Ask Some Quesions!!!!

Mr. Wiley at the Cape Vincent blog JLL keeps telling us we must write the NYS Public Service Commission in oppositions in regards to the various wind complexes proposed from NYS and in particular the Iberdrola project proposed for Clayton, NY.  The quote below is from one of his posts.

"Do not get scammed into thinking your voice does not count!"

Now he would be referring to some of us who think that writing the NYPSC who is pro wind is an extremely marginal way of having any impact.

Now let me make something clear.  If you want to write the PSC and believe in this system...then write all the  letters your little heart desires.  I just think it is not going to have the impact you are expecting in a process you are expecting.  I believe this system of "input" within Art. 10 will actually work directly against you best interests in way you can't imagine.

However, maybe Mr. Wiley should also explain a few things to you letter writers.  Blatant things he wants you to ignore in  jr. high civics book thinking..

For example have Mr. Wiley explain:

1. That NYPSC has APPROVED all the wind complexes up and running in NYS. How did that happen Mr. Wiley?   Some of those projects had opposition and letters were written.  Yet the wind complexes went up anyhow with the PSC simply saying " the benefits of the wind projects outweigh the impacts".

2.  Explain why the Art 10 siting process has provisions to preempt your local wind zoning laws.  Why would that be needed in this system?

3. How the NYPSC has actually allowed the preemption of local laws to site energy projects.

4. How the PSC required Iberdrola in a deal ( the wind developer currently in Clayton) to put up $100 Million in wind energy in NYS.

5. How most agencies and the agency heads who will sit on the Art 10 siting board are already very pro wind and support the Governor's, and state's aggressive agenda on siting renewable energy.

6.  Despite all the letters of opposition to the BP wind project in Cape Vincent the Art. 10 process there ran the town and the citizens through the wringer.  Especially as they waited months while the Art 10 process dragged on to help BP see if they could sell the project to a new developer and then the Art 10 judge would not close the process or guarantee a new developer would have to start over.

7. Explain why the new found wind law expert John Droz thinks the Art 10 system you would be writing to is "unfair"  Have Mr. Wiley explain how your letters are going to have any impact in a system that a lead anti wind and wind law expert thinks is unfair!

8.  Have Mr. Wiley explain how Art. 10 was passed in large part to get around local control and opposition in siting wind projects and streamline the process for wind developers.

9.  Have him explain that despite your letters of objection to local wind projects most local wind laws actually allow some type of wind development, and he supports that law approach. Your very own town govt's are not supporting your opposition letters when they write laws that are a tacit approval of wind development.

10.  Have Mr. Wiley explain why he supports a state system that removed your rights in your communities to protect yourself, and this process he supports will in some cases allow foreign corporations to overrun America citizens rights.  Ask him how he can endorse, or participate in such an egregious essentially unconstitutional system (Art 10).  Ask him why he would want to enable such a system rather than fight against it?

Maybe before you pound out on your key board a letter to the NYPSC you should write Wiley first and ask a few pointed questions.

Maybe a good question to ask after the evidence I have shown above... how is it that Wiley and the NYPSC has scammed you into thinking your voice WILL count!!!

Please Explain!

The idea of the wind law proponents is to stop wind energy in your community, you would have to write a restrictive wind law, so restrictive essentially the wind developer could not reasonably develop a viable project.  They hope the developer would then walk away.  And to accomplish this any law they draft would have to be extremely restrictive to preclude wind development.

However, to accomplish this they have to get past the formidable  NYS Art 10 law and siting board that will be actually the ones to determine if any local zoning law will  prevail and become law, since home rule has been removed by the state on this large scale wind issue. 

This means the town can not just write  wind energy zoning and make the developer abide, till the state determines if the law is "reasonable" for the developer.   Of course we are left completely in the dark by the state as to what "reasonable" means.  As a result we have a huge intensive debate going as to the correct approach to zone for wind.

Quoted below is the language that addresses this local law and preemption issue directly from the Art 10 law.

"...except that the board may elect not to apply, in whole or in part, any local ordinance, law, resolution or other action or any regulation issued thereunder or any local standard or requirement, including, but not limited to, those relating to the interconnection to and use of water, electric, sewer, telecommunication, fuel and steam lines in public rights of way, which would be otherwise applicable if it finds that, as applied to the proposed facility, such is unreasonably burdensome in view of the existing technology..."

