issue is and should be extra careful.

And my comments and concerns still remain the same after what I observed in the gross lack of judgment our town officials demonstrated on the solar zoning fiasco created last summer with our so called "zoning experts" which even embroiled the town supervisor  They created a fiasco and then when they realized it their egos took over and they ran for cover.  And as far as I am concerned they did some very questionable things.  The handling of that issue was so messed up and distorted to me it call into question their judgment across the board. 

Then there is another issue I am aware of about the Art X process and what I consider some very inappropriate actions among the various "players". Not necessarily town officials.  I can't get into it now, but it makes me question what they are doing and the advice they are getting and how they are applying it and where it leads us under state control.

So when I comment, I am not just considering this meeting with their attorney, but a trend of actions over time, and some of those bad judgments are current and some go back a long time in the wind issue and I have outline some of those before.

I think this town govt has become so over committed to the Art X process, and working so hard to appease the process that they aren't thinking straight. Then they have the little blog information bubble to reinforce them and their supporters.   On the surface they try to walk a line to look reasonable to the state and not be anti wind...but as I am told behind the scenes everyone thinks they are anti wind.  More than likely the meeting with the attorney and WPEG was a venue where they can show more of their anti wind colors out of public view.  AND the State is not that stupid that they don't know what is going on with our law as a defacto anti wind law.

This walking two sides of the street instead of just being up front and opposing Art X and wind development in CV, gets them in trouble.  Like a liar with too many lies...sooner or later they lose track of the lies and the story gets distorted.

You can clearly see this in some of the letters they and their supporters right to the NYPSC. 
Like Brooks Bragdon.  Is he anti wind or not?  People think he is, yet he has clearly stated in public on video that if BP would work with our zoning law's wind regulations or something close to it, he would be willing to work with them.  Really Brooks???  You want to work with BP?  Even a few wind towers in CV is too many, and in fact would violate our comp plan intent.

And WPEG working directly with the town and their attorney sends a distorted message.  WPEG is supposed to be the independent grass roots anti wind" group in town. Does this official connection where the town and WPEG are involved in the intervenor issue together, and sitting in private attorney  meetings together mean the town is officially anti wind?   Like I pointed out, just imagine the stink if in the previous govt. Voters For Wind was having private meetings with the town board and a special pro wind attorney.  WPEG should have it's own funding, the town should have theirs, and if WPEG wants to make an impression on the town to  be anti wind or whatever they are, then write letters, talk to town officials individually or with no quorum , express yourself at public hearings and meetings and committees etc. Geee I wish they could convince the town to be outright anti wind and change their law.  But I don't care who the opinion comes from or not.  Private meetings such as this with a quorum of town board members legal or not are not wise and are a prescription for trouble.

Once again I will say it.  This town and it's citizens need to get a grip that as long as they appease the state and Art X process then we have no control and no home rule and this wind mess will NOT go away.  We will just play victim for years.

And if you don't believe me just look how the Art X judge left us twisting in the wind over this BP sale bullshit, after nearly a decade of our suffering as a community on this issue.

The town board needs to stop meeting behind closed doors and make a declaration to oppose and deny Art X, and wind development in this community for the defense of our town and region.

Until they do that it will just be one fiasco after another, just like rushing a zoning law to appease Art X that created a solar zoning fiasco, and the state and the next corporate wind developer will control us with no end in sight.

More On The Cape Vincent Town Board / Attorney Meeting

The Watertown Daily Times has a rather good article on the issue of the supposed "secret meeting" between town officials, their attorney, and some CV citizens attending as well.  Here is the link.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20131215/NEWS03/712149767

Mr. Freeman of NYS Committee On Open Govt. has some very interesting points. Particularly where he points out that since wind in CV is such a controversial matter the town officials should be extra careful. That is damn good advice.  He also raises very interesting points on who outside the town officials should be in attendance and how that relates to open meetings laws.

But let's apply a little history to this matter to put it into context.

Let's say it is 2008 and the wind issue is really heating up in CV. Back then we had the fancy Albany lawyers hired by the town.  Remember Mr. Mathis from Whitemann, Osterman, and Hanna?  They were obviously here to help the town site a wind farm just as some say attorney Curtin is here to oppose one.   

