Good Editorial By Watertown Daily Times Perry White

You can use the link below to see Mr. White's editorial.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/blogs10/a-scenic-area-is-home-to-an-ugly-fight-20150424

My comment to Mr. White's editorial which also appears in the comments under the editorial is as follows:

Mr. White,

I basically agree with the thrust of your arguments and you comparison to national parks is more relevant than you might imagine.

 I find it very disappointing that  a fundamental and relatively benign effort to protect the 1000 Islands meets so much controversy, when as you point out, it doesn’t appear the SASS designation would inhibit development in any substantial way, but could bring a host of positives.

It seems the potential upside to this designation might far outweigh any regulation it might impose, which by your admission appears minimal.

I find your comparison to the national parks of Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yosemite, and the 1000 Islands very interesting.

Most of the year I live about an hour from Grand Canyon, and have  hiked there a number of times.  My wife has twice run the Colorado River through Grand Canyon on extended raft trips, and within our family are river guides.  I have climbed and summited the Grand Teton at 13,700 ft.  In Yosemite my wife and I completed a 5 day 40 mile winter ski expedition trip across Yosemite.  Currently we hike and adventure all over the West, but particularly the Desert South West.

But with the good fortune to live with the incredible world class tourism, scenery, and outdoor opportunities on our doorstep,  we still seek out the incredible beauty of the 1000 Islands for three to four months every year.  I agree with you that the 1000 Islands are no less spectacular, from the ”Bridge”, a boat, or just relaxing on the shore.

And isn’t it interesting that the Canadians had the foresight to designate some islands in the 1000 Islands as a national park.  Frankly it makes the American side look a bit foolish to not have greater vision with an official designation and protection of the Islands.

It is interesting that environmental issues such as the SASS designation always seem to come back to a fundamental set of issues, money vs. environmental, scenic, or historical protection.  The SASS designation and the 1000 Islands are no different.  It is the same with wind energy development in our area, the promise of money vs. the visual destruction of our region.  With the massive and increasing size of wind turbines one large wind development can have staggering wide ranging visual  impacts as we all now know from the Wolfe Island wind farm.

And if all the local wind development proposals were to  come to fruition the region will undergo a staggering wholesale environmental and visual transformation from renowned scenic destination to a vast industrial energy complex.  Sheer insanity that should never be allowed or even considered!!!

It is also interesting the national parks you compare were at one time under similar threats from some industry or moneyed interest trying to exploit natural resources (timber, mining etc.) vs. others trying  to saving these spectacular places for future generations.

 In Grand Canyon for example  it was our own  government proposals for huge hydro dams right in the Grand Canyon!!!  Which now to the reasonable person seems idiotic.  

The PBS series by Ken Burns on our national parks showed the evolution of our parks from places of exploitation to protection and national treasures.

 I would think that most people who visit our national parks and other nationally protected treasures would now agree  the protections, significant laws, and regulations that protect these treasured places are appropriate.  And the regulations in these places are generally very tough and restrictive, and in some there are large tracts designated as wilderness where you  not only can’t develop, but no mechanical means of travel is allowed, and the area is to be left in a natural state unaltered by man forever.

In all my experience in wildernesses and talking to people about it, I find that to some, the idea that large tracts of land be left undeveloped is an extremely foreign concept, almost obscene to some!

You can’t just do NOTHING with the land.

I don’t understand the fuming of the people opposed to SASS.  The 1000 Islands is far far from undeveloped, it has been developed bit by bit for over a century in terms of tourism and vacation homes and the services that support them, and it will continue, SASS or no SASS.   

For God’s sake why so much griping?    It’s not exactly like historically there has been some radical unreasonable restriction on development in this region…and no one from what I can tell is proposing that.

So I find it a bit absurd when we talk about a relatively benign but important protection for the 1000 Islands, to bring it national and international recognition.  Recognition which could actually enhance the beauty and the tourism economy at the same time.  Yet some get their underwear all  in a bunch in an irrational fear that it is too restrictive. This seems a bit  over reactive.

When you examine the forces that once threated our national parks, you find it took visionary and courageous people, like Teddy Roosevelt or John Muir,  for example, to stand against the complete exploitation of our treasured places and realize the wisdom of protecting them.

So just like our national parks the historical environmental  fight goes on right here in the 1000 Islands area.

 Now in our region the flame that lit the fuse in this ongoing historical environmental debate  is industrial wind energy.   The people, who if allowed, would completely exploit and transform a region for basically a gold rush scheme based on false green promises, against those who have some vision and wisdom for the preservation of a world class environmental resource and scenic treasure.

Ultimately the people who stand for the unreasonable exploitation of treasured  areas like the 1000 Islands and Golden Crescent, and would willingly sacrifice it, don’t realize that their excesses are what bring the cries and reaction for more protections as a result.