 

In my view, what restrictive wind law supporters fail to explain sufficiently or recognize is how they expect their law to prevail, when it is very clear the state can preempt any such very restrictive law.  It seems fairly obvious that any law so restrictive a developer can't even develop a project would NOT be reasonable to the developer nor the state, and would have a very high probability of failure to withstand Art 10 preemption. 

 

So the first thing they need to do is step back an answer a couple simple yet KEY questions central to the ENTIRE debate. 

 

Why was Art 10 passed by the state?

 

Why does it have the power to preempt local zoning laws?

 

And why is a very restrictive wind law the way to battle against Art 10 under this state law with preemptive power over local zoning?

 

How do you expect your very restrictive law to prevail against a process designed in large part to further wind energy in NYS by preempting very restrictive local zoning laws?

 

So far the restrictive wind law supporters have not, or can not answer these simple questions sufficiently...or at all.  Let's see if they can answer them here.

 

 

 

Making Noise????

Mr. Wiley at the Cape Vincent JLL blog has a reader contribution connecting influential NY political figures with green investments and campaign contributions.  Interesting piece. Right on, on that part.

However,  as usual the singular tunnel vision conclusion is to write  wind laws and color within the lines of the system's script  that was set up precisely TO REGULATE US...NOT THE WIND INDUSTRY!!!!

Here is are the quotes:

"Thus, one interpretation would be that an outright ban on wind would be shot down very quickly from the top. "

"One must play the game through regulation, raise money for a good defense of article 10, and create enough noise to make this go away to another area of the state where the green lobby can earn their keep." 

This shows a stunning failure to grasp the issue and comprehend reality.

So with these powerful forces, as Wiley's reader accurately points out, what in God's name makes them think their very restrictive wind laws, which are nothing more than defacto bans, are going to hold up any better than a ban?  That alone is both arrogance run amuck, and a failure to recognize astonishingly simple logic slapping them right in the head! 

I get it...a ban that prevents turbines will fail, but our wind law that prevents turbines because it is  nothing more than a defacto ban with lipstick on it will prevail??????  We are so smart and these powerful people, the state, and wind developers are so stupid they will fall right for our defacto ban law!

I wonder what brand of Kool Aid Wiley and his reader are drinking?

But the second quote about the "game'  is museum quality absurd.  Recommending... "One  must play the game through regulation."    I have kept a file of   nutty quotes from the wind battle...and this one will be near the top of the list cuckoo quotes!!!

The "game" as they call it was designed specifically to overcome local laws by removing your community home rule right and create a fast track process for wind developers wanting to site wind farms, and keep YOU  controlled in a tightly defined  box as to what THEY will allow you to do.

Art 10 doesn't regulate wind developers...IT REGULATES YOU!!!  What they are actually suggesting is you play in a high stakes game where the other side has complete autonomy to decided the final score!  That is the best they can come up with to protect our area from wind development.

So I will recommend that you take a look at this video linked below from approx. 33:30 minutes into it, to 1 hour and 17 minutes and it will clearly explain just how ridiculous this "playing in the game statement real is!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilkABR3jVqA

NEWS FLASH - You Don't Have to Wait - Your Wind Zoning Has Already Been Preempted!!!

If you follow the industrial wind debate in our area of NNY you know much of the debate among people concerned about wind energy impacts currently is centered around whether regulating wind development with a zoning law is a better choice than using zoning banning wind outright.

I have always promoted a ban as a more direct approach based on community rights.

 The wind law proponents don’t seem to, or want to grasp, that since 2011 that NYS makes the final decision as to whether your wind law will be upheld … or overridden as too burdensome to the wind developer.  The debate becomes… will a wind zoning law be preempted by the state or not.

But wind law proponents need to grasp,  that even before any local wind zoning law is out of the box, major portions HAVE already been preempted by the state.

The NYS Art 10 law makes it basically illegal for any  municipality  to give or deny a permit or  approvals etc to a major wind complex.  That is entirely in the hands of the state.  In other words the procedural things in a law like reviewing, or giving permits, special use permits, variances, site plan and environmental reviews by planning boards etc.

All now  in the hands of the state.  Here is what the Art 10 law says. 

" Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency, municipality or any agency thereof may, except as expressly authorized under this article by the board, require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of a major electric generating facility with respect to which an application for a certificate hereunder has been filed…"

If you want to build a wind complex over 25 megawatts you don’t go to the town for a permit.  You now apply directly to the state through the Art. 10 siting process.  That is the whole point of the new Art 10 law.

