Thunderstorms over Canada last week. 16 second time exposure.
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Sunday, July 21, 2013
It's AWFUL!!!
During a recent Town of Clayton Board meeting town Councilman Chris Matthews expressed the following opinion quoted from the Thousand Islands Sun paper. He was referring to the NYS's Art. 10 process that has stripped communities of their home rule on siting electric generation facilities including wind energy.
"During the discussion, Councilman Chris Matthews commented, "It's awful that we have to create a wind law in which we have to be careful that, if we’re too restrictive, the state will override the law."
Exactly Mr. Matthews! It's also awful that most local NNY towns under industrial wind threat have allowed the State to strip away our rights, and are willing to be beaten into submission by the NYS Legislature and Cuomo on behalf of giant corporations.
Unfortunately your town board's statement to the NYPSC that they support home rule is nearly meaningless without a willingness to actually act to unchain ourselves from the State's tyranny on this issue.
Thank you for your support ...but I mean what exactly is the point of your board's comment anyhow when the town you are supporting to retain home rule ( Cape Vincent) has already in writing to the same NYPSC called the Art. X system that stripped home rule away fair, impartial, even handed and balanced!!!
One more example how the State's Art. X has so many people running around in absolutely irrational circles trying desperately to kiss the States ass.
When you think about this...Art X has made no final decision in any NYS community yet. However, they and Cuomo are politically extremely shrew. They know that the threat alone will lead us to the brink where we will self destruct and willingly hand the destruction of our communities over to them.
By the time the actual Art X decision comes we will have already conceded our rights and communities to them to where there is no real political cost to them.
It's not the State and their Art. X we should fear as "awful" ...It's us!!!
We ourselves on this path of appeasement and capitulation are actually the most frightening component of this mess.
Very Interesting Comment On The Pandora Blog
Below is a comment left on the Pandora blog. I Finally Figured It Out
"Anonymous said...
Read the Art Pundt blog. Is his joint-CFG effort to sink the town government now official? A Bp rat fink all along? Will Dustin Hoffman play his role in the movie? Or, will they dig up Mickey Roone
"Anonymous said...Cape Vincent Wind Development Regulation Theory
If you go by all the supporters of the current town board. they have been trying to convince us this board won an anti wind victory in CV. It was a NO referendum on wind development. Wind is going away etc. etc. etc. So if this is the case let's look at their zoning law theory to make wind go away.
Keeping in mind our law to make wind go away by the very words of our zoning committee and town board was to allow wind development. WTF!!! Apparently some is OK! But in whispers we are told "ssshhhhh they are anti wind!!!"
Now let's say you want to develop a law, any law, to prevent something in your community. Say like speeding cars in your town. So the law makers get together and say... "Ok people in order to stop speeding in our town we are going to have to pass a law to allow some speeding in town ...OK...get it?"
Or maybe we want to stop bank robberies and the town boards says..." Ok but keep in mind to stop bank robberies we will have to pass a law to allow bank robberies. After all we have to be reasonable.
Or maybe you want to stop trash dumping on town streets. Well keep in mind to stop trash dumping on our streets we have to pass a law to allow it. We have to be fair!
Or maybe we want a law to stop people walking dogs from letting their dogs poop on the sidewalks. But watch where you step, because to stop dogs from pooping on the sidewalks we have to pass a law to allow some pooping on our sidewalks! We can't be too burdensome on dog owners.
This is CV zoning theory on invasive industrial wind development!!! In order to stop it you have to allow it!!! And I thought the wind salesman were the only ones selling snake oil!
Thank God our town board doesn't control nuclear weapons!
Keeping in mind our law to make wind go away by the very words of our zoning committee and town board was to allow wind development. WTF!!! Apparently some is OK! But in whispers we are told "ssshhhhh they are anti wind!!!"
Now let's say you want to develop a law, any law, to prevent something in your community. Say like speeding cars in your town. So the law makers get together and say... "Ok people in order to stop speeding in our town we are going to have to pass a law to allow some speeding in town ...OK...get it?"
Or maybe we want to stop bank robberies and the town boards says..." Ok but keep in mind to stop bank robberies we will have to pass a law to allow bank robberies. After all we have to be reasonable.