It’s a simple formula proven over and over by history, and the national parks Mr. White talks about are testament to how those excesses were brought to awareness, hotly debated, and then defeated.

The silver lining in local  wind development is that it ignited an extremely important and heated environmental  conversation about the essence,  meaning, and value of our area that is probably long long overdue.  The debate is so important for example, it has already brought unprecedented change in that it overturned an entire town government in Cape Vincent, and brought an NYAG investigation regarding the ethics of the people who should have placed the environmental stewardship of our region ahead of self interest.   They didn’t realize it or intend it, but ironically that debate was brought to us by the very people willing to exploit our treasured scenic resources with unreasonable excesses.

 Indeed we are now like Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yosemite, National Parks with a historical environmental connection no less important, and not only by comparison to their beauty!

It’s not that the debate is an ugly one Mr. White, or that either side has made errors.  It’s that there is finally a long overdue highly visible and contentious debate over the protection and future of our regional scenic and environmental treasures.

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH - A New Type of Matter Found!

There is Anti Matter, and there is Dark Matter, and scientists have now discovered Doesn't Matter!

Apparently it has absolutely no impact on the universe whatsoever!

Source - Gary Larson - Cartoonist

They Were Simply WRONG!!!

On Rick Wiley’s JLL blog there is a review of a meeting in Watertown several years ago involving state legislators to address the Art. 10 issue, particularly related to the siting of wind energy.  Wiley highlight a quote from Assemblywoman Addie Russell as if this was some type of gospel and validation.

Assemblymember Addie Russell:  

“I think you are probably better off if your community adopted regulations based on evidence based researching instead of a blanket ” No.”  I think that, if your what you ae concerned about is standing the legal test.  That is probably where you ought to go.  And that is just from a legal stand point.”

Of course I’m sure Wiley also highlighted this as validation that  Cape Vincent has done the proper thing to create a zoning law with regulations to accommodate industrial wind and   appease the Art. 10 process.  He is also a supporter of the Art. 10 process that removed community home rule on wind energy siting.

However, Mr. Wiley has also  been an ardent supporter of the state SASS scenic designation of our area.  This designation is supported by a detailed report by a highly reputable and experienced architectural and land planning firm with a positive reputation nationally in these types of issues.   The TIRAP report.

Unfortunately for Mr. Wiley, Ms. Russell, and the CV govt. that developed zoning with wind regulations to attempt to mitigate industrial wind development, those  highly respected land planning professionals who actually did very specific “research” of our area appear to significantly disagree with this approach to mitigate industrial wind  through zoning.  They in fact clearly imply the best approach would be to not allow such structures in our area.  

Geeee whiz… imagine that!!!  Here is the quote from that report about tall massive industrial structures. The TIRAP report indicates what Ms. Russell doesn’t seem to grasp in her limited conclusion.

" Consequently massive industrial and infrastructure projects should not be built within the SASS district or within its surrounding viewsheds. 
      There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of these structures because they are so tall, massive, and frequently in motion."

Not only do they conclude these structures should not be allowed IN the SASS district…but not even in the surrounding viewshed!!!!

Where Ms. Russell’s logic falls completely apart is implying that anyone who would ban industrial wind energy in their zoning  is not using a well researched and analytical approach to reach their conclusion to  prohibit. A similar sentiment that Wiley and his blog commenters also endorsed.  Too bad they were so out of touch.

The fact is, if your intent is to truly protect your community and the surrounding area,  a thorough researching  of the significant and wide ranging impacts of industrial wind energy, the impacts of which defy zoning mitigation, then the conclusion to prohibit is far more rational than any attempt to mitigate what cannot be mitigated. 

In fact this is exactly what the SASS/TIRAP research concluded!!!

Seems that Wiley and friends and the CV govt who developed wind regulations that actually accommodates wind energy, now have a bit of egg all over their faces, since the SASS report they also heavily endorse, clearly indicates the zoning direction they followed with wind energy siting was in fact the wrong approach for our area!!! 

Not to mention that Wiley on his blog even indicated that CV was so experienced in this wind  zoning to appease Art. 10 that Clayton and other local communities should take notice and follow suit.  Great advice!  Too bad according to a reputable report it was the wrong advice!!!

Now keep in mind that the approach to prohibit wind energy development in CV and the area, promoted by myself and a very few others was heavily marginalized and criticized, sometimes with personal attacks that we didn’t have a clue what we were talking about, were only marginal voices, or lunatics screaming NO WIND!  Actually we had carefully researched our case.  In fact it was actually a no brainer, especially after the Wolfe Island Wind Farm visual impacts slapped us right in the face.

Well according to the TIRAP report by highly respected land planners who did do a very carefully “researched” study of our area …I guess we were right on the money.  And you will notice that the people supporting the wind zoning approach as gospel have not said much if anything about the TIRAP conclusion that tall structures like wind turbines should not be allowed.