Yet look at how most local zoning laws are written regarding wind development.  They are written in denial, as if the municipality still has control over those major wind development permitting matters.  They are written as if the wind developer is going to come to the town for approvals and permits.

 Below are two quotes from the Cape Vincent zoning law trying to regulate big and small wind.

 WECS = wind energy conversion systems = wind turbines.

 SWECS = small personal wind turbines. 

The clauses below are similar to many other local wind zoning laws.

 “Site Plan Review:

WECS, SWECS, or Meteorological tower shall be constructed, reconstructed, modified, operated, or replaced in the Town by first obtaining a Special Use Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan approval of the Planning Board. “

 “Specific Site Plan Review Application Requirements:

A complete Site Plan Review application for a WECS or SWECS, shall include:” 

So where do the towns think they are going with this?    The state with its article 10 law clearly says you no longer have this permit/ approval power like CV attempted above in their law. Yet towns like Cape Vincent and many other move forward as if they still have home rule on this matter…THEY DON”T!!!

  It is like the drafters of these laws are operating in some complete alternate reality.

So essentially when you write wind zoning regulations like this you have already been preempted before your law even sees the light of day!

In this case there is NO argument as to whether your wind  law will be preempted by the state or not.   A MAJOR PROCEDURAL PORTION OF YOUR ZONING LAW ON WIND HAS ALREADY BEEN PREEMPTED.  In fact it was being preempted right as you were drafting it, if it was drafted after the 2011 Art. 10 was passed!

One more example of how the wind law promoters simply deny reality!

 

Article 10 - Judicial Review - Stacked to Ensure the Art 10 Decision Sticks Legally

Since Clayton, NY is considering a ban on industrial wind energy development, a major part of the debate has been whether a wind law, or wind ban, would better withstand a legal challenge.

However, in the Art. 10 process before a legal challenge could happen, any  aggrieved party on either side could ask for a rehearing before the Art. 10 siting board.

Beyond that it could go to court.  However, in the process the court challenge is immediately kick up to the NYS Court of Appeals skipping the lower court.

If you read the Art. 10 law regulations for a judicial review it becomes pretty clear that it seems stacked to ensure the Art 10 Siting Board decision will prevail.

The wind law people are convinced that their wind law can withstand this legal challenge.  They base this on that fact that the have the "science" that is irrefutable and will thus prevail in a court challenge.

However, this presumes the "science" itself as related to the local law and the negative wind impacts the science would supposed prove would ever get before the court at all!

The Art 10 regulations for judicial review confine the court to very specific and narrow areas of review.

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it and have researched it the court may never even have to really consider the science as related to the law.  Instead the court is pretty well restricted to the process itself. 

In other words did the Art 10 Siting Board follow the process as outline in the law and is the final decision constitutional for example.  Did they make a "reasonable" deliberation of the facts by considering all the evidence on BOTH sides.

There is the legal idea of the  "Substantive Evidence Standard" which basically says when the siting board makes a decision did they actually carefully consider all the evidence in their decision and could any "reasonable" person come to a similar conclusion.

BUT!!!!  It does not say the court has to even decide whether the siting board decision was right or wrong, or the evidence itself was faulty.  In fact if you look at legal information regarding this standard, it says that a decision may be technically WRONG, as long as the administrative agency agencies "looked at the evidence."

Therefore it is highly likely the court will defer to the agency decision.  As long as all the process was followed and all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted etc.

And ironically there are two court cases in the wind issue right here in Cape Vincent where you can see exactly how this standard was applied and the wind opposition lost both cases.

Those cases are:

WPEG vs. The Town of Cape Vincent Zoning board of Appeals

WPEG vs The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board

Here is what the court said in its opinion on the last case above.

"The 'hard look" standard does not authorize the Court to conduct a detailed de novo (new) analysis of every environmental impact or alternative to a proposed project which was included in,  or omitted from. an environmental impact statement" 

The Court also says:

The issue is whether the administrative agency made a thorough investigation of the problems involved and reasonably exercised its discretion.

Now the point of this is that the planning board did NOT do a hard look and WPEG had tons of evidence to that point. Not to mention the conflicts of interest of planning board officials that dominated the process.  However, the Court still deferred to the planning board decision.  None of the "science" to support the WPEG case ever got before the court. 

In fact the insidious part of this is that apparently the court thought that all the 'science" and research put before the planning board by WPEG was in fact evidence that the PB had made a "reasoned decision within its discretion!!!

