NPR Interview with Mr. Brown of the Cape Vincent Zoning Committee

Recently Mr. Bob Brown of the Cape Vincent zoning committee who has developed the new zoning laws for the town was interviewed by North Country Public Radio.  He had some rather interesting  things to say.  Some things were rather confusing to me.  For example this quote…

“And Brown said the group considered the preservation of property values as it developed setback requirements.   "We said we are going to do a two-mile setback from the waterfront, which would cover the majority of the homes, and the majority of the property value, and use that as a way to address property value and potential loss of property value," he said.”

But wait.  Haven’t some property values on the Tibbetts Pt. Rd. and other shoreline properties been devalued already by the view of the Wolfe Is. turbines?  Those properties are close to or over two miles from those turbines and there still has been an impact.  And what if I have property  on the south shore of Carleton Island. Even industrial  turbines set back two miles into the CV interior will have a dramatic  negative impact on those properties.  Last I looked on a map, Carleton Is. is still a part of CV.  And what about those property owners in the interior beyond the magic 2  mile limit who feel as protective of their properties as the people on the waterfront do?  Don’t they count??? 

Then Mr. Brown said this as well about dealing with the possible preemption of local zoning by the Article X power plant sitting process…

“Our goal was to write an addendum to the zoning law that the Article X board would not find unreasonable. We can justify each one of the requirements that we put in based on health, safety, science and technology," he said.”

Does Mr. Brown know something that the rest of us in CV and across the State including land use lawyers  haven’t been able to figure out?  How does he actually know what criteria any A-10 siting board will accept as reasonable? The fact is he doesn’t know.  Even NY Assemblywoman Addie Russell who is at the heart of the legislative process is only guessing even with her inside knowledge.  Everyone is guessing on this matter including Mr. Brown and the CV zoning committee and their lawyer.  In essence our zoning law on the wind issue is based on only a guess as to what will happen with Article X. To me that seems like one hell of a risky game to be playing with the treasured scenic resources of our community and region. What if that guess is badly in error?  What are we left with then? When reality sets in do we suddenly wake up and prohibit turbines as a last desperate attempt far too late?  Get a grip on the fact that we are guessing and stabbing in the dark instead of taking the stance we should be taking to actually defend our community.

And Mr. Brown talks very confidently that they can defended our new zoning as “reasonable” with science and research to an Article X board.  Yet no one actually knows what reasonable is. He seems to be ignoring one very important consideration that has nothing to do with science and research.  What about the political component and big renewable lobby money behind the Article process and what they or a court are likely to decide as a result?  If that influences the A-10 process (do ya think!!!)  then the development of our zoning based on a guess as to what “science” an A-10 siting board will consider

“ reasonable” could  be nearly irrelevant as the science and our guess at  “reasonableness” gets tossed out the window in favor of the political considerations.  That would mean our appeasement of A-10 with a “reasonable” setback approach could be badly out of touch with the reality of the political environment.

I think we should stop this guessing game as to what will appease the State and Article X, especially when we simply don’t know, and do what we know needs to be done to really protect this community and region, and prohibit this invasive land use.  Then ban together behind solid protections based in the same science if you want, and defiantly stand our ground and do what it takes to politically and defiantly defend this community and region.

You may get there anyhow at some point. If the town and zoning committee are wrong and the  A-10 guessing game and appeasements and setbacks and the science get thrown out in the A-10 process where are you going to go then? What are you left with?  In the end you will be left with the political component some have desperately been trying to avoid with appeasement.  As a last defense you will be left with a nasty political fight and finally getting down to the nitty gritty of saying you actually don’t want the damn turbines here anyhow as the “reasonable” appeasement approach fails.

What do you actually want in reality?  Is it guessing, appeasement, and compromise, in the face of  having our home rule taken away?   If having our home rule power taken away is not what you want, then guessing,   appeasement, and compromise with the force that is trying to take it away and not taking a definitive stance for what you want seems very  badly misguided.

