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?
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteArt, although it would be preferable to exclude any turbines in town, any resolution to deny a PILOT would likely have to be limited to a project that fails to comply with the Zoning /Comp Plan. Otherwise it seems pretty likely a developer would have grounds to file suit. It would appear quite disingenuous to adopt regulations that permitted some degree of development and then refuse to accomodate it, by denying a traditionally applied financial arrangement.
ReplyDeleteA universal NO-PILOT policy would probably only stand up if the town had adopted an outright ban on industrial turbines, which in effect would make the whole PILOT issue irrelevant. Regrettably, that didn't happen,
It does seem reasonable however to adopt a policy that requires compliance with local zoning, in order to negotiate a PILOT agreement. It would give greater significance to the expressed resolve to not negotiate ,or compromise on our local restrictions,during the stipulation,and hearing phases of the ART.X process.
Either way, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Such a policy would send a message to the State that the town intends to control its own destiny. Hardly a position of co-operation and willingness to work within the system, that they have exhibited to date. A little contradictory to the sucking- up approach.
6:02 So by this logic the town is OK with a certain amount of wind development. That is too bad.
ReplyDeleteYour comment
"A universal NO-PILOT policy would probably only stand up if the town had adopted an outright ban on industrial turbines, which in effect would make the whole PILOT issue irrelevant. Regrettably, that didn't happen, "
Interesting isn't it. This board that everyone characterizes as so "anti wind" has written a law that actually provides for wind development in our town. With the strategy you outline, which I agree is what they did, they backed themselves into a corner. Since we have a "reasonable" law that does provide for some wind development, now we have to also be "reasonable" and provide for a PILOT.
I have said for a long long time these guys are compromisers, and the way it looks that is exactly what they are. Yeah there is a lot of talk about how tough they are going to be in defending our law, right up until you figure out our law actually allows some wind development, and even that is NOT a good thing for CV. And a PILOT agreement is a tax subsidy so I guess they would be ok with that too.
Like I have also said, there are two pro wind factions in our town only at different degrees. Our town board, and the rabid pro wind side. Both provide for wind development and a PILOT subsidy to support it is just a matter of degree.
Yet cleverly the town board has been able to maintain this charade of anti wind in everyone's eyes.
This board has a good scam going. They tell us a wind developer must comply to our law, yet purposefully they are real thin on details about what their law will allow. That is a disingenuous scam on the community. It is about time this board start doing a little research and calculating to tell us just how many turbines their law will allow, where those turbine are going to have to be, and who can expect to have to live with them 24/7. When I personally asked Clif Scheinder how many and where he couldn't answer...or didn't want to answer. Seems to me it is reckless and irresponsible to develop law with so much at stake and then not be able to be honest about the actual impact of the law. The scam they perpetuate is that this will somehow eliminate turbines, but it is a law that does allow some wind development, and that is not anti wind.
Even Bob Brown the chairman CV zoning law committee admitted on NPR that the law was not intended to prohibit. Yet everyone just puts on the blinders to what is going on.
It's like the CELDF lawyers say. We as communities have given away our right to veto, and settled only for regulation. Too bad!
Very much too bad, especially when the regulations that the town settled for don't even address the one element that most of the PSC commentors,and neighboring town governments consider the main point of contention- that being the impact of industrial turbines on the scenic character of the 1000 Islands.
ReplyDeleteThe town is playing a hand they think is a winner. They're counting on no developer being interested in a limited number of turbines that our local law,based on health, safety, general welfare, would allow.
I like you would have preferred an outright ban based on the overwhelming negative, unmitigable impacts that come with industrial turbines.
We will continue to be the lone advocates for such a policy.
Dave L
Years of yackity-yak, burning bridges, attacking every person who has worked hard. Yet, you two have accomplished nothing except stew in your own juices. Except, you two have done a lot to bolster the egos of pro wind who hate the Hirschey government as much as you both do. Radicals on both sides of an issues accomplish nothing.
ReplyDelete3:07
ReplyDeleteI'm going to give you a little time to think about how truly stupid your comment is. Perhaps you would like to adjust or retract a few things before I rip your comment logic to shreds. Please let me know?
Oh...for example. Your implication is that so much has been accomplished under the Hirschey govt. and they have worked so hard. And I assume you're defending them because you are so proud of this hard work and fully support their accomplishments...right?
OK good for you...But then why the hell are you hiding behind an anonymous comment? Why aren't you proud enough to support the Hirschey govt and their accomplishments by putting YOUR name behind it. After all they are in the public eye on YOUR behalf and have put their names on everything they do as public officers, so what are you afraid of and why are you hiding behind an anonymous comment. If you are going to stand with them and support them and defend them why don't you have the guts and respect to back that support with your name instead of hiding behind their coat tails in fear?
There are those of us like Dave LaMora, myself and the people in the Hirschey govt who are public. We may not agree with each other, but we stand up, we say what we mean, we stand behind it, and in the end we also stand up and take the beating for what we believe. It is sad you can't muster the spine to have that level of commitment and put your name behind it.
Let me know if you want me to continue???? I would love to get into it about your nonsense off the wall "radical" comments! Geees don't you read any history????
Sometimes the price of speaking your mind is being misinterpreted,mischaracterized, and misunderstood.,especially if your views are at odds with the crowd.
ReplyDeleteI won't speak for Art,but I don't hate anyone in the Hirschey government. In fact I campaigned ,advocated ,and voted for the entire board. Doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of the positions and actions they have taken, or have lost confidence in them. If anyone feels I have attacked them in some unjust manner ,because I differ with them, that is simply not fair, or accurate. Last I knew ,in America one is entitled to voice their opinions ,regardless if they don't comply with yours or our elected officials.
I am more than comfortable with any and all of my actions or statements over the years and would discuss and defend any of my positions with you or anyone else.
Your attempt to claim that I have had anything to do with any pro-wind persons ego is preposterous. There isn't a pro-wind person in the county who would associate any of their attitudes or opinions with mine. In six years, not a single pro-wind/Voter for wind/CFG/Dem. has solicited my support or vote, nor freely of their own volition even try to engage in discussion with me. My position is clear, the only intimation of association is in your mind. If pro-wind folks feel bolstered by my positions, they are disillusioned, as are you.
I would rather hold to my (in your terms)radical views than acquiesce to ideas that are simply contrary to my logic and sense of rightfulness. If you define that as "stewing in your own juices" that is your perogative. Think what you like.
Dave LaMora
Well put Dave. I don't fid anything I would disagree with.
ReplyDeleteThe commenter above has a very convenient and selective memory which is required to try to validate their beliefs. They seem to forget the intense time study and effort you put in to the comprehensive plan that they benefit from. You had a significant impact on the structure of that plan which the Hirschey govt is now using as one keystone of its defense of our law and against BP.
They seem to forget that I was one of the first to inform WPEG and the Hrschey people of how the comp plan could be used to defend against wind development, stand by that idea, and how important this idea would eventually become.
They forget you are willing to stand behind your beliefs to the point of threat of arrest by BOTH sides.
This commenter needs the reinforcement of a fixed set if ideas sold to them by some of the Hirschey supporters to be able to think at all. Beyond that the realities are far to complex and diverse and frightening to thinking beyond the crowd's script.
Very sad..