So if you are a wind law supporter, and you think you are ultimately going to be successful by getting your irrefutable science before a court...you better reconsider how the Art 10 judicial review is regualted!!

It would be interesting if a lawyer could weigh in here about this issue!

Claytons Public hearing on Their Proposed Wind Development Ban

On March 23rd Clayton, NY had a public hearing on a proposal to change their zoning from regulations that attempt to regulate wind energy, to a ban of industrial wind development.

Apparently during that hearing  a number of people showed up with their own zoning alternative offered to the town that would heavily regulate wind energy instead on ban it, most likely to the point it would be difficult for the developer Iberdrola to develop a wind complex in Clayton. 

The premise of this law is that it would better stand a legal challenge, or in addition stand against the state's Art 10 process that has the power to preempt zoning it deems too burdensome.  They contend a ban would be easily defeated.

Mr. John Droz, a self proclaimed "energy expert" basically wrote this zoning alternative for the town to consider or adopt for free.  Droz has been an anti wind advocate for years, but has recently decided the restrictive wind law approach is the panacea to defeating wind energy.  He contends that his law is solidly based on science that a court or the state could not ignore and would withstand a legal challenge as a result.  I have known John for some time and have had  long conversations and email exchanges with him and I am sure that his science is sound.  That is not the issue.

However, I find a couple of HUGE holes in his and others restrictive wind zoning approach.   They tend to believe they have the lock on the science that will defeat wind energy.  However, the state and the developer has science too and also a very aggressive renewable agenda.  So in court ...or on more importantly on an Art 10 siting board stacked with people from state agencies already endorsing wind energy in NYS, who's science do you think they will lean towards.  Science that run completely contrary to the state's renewable political agenda, or the wind developer expert's science that can enhance the state's renewable political  agenda???

I think it is extremely short sighted, arrogant and in fact delusional to think you simply present your science and the court or state will have to see it your way.  That is a lot of nonsense.

In fact if this approach was actually that simple and the state would comply to YOUR science and town after town defeated wind energy with this approach, they would have an awful time meeting their renewable goals.  now do you actually think that is going to happen??? 

In fact the state has billions in green funding to assist renewable developers, and they aren't going to let little local restrictive wind laws, science or not to stand in the way.

Droz and the wind law science  approach supporters have completely disregarded the political forces involved when in fact the fight has nothing to do with science. It is big money lobbyists pressure  and corporate profits.  The wind law promoters are deluded if they think they have the only science the state or court will listen too.

And the one thing they seem to ignore, or at least discount is the fact that the state can simply preempt any restrictive zoning regulation.  10 siting where the state did exactly that in power plant siting.

Why is there a preemption clause to override local restrictive laws at all in the Art 10 siting process???  Have them explain that one to you.  It is because the state intends to use it and they won't give a damn about your science when they do.

What Droz and others don't seem to grasp is that preemption is in fact locked and loaded aimed directly at the type of restrictive laws they are touting so arrogantly. And  I seriously doubt their restrictive law will withstand any assault by a court or Art 10 siting board.  Because politically that cannot be allowed to happen due to the state's and Cuomo's green political agenda.

Besides are these people so out of touch that they think they have fooled the state?  In effect there law IS a ban, just with a lot of trickery to make the state think it is "reasonable"  I wonder...do they really think the state is that stupid?

And apparently wind developer Iberdrola asked the town to not prevent them from developing with a ban, but to sit down with them and develop a reasonable wind law.  Yeah I'll bet they would and the town would be a fool to do so.

 That ought to tell you something about that wind law approach and how it would work.  They would love to get the town on that wind law playing field.  Because they know they can defeat it, especially with the state's preemption backing them.

Clayton would very very ill-advised to take Droz's alternative law.  Not to mention Droz isn't even from Clayton and won't have to live with his results if he is wrong!

The Industrial Wind Zoning Debate Reloaded! Why Traditional Zoning Fails

 

 

          Wolfe Island Wind complex impacting critical scenic resources far beyond the project zoning footprint.  

 

With Clayton, NY’s proposal to change their zoning to ban industrial wind development in their town, the whole debate about the best approach to protect our towns and region  has resurfaced.   One argument says ban wind development outright in your zoning, the side I have been on for a decade, and the other argument is to attempt to be “reasonable”, and appease the state and not ban wind energy but try to “regulate it” with traditional zoning methods, primarily setbacks from sensitive resources at various distances. 