More Cape Vincent Republican Election Hoopla

I see we are right back to the typical Republican  election  hoopla of who will be the candidate to fill the town board seat after Mickey Orvis resigned.  In terms of the wind issue it doesn’t really matter much. Hirschey already has a super majority.  The 5^th seat either adds to an already Republican super majority or if a pro wind person wins they will be powerless just like Orvis.  In terms of the wind issue concerning the Comp Plan and Zoning and other upcoming wind decisions this is a lot of hoopla over nothing.

But here is the absolutely hilarious and hypocritical part.  Wiley at JLL blog and the Republicans have suddenly given any new candidate a litmus test with the following questions.

Do you support the Village/Town Comp Plan?

Do you support the Town of Cape Vincent zoning laws?

Do you support local rule by the Town Board who is duly elected by the citizens?

Typical CV Republican hypocrisy!!!!  And why is that so????? 

Because Wiley’s Republican candidates prior to the 2011 election didn’t have to answer any such litmus test thrust upon them, nor would they allow any such specific questioning of their stance. I tried many times to get all three Rep. candidates to outline a specific stance on wind development in CV.  There was NO response from those candidates in any specifics as Wiley is demanding now of any new candidate.  We were all supposed to go on blind faith that there was a “plan” and to get in line behind it.  A plan no candidate was told to define in specific terms.

Hell …even Wiley himself doesn’t hold himself up to this standard and completely and blindly support the new CV zoning law.  It was he after all that recently said on his blog that the town  may have made dangerous and unnecessary concessions to BP and VFW.

Looks like the old saying “do as I say not as I do”!!! 

Maybe a new candidate would think for themselves and  not support the current zoning law and comp plan and would in fact like stronger protections against wind development in Cape Vincent. 

Or maybe a candidate might think for themselves and  disagree with this irrational support of solar energy in both documents that needs the same subsidies as wind, still has large impacts when used on a commercial scale, and has WORSE energy production capacity factors than wind, and costs more. 

Maybe some new candidate would think for themselves and  like more detailed research on gas  hydrofracking before we outright ban it with no polling data or science. Because there was virtually none.  May be some candidate would see the serious inconsistency of banning hydrofracking and its impacts, and not industrial wind which is a similar threat to the community. 

Maybe some candidate would think for themselves and  like stronger property protections against industrial wind development for people in the CV interior where the current board members and zoning committee have unfairly shoved back the impacts of industrial wind energy. 

Maybe some candidate would not support this zoning setback game and would prefer to not appease the Article X process, but rather prohibit turbines outright, and also pass a resolution opposing Article X and wind development in the Lake as this current board refuses to do. 

Wiley’s questions are the epitome of hypocrisy, and the typical partisan,  blind, group think  get on the band wagon partisan crap that has absolutely  no depth and stifles critical thinking. I think any candidates that are confronted with this BS should start thinking for themselves and  tell Wiley and the Republican party they are not going to be held hostage by this group think nonsense.  

I don’t care if we have a woman of a man on the board.  I want someone who can think for themselves and see a little deeper into the realities and subtleties in the wind issue that Wiley is desperately trying to distort with this partisan crap.

Michelle Oswald might be a good person and possibly a good town board member, but she would have to do significantly better than this.  I have only met and talked to her briefly, but if she allows herself to be swept up  into this blind Republican partisan nonsense then she is not responsible, not thinking critically or clearly, AND not what we should have on our town board. And if she is to be a representative for women in CV or beyond by being the first woman on the CV town board, then to it would be a sad thing for her to be swept up in Wiley’s partisan group think agenda or simply fall in line with the new board and show she has no backbone to think for herself.  If there is now a gender component to argue in CV politics then I  don’t think that represents the women’s cause very well to suck up to anyone else’s blind  litmus test on anything, especially some guy with a Republican blog who thinks he can set the agenda for women in CV or anybody else. That to me seems to significantly defeat that whole purpose if gender is part of the argument now.  And BTW, isn’t it the Republicans that are supposedly waging a war on women????