Ok...so let's say Tom Rienbeck who was town supervisor back then calls a closed door meeting with this attorney on attorney client privilege.  And let's say for the sake of argument that Rienbeck is just smart enough to bar any town officials with wind leases from attending the meeting. So no one at the meeting has a town officer  related conflict of interest.

Then let's say Rienbeck decides he is going to invite some town citizens who are NOT town officers with conflicts...like oh maybe some pro wind people who also don't have contracts but are in favor of wind development.

Now what do you think the reaction from WPEG and the Hirschey people would have been????
It's pretty simple.  They would have gone BALLISTIC!!!   So let's not get too hypocritical.

Then in this article we have John Byrne of  all people saying as an excuse they took the attorney's advice.  In other words..."Geee Mom the attorney told me to do it"   Yup...we have all heard that excuse before somewhere in the media.  John Byrne who was embroiled in the taping of a "secret meeting" with his smart phone of our previous town board.  I guess John has a short memory and might now want to be a little more sensitive to his own actions as councilman instead of running for cover  behind his attorneys coat!!!  And although many of you don't know it but Byrne is also trying to walk both sides of the street in the Hirschey govt.

But Byrne in his back peddling inadvertently brings up a point he may not have wanted to.  The attorney, as smart as we have all been told he is as an "expert" in the Hirschey zoning club,(and they love experts) may be at odds with the top state open govt. guy Mr. Freeman.  Byrne is sort of admitting Curtin may have been wrong? Just because they have an attorney doesn't mean he is right or they shouldn't question his advice.  But that is the Clif Schneider mantra...the experts have all the answers.  Well then...why are we in this controversy???

And BTW...the attorney client privilege under scrutiny here only exists because WE the CV tax payer are paying for it with our dime! It's not the town board's attorney.  IT IS OURS as citizens and tax payers of CV.  Maybe that should be part of the equation here in this controversy!

Imagine that!!!!  Is it possible one of the Hirschey club experts could  be wrong?  Sometimes wrapped  in their own arrogance they might miss that point.  In the solar zoning fiasco of last summer they when they screwed up, they went into cover mode instead of fessing up and setting it straight.  Such blatant behavior and bad judgment should be carefully scrutinized especially if it appears to be a trend supported by the dangerous belief that we can never be wrong as Wiley at JLL would like you to believe.

 I do not agree with Dennis Pearson and his overall beliefs on wind and his approach, or that  he may be sour because he lost the election...but I have no problem with him making town officials accountable to ethics and the law.  I can be sensitive to that since I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get the NYAG's office to start an investigation here in CV on the previous wind conflicted govt.

My original thoughts were that this meeting, although questionable in judgment, may have been legal based on a letter previous from Freeman I posted last night and JLL has up this morning.  However, Mr. Freeman's comments and opinions in the WDT on this matter should raise our concern and bring other significant questions to light we should pay attention to.

And as I said in a comment under a previous post, my experience with these same town officials and their gross lack of judgment on the solar zoning issue last summer, and how they scrambled to sanitize it and run for cover makes me far less confident in the way things are being run, particularly on the Art. 10 and wind issue despite my  being at polar opposites from pro wind.

Also in the context of this issue, maybe we should all view the Nov 4th CV ZBA meeting on Steve Weed video (which I helped pay for)  where Ms. Hester Chase of the  CV ZBA exhibits frustrations and raises concerns over the way things are being done with records and minutes and the actions of her board and the planning board.  Seems that may suddenly have more relevance now in light of the solar issue and this latest closed door meeting.

http://www.steveweedproductions.com/videos.php

I made a big deal over the solar zoning fiasco last summer and the conditions that surrounded it with our town officials.  I was very uncomfortable with what was going on.  It wasn't so much  about the solar zoning as  it was mainly to point out the questionable practices of our town officers, not to mention that our own town supervisor became embroiled in it.   It appeared to me there was a lot of back peddling and gross lack of judgment going on that was distorting the rights of CV citizens, and our zoning law. So keep your eyes open CV citizens no matter where you stand on the wind issue!

It is disturbing we may have a trend.  Often things like this don't just happen in a vacuum or are isolated events.  Don't lose focus on just one issue,  and it certainly warrants close scrutiny, especially based on the comments of Mr Freeman of the NYS Committee On Open Govt.!

