Saw this comment on the JLL blog. It was in reference to a wind farm being proposed (and opposed) for a town in NYS.
"The best way to go about it is to elect officials who have enough pride
in the community to resist them. If they invite them in that is home
rule and your goose is cooked. Home rule is local election"
"Home rule is local election"???? One more poor misguided individual
.
Now as I have said many many times, I have no problem electing officials who oppose wind development in their communities.
But people like this simply refuse to grasp the reality that there is NO HOME RULE in your community on the siting of electric power plants (including wind energy) above 25MW. Elect whomever you want but the fact is they won't decide if you will have a huge wind farm in your town or not...the STATE will decide through the Art. 10 siting process.
And if the person who wrote this is from the 1000 Islands region they better do a little basic research, because every town along the U.S. side of the River has zoning that allows wind development in some manner. I would say that IS inviting them in!!!
Now in Cape Vincent there are some good new candidates for town council, but I can guarantee you that not a single one of them will do what it takes to truly defend home rule on the wind issue. If we are faced with another wind farm proposal they will simply defer to the state Art. 10 process that TOOK AWAY home rule on this issue.
Don't believe me...ask them!!!
So on this issue, the comment that local elections mean home rule is just plain nonsense!!!
I also noticed that all you people who are supporters of the Art. 10 process and home rule have not answered my simple question in a previous post.
Why does Art. 10 even have a provision to preempt local laws?????
Art, even though you know I DON'T support ART.X, but DO support Home Rule, I will answer your question.
ReplyDeleteARt.X has a provision to pre-empt local laws in order to offset (or negate ,if you will) the growing resistance to industrial wind turbines , which would stand in the way of the State reaching its renewable energy goals. If ART.X was simply a vehicle to permit wind projects, and the State was genuinely interested in a co-operative relationship with communities, one that acknowledged the Constitutionally granted right of Home Rule, which is exemplified by the adoption of, and adherence to Comprehensive Planning and Zoning, there obviously would be no need or purpose for the pre-emption clause.
In general I find people are reluctant to dwell too long on this point, but rather prefer to think that in the end, with enough "input" and caterwauling about how "reasonable" their wind laws are, the State will come to their senses and not exercise the pre-emption authority. Most people think the State will only pre-empt local laws that are unreasonable or prohibitive, in fact as you know many think you and I are nuts to advocate for prohibiting industrial turbines, because in their opinion it would be a sure thing for developers. My response to most people is-read the ART.X rules. They specifically say the State has the authority to pre-empt local laws that are overlyburdensome to development.. In otherwords, if you allow wind development in your community your local laws or regulations cannot be so restrictive as to make a project unfeasible to a developer. Most wind laws that are being constructed are exactly that. even the model law that John Droz is peddling allows wind development, but then proceeds to make it all but impossible for a developer. IMO, that is an invitation for the State to pre-emp those laws. The State wants to set the standards for wind development. If you allow for it in your community its going to be a tough road to say your standards are more "reasonable " than theirs.
If on the other hand, you adopt a policy that does not allow for wind development because you believe and can document that it is a detriment to the health and welfare of your residents,and would serve to diminish property values, and pose a significant threat to wildlife and habitat ,and would severely impact the local economy, etc. etc. and if such policy did not establish any siting regulations to be over ruled, I believe a community would have a far greater argument to defend their right of Home Rule as defined in the State Constitution.
Its just my opinion, of course.
Thanks Dave...excellent explanation. Although I find it interesting that no Art. 10 wind law supporter will put forth an explanation as to why Art.10 can preempt laws. Probably very uncomfortable for them to think about.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, it has preemption because they intend to use it!!! There are now a couple wind farms in NYS undergoing the Art. 10 process, and it will be extremely interesting to see what happens.
I also think the posts I have put up recently about the gas power plant sited in a town along the scenic Hudson River under a previous version of Art. 10 says a lot about what could happen with preemption.
The bottom line there was exactly as you pointed out. The power plant and it's existing technology could not conform to the local zoning, so the siting board simply preempted those regulations as too burdensome to the developer. And the other point to take away is that the local regulations that were preempted were extremely reasonable, and not radical, nor originally designed to preclude a power plant as the CV wind law is meant to do, and could be found in virtually any good zoning law. Basically the siting board preemption simply removed ANYTHING in local law that stood in the way of the power plant. And this power plant had A LOT of opposition.