In light of Clayton’s move, I thought it might be good once again to demonstrate why traditional zoning fails badly to protect a community, or a region from industrial wind development.  Especially one so sensitive as the 1000 Islands/ Golden Crescent region with its vast flat water veiwsheds.

This is a bit long but I think critical to the understanding of this debate, so I hope you will examine this carefully.

First we need to understand some zoning basics.

Traditional (Euclidean) zoning attempts to separate uses, usually in designated districts, so they don’t negatively impact each other or cause health, safety, welfare or aesthetic conflcits.  The method of mitigation is separation by various appropriate distances.  Basically the further away the lesser the negative impact.  Very straight forward basic zoning technique.

For example a town might not want an industrial factory with massive buildings, noise, and lights, or a scrap yard and their impacts near high quality single family homes, So they would form an industrial district, and far enough away from  it would be residential district or other sensitive districts.  Distance is usually an effective  key factor to mitigate negative impacts. 

For example if I drive several miles from the industrial zone, the industrial impacts will mostly be mitigated or disappear.

Another technique used where uses conflict is screening mitigation .  For example the scrap yard near a neighborhood might be mitigated by berms, vegetation or attractive fencing or a setbacks from roads or nearby neighborhoods. And that usually works.

Often height zoning restrictions help mitigate impacts.  A municipality might draft height restrictions for aesthetic reasons.  This way if you live in a residential zone you are not looking at the impacts of some type of tower or building that does not fit the aesthetic quality of the town or your district.

Now these basic zoning techniques are used widely and fairly effectively around the civilized world.  The mitigation, height, and use separation by distance zoning techniques can be very effective for structures and uses of typical sizes in rural or suburban areas.

But then along comes industrial wind energy with towers that are now reaching over 600 ft. in height along with flashing lights at night and frequently spinning blades with a rotor  area bigger than a football field. 

                               Wolfe Island Wind Complex.  This is zoning protection?????

Keeping in mind that movement is a very significant attractant to the human eye.  The eyes detect movement quickly.

Industrial wind energy essentially completely defies traditional zoning as examined above, primarily because of height which is absolutely essential to wind turbine efficiency. 

                        

                                 Maple Ridge Wind complex overwhelming homes.

That’s why they keep getting taller. Consider that in  some cases in your rural areas numerous wind turbines will mean many taller structures than are in some fair size cities!   Study I did a few years ago that indicated a huge city the size of Los Angeles had something like 30 buildings over 400 ft. which was the common size of industrial wind turbines back then.   Now the state, and in some cases your town officials,  and the wind companies are suggesting you should accept hundreds of these city sized structures on the traditionally scenic rural landscape of your region.  Structures, unlike buildings, that have rather radical movement!  This would be an insane invasive environmental transformation of your area in a relatively short time, and somehow many of your town officials are trying to delude you into thinking they can effectively manage this type of radical change with out moded little provincial and impotent zoning approaches.  Seriously?????

Don’t be fooled!

So let’s say I live in a nice peaceful aesthetic residentially zoned  district.  A place people have moved for aesthetics, protection from noise, and other negative impacts you would not want in your neighborhood, and also to protect their home as their prime investment.

Yet my community has decided to allow 100 wind turbines nearly 600 ft. tall and try to “regulate” them..  An industrial wind factory complex that will cover much of my town…maybe the majority of it, since another essential of wind energy is it must be spread out over many square miles to be effective.  In this community, town officials have decided to allow this use and decide they can mitigate it with traditional zoning methods.  In fact to accomplish this, they often create a monster called a wind overlay district, that actually overlays some of the other town districts since wind energy has to be spread out so far.  This faulty decision is an immediate frontal attack on the district separation protection method of protection.

So now from my residential zone, I can see hear, and will be likely disturbed by, on a regular basis, a great deal of the 100 turbines a few miles away or even closer in some cases.  Despite the protections I was assured by my town in zoning in my residential district, for my family and property investment, I now can clearly see and suffer the impacts from my supposed protected district from an industrial wind use in districts much  further away that were supposed to mitigate the very impacts I am now confronted with.

In this case the district separation zoning, mitigation and height restrictions  have just been rendered useless, and essentially one invasive huge  industrial use dominates all districts in town.