Cape Vincent Town Officials In An Illegal Meeting????

Apparently Cape Vincent citizen Dennis Pearson is accusing the CV Town Board of holding an illegal meeting. He also  photographed the meeting.  And apparently the CV Town Board is claiming attorney client privilege since they were meeting with their Syracuse attorney Paul Curtin concerning Article 10 issues with BP.

There was an article in the Watertown Daily Times related to this issue and it was linked on the Pandora Box of Rocks blog. However, when I tried the link there was a message on the WDT's page that the article was not available. The opinion I have linked below from Robert Freeman at the NYS Open Govt Committee will explain some things since it appears to have a direct relationship to the CV issue and Mr. Pearson's accusations.

http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o3012.htm

According to this opinion it appears the Town Board may be  acting legally.

But not so fast.  The other consideration is just how much business is  being conducted behind closed doors using attorney client privilege as a justification on an issue of such critical importance to the community?

Did BP Sell Its Cape Vincent Wind Development? Well Yippy Skippy, More Years Of Community Wind Disaster To Come!

 TI Sun is reporting that BP has a buyer for its Cape Vincent Wind Farm project. 

Assuming this report is true, it raises some very interesting questions.  And to me they are very troubling.

Think about this. 

There is significant local and regional opposition to this project.  The town govt is “supposedly anti wind” and has passed very restrictive wind zoning regulations. They have vowed to defend this law come hell or high water.   The federal PTC tax subsidy is once again up for renewal with no real guarantee it will be renewed which could present significant economic burdens on wind development.  Right now the wind industry is in a slump.  A wind develop in CV would still have to make a case to the Article 10 process to preempt our zoning laws and declare them overly burdensome.

So as a new investor, why take the risk?  What do they know that we don’t know?

Something else strikes me as odd.  If the Sun report is accurate isn’t it funny that this news  comes right on the heels of the Article 10 administrative law judge’s visit to CV visit where he basically told the community you are going to twist in the wind until BP sells its project, and guess what…we are actually going to help them along by giving them a few more months to do so.  How much ya wanna bet this visit was not just random coincidence. 

Keep in mind that Agresta did in fact give a rather detailed explanation how any sale by BP could be structured and it might not require a restart of the Art. 10 process.  Is he sending us a message knowing full well what was going on in the background?  Was the message that we are going to get screwed by wind development, it just won't be BP any longer.

Agresta and the Art 10 process has deferred to BP’s profit agenda, but has not given this community a damn thing, despite all those letters the town and the citizens have written in protest.  Like I said many times.  So much for “input”  

 To me Agresta's willingness to leave our community twisting in the wind with continued social and economic pain tells me that all these letters of protest to the NYPSC have been completely disregarded. 

Agresta gave no guarantee the Art. 10 process would have to start over with a new developer. He gave no guarantee any developer would have to abide by our law.  He gave no real time line to BP other than we might look at this in 3 months.  There was a loose suggestion they MIGHT shut it down, but no guarantee.  Agresta said in fact there was NO time line in the pre-application and stipulation process, and basically said they can’t force the developer to do much of anything.  Now does somebody want to explain to me how this process is fair or good for the community when it is so stacked in favor of the developer?  Most of what Agresa said was pure Albany political bullshit carefully structured to not inhibit BP and it’s profit margin, yet at the same time give the community some false hopes, but with nothing they can sink their teeth into, or pin Agresta or the Art 10 process down with.  It was carefully engineered pure Albany political double talk bullshit!  And probably with full knowledge of what was going on with BP’s portfolio. 

Hey…maybe this after all was a demonstration to the new developer to not worry, your investment is safe.  Look how we can put our thumb on this community at will and ignore their pleas and begging, and make them appease and abide such that you have no serious  worries about community opposition or laws to get in your way.  The community or their govt. aren’t really going to do anything.  They will continue to appease and support our game.  And after all since we removed home rule we can remove any obstacles that might pop up, and we can do it with no political consequences since the town has already bought into the idea that Art. 10 is a fair and balanced process upon which they think they can have an impact.  The local blogs bought into this idea as well.

So what’s going here if the TI Sun report is true.  Why is a new developer willing to put up new money and walk head long into this CV wind fiasco?  How long has Albany known this was in the works?  These things don’t happen overnight or in a political vacuum.  How many winks did Agresta and the Art 10 process give to the new developer if there is one?