Of course to me this has never been rocket science.  The State Art. 10 process created such irrational thinking and fear that many people and local govts miraculously came to the convoluted conclusion that somehow the way to stop wind energy was to write laws that actually allow it!!!!

Brilliant!!! 

 I have never understood that logic, but I am sure that is the exact logic Cuomo and the State had in mind to manipulate communities away from prohibiting wind development and into supporting the State renewable agenda!

Arbitrary!

The town of Hounsfield may host a new wind farm on Galloo Island and it appears some town of Houndsfield officials are positive about the proposal.

During the possible siting of the old wind farm proposal on Galloo of several years ago, the town of Henderson sued the town of Houndsfield over the wind farm proposal and siting process.

Below is a quote from a WWNY TV story.

"The town of Henderson has filed a lawsuit against the town of Hounsfield, and it's asking a judge to overturn the planning board's site plan approval for the Galloo Island Wind Farm.

Henderson Town Supervisor Ray Walker says he feels the town of Hounsfield and the Department of Environmental Conservation did not do their due diligence when investigating how the Galloo Island Wind Farm would affect neighboring communities."

The new Galloo wind farm is planned to have 32 turbines approaching 600 ft. high.

So let's fast forward and look at the town of Hounsfield comprehensive plan which was apparently completed in 2014.

Below is a quote from the comp plan of things the town feels are important recommendation priorities. 

“Improve communications with neighboring towns/villages. Communicating with neighboring towns and villages will further improve government efficiency by comparing and combining similar projects, discussing shared concerns/issues and taking subsequent action, governing with a regional vision and aligning goals with North Country REDC Key Strategies.”

Well I guess if Hounsfield is jazzed up about supporting the Galloo Island wind proposal, they better get moving on this important recommendation in their comp plan. 

Because if they support and host the Galloo Island wind farm, they will definitely have a lot of explaining to do to many neighboring  communities, about how they endorsed one of the biggest environmental industrial visual disasters in Eastern Lake Ontario!

And how about those NCREDC Strategies mentioned from the comp plan.  One of the goals in the vision statement from NCREDC is:

"Create the greenest energy economy in the state"

Really?  Yet Hounsfield has not said one thing in their zoning about "supposed green" wind energy siting or regulations...not one!

Seems that Hounsfield can't figure out what it is doing or where it is heading.

Put this all together and Hounsfield land planning seems rather arbitrary on the wind energy issue, yet apparently some of its leaders are willing to allow 32 massive industrial  structures that will impact most of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, which could in fact have a dramatic negative impact on neighboring community’s land planning visions.

It still amazes me how when the wind money arrives otherwise rational people quickly lose their minds!

 

 

Hello Hounsfield - You Gotta Problem!

It is always instructive to look at a town’s comprehensive land use plan and compare it to the zoning.
 

 In Cape Vincent I have been to this rodeo many times!!!
 

The town I am referring to now is Hounsfield, NY, which could be the host to the resurrected Galloo Island wind farm.  The officials and some people in Hounsfield apparently think this is a bright idea!
 

But Hounsfield has a problem.  I have reviewed their comp plan and zoning.

The comp plan has language for preservation of rural character and scenic views, but nothing nearly as protective as the Cape Vincent comp plan.
 

In several places the Hounsfield plan addresses wind energy and appears to encourage it along with other renewables.

Below are a couple quotes from the Hounsfield comp plan.  This first quotes indicates a finding that alternative energy (including wind energy) needs relevant land use restrictions. 

B-5. Ensure relevant land use restrictions for the

following:

• Degradation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas

• Design Standards for Commercial Development

• Future Subdivision of Large Parcels

• Land Use _at Lowers Surrounding Land Values

• Land Use _at Adversely Impacts the Environment

• Minimum Lot Sizes

• Mobile Home Placement

• Siting Self-Storage Units

• Rental Housing Inspections

• Siting for Cell Towers

• Siting Alternative Energies
 

And  the results  from a survey done of  Hounsfield residents.
 

• Respondents believe Hounsfield should have land use regulations for: design standards for commercial development (85.1%), degradation of environmentally sensitive areas (81.4%), clustering of homes (77.7%), siting for cell towers (75.9%), future subdivision of large parcels (75.6%), as well as regulations on land use that adversely impacts the environment, mobile home placement, siting for windmills, land use that lowers surrounding land values, minimum lot sizes, siting self-storage units, rental housing inspections, and routine septic inspections.
 

It sounds as if the drafters of the Hounsfield comp plan want to encourage wind energy, however they also have concerns about regulating  it through zoning.  The survey indicates the same concern about wind energy regulation and property values.
 

Now you must keep in mind that NYS requires by law  that if you develop a comp plan, then your zoning must carry out the intentions or vision of that plan.
 