Or maybe you want to stop trash dumping on town streets. Well keep in mind to stop trash dumping on our streets we have to pass a law to allow it. We have to be fair!
Or maybe we want a law to stop people walking dogs from letting their dogs poop on the sidewalks. But watch where you step, because to stop dogs from pooping on the sidewalks we have to pass a law to allow some pooping on our sidewalks! We can't be too burdensome on dog owners.
This is CV zoning theory on invasive industrial wind development!!! In order to stop it you have to allow it!!! And I thought the wind salesman were the only ones selling snake oil!
Thank God our town board doesn't control nuclear weapons!
Zoning Notes to Cape Vincent Town Board - Your Zoning Law is Contrary to DEC Guidelines
Here is part of the NYDEC guidelines to address visual impacts of development: Underlining emphasis is mine.
"With respect to determining the radius of the impact area to be analyzed, there has been a general
guideline for large actions that it is usually “safe” to use 5 miles. The 5 mile distance probably owes its origins to the U.S. Forest Service “distance zones” set forth in their landscape management journal. However, for very large activities, such as power plants (particularly those that generate wet cooling tower plumes), and large landscape alterations, greater distances have been shown to be important in some landscape settings, and must be considered. In those instances, applicants must document to the satisfaction of staff that impacts beyond five miles to listed resources have been considered."
So did our Cape Vincent zoning experts not look at this policy? Or did they just blow it off and decide the best setback they could come up with was 2 miles????
Apparently the USFS and the NY DEC regard five miles as a distance where structures begin to blend into the background. Although I would certainly argue that point with massive industrial wind turbines, and the policy above does address larger objects indicating studies should include a larger radius in those cases.
Now you have to understand who the NYDEC is in relationship to the Art. X siting process the Town of Cape Vincent is involved in with BP. The DEC is a BIG player in the process...a BIG player!!
So if the town is so all fired intent on showing the State and the Art. X siting board it is "reasonable" then you would think they might want to follow the policies already set by the NYDEC since the DEC is such a big influence in the process...right?
Well OK let's look at some of the "scenic setbacks" for huge industrial wind turbines in our CV zoning. And please don't give me this nonsense that you can mitigate the view of a 500 ft. wind turbine with a spinning rotor disk bigger than a football field and bright flashing red lights, especially many of the same structures scattered across the flat CV waterscape and landscape!
CV zoning says:
From historic resources and the scenic Seaway Trail along NYS Rt. 12E = 1.25 miles
From the water front of the lake and river = 2 miles.
From adjacent town borders approximately 3000 ft. for a 500 ft. wind turbine.
The most generous setback in our law is a full three miles short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates is an area of visual concern. And the policy says large structures, which one would have to assume a 500 ft. wind turbine would be, the radius of concern for visual impact should be increased.
Not to mention the views in CV are over flat water, and over generally flat terrain with many open sweeping views across flat fields. And it is painfully obvious that 5 miles is not a sufficient visual protection, especially in such a critical scenic area, just by looking across the river at the Wolfe Is. wind plant. It can be seen from Clayton, the TI Bridge, Watertown, and Henderson and more.
To me this is just one more example how the CV town board's zeal to appease the Art. X process has turned any coherent zoning logic on its head in this terribly misguided idea you can effectively zone for hundreds 500 ft. monster structures sprawling across your region's scenic landscape.
Apparently they aren't even willing to come close to the USFS and NYDEC policies on concerns over visual impacts. The 1.25 setback from the Seaway Trail all by itself is just a comedy act!!!
Hey...but we shouldn't question the CV zoning "experts"...we have our zoning law and we are going to defend it! Even though it falls dramatically short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates!
I guess they felt that you can actually take 500 ft wind monsters, sprawl a few of them ( and even they don't know how many their law will allow...ask them ) across the town landscape and they can effectively mitigate the resulting scenic destruction!
And THIS is the "home rule" we are trying to defend?????
So did our Cape Vincent zoning experts not look at this policy? Or did they just blow it off and decide the best setback they could come up with was 2 miles????