So if the report is accurate, then  a new developer gets to kick our community down the road for a few more years with impunity.

But don’t be fooled.  Not all wind developers are like BP and Acciona.  Some are much slicker and play the game much better.  Here in AZ with Nextera the time from met towers to wind turbines was about 2 years.  Slam bam thank you mam!!! And keep in mind the State at this point may be very anxious to put this CV wind mess to bed once and for all for its own renewable agenda.  As judge Agresta said…”we want to move this process along.” I think that can be seen in the Art. 10 process extending a hand to BP to help it sell it’s project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So The Article 10 Process Allows BP To Jack Us Around For Another Three Months, If Not Longer!

Well Cape Vincent “anti-wind”, how did you feel the morning after the big meeting with the Article 10 administrative law judge Agresta?  Feel a little let down.  Well you should have good reason to feel that way. 

We were all told on the local blogs and in emails how important it was to attend.  Our presence in numbers was supposed to send a big message to the Article 10 process.  Really?   

I could not attend obviously, but viewed the video carefully a couple times.  If I was supposed to feel good after this meeting or see an impressive impact we had then I guess I missed something. 

You walked into the meeting with the entire BP wind farm in limbo with BP jacking and controlling the process and our community,  and when you walked out and today, and next week nothing has changed.  About the only thing that changed was the Article 10 judge was nice enough to come all the way to CV to tell you directly to your face that you are basically powerless to do anything about the limbo and resulting community convulsions BP has put this community through for nearly a decade, and there is little we at the PSC can do either. Sorry about that,   so deal with it.  AND after we have taken all that into account, we are going to give BP more time to enhance their wind investment portfolio using the Article 10 process as a bargaining chip!  Oh well…. yeah we might take another look at this in three months, have another meeting blah, blah, blah, to see if we can move this process forward so another wind developer can continue screwing the community!

Let me see if I get this straight.  Depending on where you start the CV wind fiasco clock, BP has had nearly a DECADE of thoroughly hammering the social and economic fabric of our community submission to clear away obstacles to get their wind farm sited.  Nextera here in AZ did their project in 2 years!  What the hell…a decade for BP to screw with us wasn’t enough time?  Now the Article 10 judge wants to give them three more months to drag this community further down the rat hole BP created out of our beautiful once peaceful community?  And even that does NOT set a definite conclusion.  Just a “re- assessment.”   

At least I wish the judge would stop insulting our intelligence by telling us how aware he and the PSC and Article 10 board are about our concerns in our community.  Then drive back to Albany.  Let’s see… he has been here how many times…twice!!!  Yeah that should be enough time to relate to our experiences in a nice polite little meeting on one day in the winter!  

What?   Are there still some friendships or family relationships BP didn’t get around to destroying in a decade? I guess imploding one town govt. on their behalf was not enough? They need a little more time to finish the job?  And there isn’t even a guarantee at three months.  At that point we will just take another “look at it” to see where it all stands. Or maybe we will start another wind developer fiasco from scratch and continue to drag the community into industrial wind oblivion. 

Maybe BP can sell out and leave the final screwing of the community to another wind developer.  After all, the judge did say we want to “move this process along"   It used to be BP had at least some interest in the community, and at least the project managers were showing up to town and planning board meetings and putting on open houses.  Now they don’t give a damn one way or the other…just get out as best they can  and leave the community holding the bag.  They have this festering boil in their investment portfolio, so let’s just lance the damn thing and get rid of it, and let the community continue to bleed. And apparently the State feels a need to help them along in this process. 

On the Pandora blog she says the message to “take home” is “Shut the thing down”  If that is what she took away…then she must have been in another meeting or on another planet.

To me the very clear message from Judge Agresta was the process right now is controlled and being held hostage by BP and the bottom line to their wind investment portfolio, and there ain’t  a damn thing anybody can really do about it including the State with their Article 10 process.  In fact to be fair and reasonable we are going to help them along by giving them a few more months to carry out this nonsense, and even then all we are going to do is re-assess the process. Agresta even admits the process was designed to have no specific end time line in the pre-application and stipulation process.  