The same town promoting the Galloo Island wind farm, and which mentions wind energy several times in their comp plan for development, and as something that needs proper control has absolutely no mention of wind energy regulation in their zoning despite those concerns in their comp plan!!
 

I could find absolutely nothing in their zoning about wind energy, positive or negative, or any regulations related to wind energy whatsoever…nothing!!!
 

So it appears Hounsfield has a problem, and I hope the anti wind people in Hounsfield or any potential stake holder impacted by this wind development pays attention!!
 

So when the Art. 10 people show up and Hounsfield starts promoting a wind farm on Galloo Island, they have a comp plan and zoning that are apparently legally contradictory on the issue, and no rational basis in their zoning for wind development or regulations to control it.
 

I’ll bet Bill Moore the developer for the Galloo wind project has figured this out.  
 

Just like Cape Vincent when the wind vultures swept in when we had no specific language in our zoning addressing wind development.  It was a wind developer gold mine.  It was why no wind zoning regulations were ever passed in CV until a whole new govt was put in place ejecting the old pro wind govt.
 

So if you oppose the Galloo Is. Wind development get the lawyers lined up and get them reading the Hounsfield comp plan and zoning!
 

BTW here is a quote from NY Town Law in regards to the comp plan and zoning relationship.
 

“11. Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan. (a) All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.”

 

 

 

   

God Speed Brooks Bragdon

I am so sorry to hear of the passing of Cape Vincent Councilman Brooks Bragdon. My wife and I were shocked by this news.  This is a sad day for the Cape Vincent community, and I would like to express my sympathies to his friends and family.

Brooks stepped up at a critical and very difficult time in Cape Vincent history and he will be missed by many.

I always enjoyed his sharp wit and intellect.

Art Pundt

Oooohhh Boy This Ought to Get the Anti SASS People Stirred Up! - Another Document Meant To Inhibit Development!

This will drive the anti SASS, anti government people crazy.  Just one more document to stop development, especially wind development!  Why don't these anti wind, pro SASS people just leave us alone - right?

Well it is always instructive to look at a little history and the record.

Look at the paragraphs below that are quotes from an important scenic protection document. 

Is it from the TIRAP study?

Is it from SASS?

Is it from some environmental organization like TILT or Save the River?

Or was it written by the anti wind officials in one of the local towns trying to curb development, like wind development?

Here are the quotes.

"encourage the development of land for its most appropriate use, and to conserve and protect the rural, agricultural, and scenic resources;"

"minimize negative environmental impacts of development, especially in visually or environmentally sensitive areas, such as viewsheds, along the Lake and River, wetlands, and floodplains;"
"protect existing wooded areas, scenic views, agricultural lands, waterways, ground and surface water supplies, ecological systems, wildlife habitat, and natural vegetation;"

"Preserve and protect historically significant lands and buildings, regulate commerce and other non-residential uses in a manner that is sensitive to the natural scenic resources and provides freedom for land owners to make beneficial economic use of their land, provided that such uses are not harmful to neighboring properties."

Wow...that is pretty protective language to preserve sensitive scenic and environmental resources!

Here is some more of that environmentally protective language.

"...to attach safeguards and conditions to those uses which might otherwise produce deleterious effects on the unique features, environment, rural and scenic character ..."


"Furthermore, it is the purpose to disapprove a plan for any use, the deleterious effects of which cannot be mitigated because of the particular conditions on the site it is to occupy."

So who wrote this obviously govt. intrusive stuff??? 

Now sit down because the irony is ... these paragraphs are from the OLD Cape Vincent zoning law, written by some CV individuals who would now be considered very pro wind, against restrictive zoning,  anti govt., and against the scenic designation that SASS would bring to the 1000 Islands area!!!

Go Figure!!!

The language was not written by the CV town board of the last few years, put in power in part by seasonal voters!!  This was written going way back to 1998 long before there was a political ush to register seasonal people to vote in CV.  This language in CV zoning  was also in place during most of the CV wind battle.

The only words I redacted were references to the town or planning board so you could focus on the stand alone protective language.

The current CV zoning  law was revised in 2012 with other revisions in 2014.  Similar language still exists in the current zoning.  And the further irony is that the CV town board of 2012
actually wrote a zoning law to allow some wind development which the old town board refused to pass.  It actually puts us closer to wind development than the old law, if the old law was applied correctly.

So a lot of these people bitching about the potential SASS scenic preservation and so called regulations are apparently not bright enough to figure out they have been living with scenic protections for a long long time.

And the kicker is, this was written mostly by the pro wind, anti govt., leave us alone, you can't tell me what to do on my land types!

These people are so confused they can't figure out where they stand or even what they have supported in the past, yet they think we should take their advice!!!

When they wrote these restrictive scenic zoning regulations, apparently it was perfectly OK, but  when others are asking for  scenic protections, suddenly that is off limits. 

Can you say hypocrisy????