Apparently the USFS and the NY DEC regard five miles as a distance where structures begin to blend into the background. Although I would certainly argue that point with massive industrial wind turbines, and the policy above does address larger objects indicating studies should include a larger radius in those cases.
Now you have to understand who the NYDEC is in relationship to the Art. X siting process the Town of Cape Vincent is involved in with BP. The DEC is a BIG player in the process...a BIG player!!
So if the town is so all fired intent on showing the State and the Art. X siting board it is "reasonable" then you would think they might want to follow the policies already set by the NYDEC since the DEC is such a big influence in the process...right?
Well OK let's look at some of the "scenic setbacks" for huge industrial wind turbines in our CV zoning. And please don't give me this nonsense that you can mitigate the view of a 500 ft. wind turbine with a spinning rotor disk bigger than a football field and bright flashing red lights, especially many of the same structures scattered across the flat CV waterscape and landscape!
CV zoning says:
From historic resources and the scenic Seaway Trail along NYS Rt. 12E = 1.25 miles
From the water front of the lake and river = 2 miles.
From adjacent town borders approximately 3000 ft. for a 500 ft. wind turbine.
The most generous setback in our law is a full three miles short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates is an area of visual concern. And the policy says large structures, which one would have to assume a 500 ft. wind turbine would be, the radius of concern for visual impact should be increased.
Not to mention the views in CV are over flat water, and over generally flat terrain with many open sweeping views across flat fields. And it is painfully obvious that 5 miles is not a sufficient visual protection, especially in such a critical scenic area, just by looking across the river at the Wolfe Is. wind plant. It can be seen from Clayton, the TI Bridge, Watertown, and Henderson and more.
To me this is just one more example how the CV town board's zeal to appease the Art. X process has turned any coherent zoning logic on its head in this terribly misguided idea you can effectively zone for hundreds 500 ft. monster structures sprawling across your region's scenic landscape.
Apparently they aren't even willing to come close to the USFS and NYDEC policies on concerns over visual impacts. The 1.25 setback from the Seaway Trail all by itself is just a comedy act!!!
Hey...but we shouldn't question the CV zoning "experts"...we have our zoning law and we are going to defend it! Even though it falls dramatically short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates!
I guess they felt that you can actually take 500 ft wind monsters, sprawl a few of them ( and even they don't know how many their law will allow...ask them ) across the town landscape and they can effectively mitigate the resulting scenic destruction!
And THIS is the "home rule" we are trying to defend?????
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Mr. Hirschey Is A Man Of His Word
Yup...that's right you heard it from me!
About Feb. prior to the 2011 elections our Cape Vincent Town Supervisor Mr. Hirschey stated to a group of people in a local restaurant..."but wouldn't a few turbines be ok! This really upset some of the people who heard this. But that is another whole story! Maybe later.
After the Sept. 2011 Republican primary Mr. Hirschey corrected a reporter on TV trying to frame his victory over Harvey White as an anti wind victory. Mr. Hirschey quickly corrected the reporter saying that was not fair, that he was not against wind, only the " improper placement" of wind turbines.
Of course now Clayton is disputing what Mr. Hirschey considers "proper placement" of huge 500 ft. industrial wind turbines only 2 miles from the River!!! Maybe the NYDEC is too since they indicate that they follow the visual guidelines of the US Forest Service that suggests FIVE miles is the point at which structures begin to blend into the background and become less noticeable or offensive to the viewer. More about that later! And what did I say about that ridiculous 1.25 mile "scenic protection" of the Seaway Trail in CV along Rt 12E. 1.25 miles...seriously!!!
But Mr. Hirschey IS a man of his word. He said he is not anti wind and a few turbines in CV would be ok.
And that is EXACTLY what our new Cape Vincent zoning allows. So he is a man of his word. Maybe not the man of his supporters words who have repeatedly told us all how he and his town govt. are so anti wind!
Actually since Article 10 entered the picture and stripped away our rights, Mr. Hirschey has become a man of the State's words by obediently following Art. X and claiming it is fair and impartial, even handed and balance!
I am also guessing that maybe just a little bit of a PILOT taxing agreement would be ok too, to help those "few properly placed" turbines get put up that are "OK"!