For example let’s consider if you live in the highly aesthetic, desirable natural water setting of Cape Vincent’s Island District…for example Carleton Island that gets a sweeping view of the entire town, even the slightly elevated town interior on the mainland as it slowly rises toward the back of the town.  The same place, by the way, industrial wind development will take place.  Your designated Island District will offer no protection, particularly viewshed protection, from ANY wind development in town, regulated or not.  On the south shore you will have a front row seat 24/7 to the negative impacts of industrial wind several miles away in another zoning district.  If you live on the north shore of Carleton Island you suffer the impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind complex where you had no input to their zoning decisions to allow industrial wind turbines.

Now consider for example even another town several miles away that has no say in your zoning decision.  Particularly if there is flat water somewhere between the towns allowing unobstructed views. You will suffer from neighboring town’s allowing  the massive tall moving structures that  cannot be effectively mitigated in any way.  Again, traditional zoning of industrial wind, that far too many towns have deferred to, has been render useless by industrial wind and is a miserable failure to protect citizens in any particular town, or even the region.

 In the last decade we have sadly learned from Wolfe Island that these structures have invasive impacts that can reach out 30 miles, which impacts communities far far beyond the original zoning jurisdiction where industrial wind is allowed and supposedly “regulated”.  Especially in a region like ours with so many flat water viewsheds.  The Wolfe Island Wind Farm is a vivid unmistakable example of what I am talking about.

 

                 Wolfe Island"s giant wind turbines as seen from well within Cape Vincent. A vivid

                  example how a community is badly impacted and had no say in the matter of the siting.

                  The new turbines proposed for our area are reaching 200 ft. taller than the turbines seen

                  her!  It is ridiculous to think a traditional zoning setback approach can control this

                 insanity. Keeping this picture in mind the CV zoning law drafters thought turbines placed

                 about 1.25 miles from the Seaway Trail in CV would protect scenic assets.  It is absurd!

Put very frankly traditional zoning is a sucker’s game the wind developers and NYS love for you to be drawn into.

Essentially the wind companies know exactly what is happening and that traditional zoning is pointless to mitigate their structures.  That is why they are willing to use offsets like bribes like maybe to renovate the town , hall or put a new fence around the cemetery, or maybe donate to some other cause.  This is intended to make you look the other way and ignore or tolerate the impacts  they know cannot be mitigated despite your town’s delusion it can control the impacts.

BP and Acciona in CV years ago in their environmental statements didn’t even try to hide it, and admitted outright their turbines would dominate and be out of context with the CV landscape and cause a dramatic change to the town viewshed.  In a sense they are more clever and honest  than the town officials who have been duped into believing they can somehow mitigate industrial wind. The wind companies themselves are admitting a reality that some town officials just refuse in ignorance or arrogance to accept in a desperate attempt to believe they still have control.  It is a dangerous delusion if you truly intend to protect the 1000 Islands region.

If one considers all this carefully and logically, the only true protection in an area like the 1000 Islands is not town by town, traditional zoning with endless debate over useless ineffective setbacks which industrial wind clearly and easily overwhelms. And by the way creates a lot of wasted energy deflected away from the obvious problem to protect the region.

 The only true protection of any value is for towns to unify their zoning to prohibit industrial wind, at least so it impacts no part of the 1000 Islands and Golden Crescent or Eastern Lake Ontario. viewshed.  This should be backed by the counties, and county zoning boards, and influential environmental groups.  One must also consider the rapidly increasing heights of wind technology which leaves traditional zoning far behind well into the future.

Many towns are so mind paralyzed by this new threat they are fighting a rapidly moving invasive new technology, and the attached wind PR machine, and overreaching state regulations, with old now out moded land use techniques and political strategies  that fail to address the new problem appropriately. 

And in effect the report done by a reputable company concerning land use impacts done for the SASS effort said what is actually painfully obvious.  Tall structures like wind turbines cannot in fact be mitigated here and should not be allowed.  The Thousand Island Land Trust seems to have reached a similar conclusion and is applauding Clayton’s new direction.

Clayton is taking leadership proposing to prohibit industrial wind and making the only true decision that is proportional to control the invasive impacts of industrial wind energy.  That is why it is so important to unify and support the Clayton decision to ban industrial wind in their town.

A former visual simulation from either BP or Acciona, I don't remember,

showing the impact on the CV village waterfront.

 

Otherwise the wind developers and the state will take us apart as a region town by town in a divide and conquer scheme by encouraging us to use a zoning tool that is impotent, backed by a state system with a nuclear option willing to override the rights of our communities.

It is time to stand up!!!