Think Article 10 is a fair even handed balanced process like our town officials are deluded into thinking?  The real bottom line message is what I have been saying for a long time.  Article 10 is a developer lobbied and controlled process, and we have absolutely no business endorsing, appeasing or participating in it, and right now BP has everyone including the State, the town  and the Article 10 process and judges and Article 10 board completely in limbo and at their mercy. And basically Judge Agresta is admitting to it.   And remember that is after nearly a decade of screwing with our community and the wind siting process in CV.   If one thing was truly demonstrated Tue. night it was what a complete failure the Art. 10 process is.  It can't control BP or the siting process and just like the town is being held hostage by BP.

As the judge scrolled through the town letters his basic message on many was…sorry, can’t help you…that’s the process so deal with it!!! 

If this process had any shred of integrity it would shut this BP siting process down immediately. BP has done nothing but abused it and is doing nothing more than now use the steps in the process completed ( and it is highly questionable they were completed) as a financial asset and bargaining chip to attract another investor, and at tremendous social and financial cost to the CV community.  If BP wants to sell the LLC or the assets, OK fine.  But it is absurd for the Article 10 process, or the town,  to be a party to that by extending time so BP can enhance its wind investment bottom line by using the faulty BP Article 10 process as part of the asset value of their Cape Vincent Wind Farm LLC.  By extending BP more time they are in effect extending them investment value.  Like the old saying “time is money”  And a partially finished Article 10 process with endorsement from the State is time and money the next developer doesn’t have to invest.   In effect the Article 10 judge is helping BP make an investment decision…not a siting decision. If this is a fair process as Cuomo claims then ask yourself, how exactly is this fair or balanced for the CV community that has been left in limbo by BP’s wind investment portfolio and living in limbo under the BP industrial wind chaos for nearly a decade?  It is a developer controlled scam with state sanction.  The bottom line here as I see it for the Article 10 judge is simple.  BP has very clearly indicated they have no more interest in siting a project here in CV…end of story.  In fact they have STOPPED the critical Article 10 stipulation process on their own.  As a result the siting process for this development should END!!!  It is over.  Article 10 is a siting process, and BP has indicated they have no interest in siting a project.  Article 10 has no business extending more time to BP to help them enhance their wind investments, or the wind investments of another  prospective wind developer. Article 10 in the CV BP process has now morphed into an investment process, no longer strictly a siting process.   

What’s worse is the town’s Article 10 attorney is going along with this three more months nonsense that helps BP to enhance its wind investments. One would have to assume that if that is his position, it is endorsed by the town.  This twist makes this really absurd on the part of the town.  It is irresponsible and reckless.  Any more time granted to BP just continues to rip the wind scab off this community, and helps BP enhance its bottom line.  The longer the town officers sit still for this nonsense and appease it, the bigger the fools they are looking like!  Then Councilman Byrne “begs” the Article 10 judge to expedite this process.  Really John…now we have resorted to “begging” the NYPSC.  And even with Byrne’s absurd begging performance the judge basically sits there and says…”geee nothing we can do until BP poops or gets off the pot…oh but we will “look at the  pot in three months and see if BP pooped!!!”  Hopefully that makes Byrne feel warm and fuzzy all over!

As a result if the Article 10 process doesn’t end this process, which we can now clearly see has no regard for the community, then the town should not be a party to it and should take steps to end it themselves.    They should have never entered into it in the first place, and the Tues. meeting clearly shows why and who really controls what.  anti wind people are really deluded if they think the town is having an impact on this process. 

So those of you thinking something big was achieved at this meeting or the three month time limit is some type panacea…you better think again and get a grip! 

I noticed on the Pandora blog she has posted a countdown clock for BP or wind development leaving CV.  Last week it was set to the end of this year as per BP’s statement they were selling the project by the end of the year.  Now it is reset to read 13 weeks. Assuming we don’t keep getting passed along to how many wind developers as they bail on bad investments and we end up hold the bag time after time. 

Wiley on his JLL blog on the other hand makes the statement as to how responsible this all is and how the town is on top of all this as proof positive we are involved.  He is also deluded.

Proof of what? for Christ's sake.  That the town is powerless to do anything as we twist endlessly in the industrial wind under the Article 10 process and the Article 10 administrative law judge admits that such is basically the case???