About Feb. prior to the 2011 elections our Cape Vincent Town Supervisor Mr. Hirschey stated to a group of people in a local restaurant..."but wouldn't a few turbines be ok! This really upset some of the people who heard this. But that is another whole story! Maybe later.
After the Sept. 2011 Republican primary Mr. Hirschey corrected a reporter on TV trying to frame his victory over Harvey White as an anti wind victory. Mr. Hirschey quickly corrected the reporter saying that was not fair, that he was not against wind, only the " improper placement" of wind turbines.
Of course now Clayton is disputing what Mr. Hirschey considers "proper placement" of huge 500 ft. industrial wind turbines only 2 miles from the River!!! Maybe the NYDEC is too since they indicate that they follow the visual guidelines of the US Forest Service that suggests FIVE miles is the point at which structures begin to blend into the background and become less noticeable or offensive to the viewer. More about that later! And what did I say about that ridiculous 1.25 mile "scenic protection" of the Seaway Trail in CV along Rt 12E. 1.25 miles...seriously!!!
But Mr. Hirschey IS a man of his word. He said he is not anti wind and a few turbines in CV would be ok.
And that is EXACTLY what our new Cape Vincent zoning allows. So he is a man of his word. Maybe not the man of his supporters words who have repeatedly told us all how he and his town govt. are so anti wind!
Actually since Article 10 entered the picture and stripped away our rights, Mr. Hirschey has become a man of the State's words by obediently following Art. X and claiming it is fair and impartial, even handed and balance!
I am also guessing that maybe just a little bit of a PILOT taxing agreement would be ok too, to help those "few properly placed" turbines get put up that are "OK"!
Zoning Notes - Meteorological Towers (Met Towers)
Here is what the Cape Vincent zoning law says about met towers.
9. Meteorological Towers:
1. Intent:
Meteorological towers may be allowed through a Special Use Permit in the Agricultural District of the Town as long as they comply fully with requirements of this Law. It is the intent of this Law that Meteorological Towers are temporary structures.
And here is what it says about met tower heights.
b. Meteorological Towers shall be below the height requiring FAA lighting.
Now before we go further let's examine something fundamental about met towers. Like what are they?
Well, basically a met tower is a tall thin tower placed in the area of a proposed wind farm so the wind company can study the wind patterns. The FAA generally requires lights, usually strobe lights, on met towers if they exceed 200 ft.
But here is the really important question. Why are we zoning for met towers?
Oh that's right...that would be because the town board has conceded they will allow the placement of industrial wind turbines in the community in some form. Or they have agreed that some industrial wind development is an acceptable use in the community. Met towers in this context are specific to industrial wind development. No wind development...no need for met towers or to zone for them.
Now this would be after two elections that put the current town board in power and the ongoing mantra from the supporters of these officials that if they were elected they were anti wind. It would be an anti wind election, a final decisive referendum for NO WIND IN CV, wind was going away, no way no how, blah, blah, blah! Then why do we have a zoning law with zoning for met towers and the monster industrial wind turbines that come right along with them???
Well...maybe you can work that out before the elections.
Yet here they are in a tizzy over Art X zoning to allow industrial wind and the met towers that supports it after all that anti wind election hoopla! And the sad part is they can't even tell you how many turbines this new zoning law will allow. Go ahead and ask them. If they give you a precise answer I sure would like to hear it, and I will post it here!
But note that part in the zoning quoted above that all met towers will be of a height so as to not require FAA lighting. So I am guessing this is why??? Is it because they don't want flashing strobes detracting from the scenic quality of the town day and night??? Not sure what else it could be.
Ooookkkkk...so we are going to allow some massive industrial wind turbines with flashing red FAA lights, and spinning rotors bigger than a football field that will be seen across the region, then we are going to worry about lights on a couple met towers that eventually get taken down???? Towers so thin you can hardly seen them anyhow?
Zoning note to town board: If you are making an aesthetic decision about lights on met towers, you might want to consider that you are zoning to keep flashing lights off a few met towers for what?
So we don't see the met towers that will provide the data to justify many more 500 ft. monster wind turbines with flashing lights on them that will be seen all over town and around our region????
Anything wrong with this zoning picture??? Is this the same logic that you will apply to your Article 10 defense???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)