There are serious questions to be asked and dealt with like I outline above, and I would hope any new candidate would have some back bone to challenge and ask questions of the new zoning and comp plan, and new board  instead of rolling over to the same old same old partisan group think. 

We don’t need another clone from either party or either gender,  pro or  anti wind  sitting there just taking up space and warming a seat using somebody else’s  script like the one Wiley wrote! 

That is the job of an actress, not a serious govt. official.

Wind Referendum?

I see that the idea of a referendum on industrial wind energy in Cape Vincent is being talked about again.  Of course it would have to be a non-binding referendum due to the fact that NY laws has no provision for a referendum on this type of matter.

But those anti wind  pushing a referendum might want to be careful what you wish for. 

First,  believe it or not, I think there are still a fair number of people in this community seasonal and local  that still don’t get it about the impacts of industrial wind. Many still hang on to their green guilt and think that the wind or solar idea is viable and reasonable energy climate solution. Even our town board and zoning committee has jumped on the solar band wagon despite it having nearly all the same negative issues as wind, and needs the same subsidy support.  The only thing that will wake them up is actual wind turbines in CV, and even then some won’t care and they will just stay silent and live with it.  After all we are living  in a “anonymous” community on the wind issue in CV to a great extent with many still living in fear of putting their names on their beliefs.

If you are assuming the last election is an accurate indicator for referendum results and that many many people are anti wind because the “supposed” anti wind candidates won, then you might want to think that through a little more clearly.  Although the last election was of course about wind in it’s own way, it was also a great deal about conflicts of interest…not about electing anti wind candidates. The Republican candidates even knew the ethics issue would play better than an anti wind platform.  If so many voters were anti wind and it was a lock, then why would they have backed away from an anti wind stance.  There was NO anti wind candidate, and no anti wind platform. There was no willingness to prohibit wind development.  In fact the new zoning law which is a direct result of the last election has provisions FOR industrial wind development in CV even though very limited. I think far too many people misinterpret the last election results as an anti wind victory or mandate or referendum.

One Republican candidate told me that in his 2011 summer election campaigning he was surprised that many seasonals were NOT as anti wind as he thought they might be, giving the farmers and the land owners the benefit of the doubt for using their land for income.  They just wanted it pushed back away from them. 

Then of course you have the Zogby poll as a referendum of sorts with 63%  of those polled being seasonal.  Everybody loves to beat up on or cherry pick the Zogby poll. A $10,000 poll by a very reputable pollster.  The results were not definitively anti wind by any means.  The “wind opposition” like to beat up on me saying by talking about the Zogby poll results as more pro than anti wind, that I am helping the pro wind side. That is a crock!!! It’s not my poll and not my results. It belongs to Mr. Hirschey, and the town board at that time.  In fact I thought it was a terrible idea, and that can  be verified by looking at the JLL blog archives from when that poll was first suggested and voted on.   And interestingly enough I had a phone conversation with Wiley at JLL back around that time where he assured me that he felt something like 70 5 or more of the community had turned anti wind.  That came nowhere close to the Zogby results.

My conclusion is that if you are dead set for the referendum idea thinking that it will be an anti wind sweep, you might want to re-evaluate that very carefully.  You could end up with BOTH a Zogby poll AND a referendum saying the community is not as anti wind as you think because they are not truly engaged or informed as they should be on the anti wind issue, or tainted by the prospect of money.

In the end we have had it’s not about polls or referendums.  I believe that CV leadership should stop screwing around and take the bull by the horns and show decisive leadership and prohibit wind development since despite the polls and any referendums and the uninformed or emotional opinions, the science and research and evidence is very clear that wind energy is a climate / energy failure, tax scam, with far too many negative impacts. Leadership often has the responsibility to be out front on issues like this and do what the evidence indicates is responsible.  In the CV region that would be to prohibit industrial wind and protect our region.

Cape Vincent Councilman Orvis Resigns

I give Wiley at the blog JLL credit for the "scoop' on this story.  Well, like many of us I had substantial disagreements with Mr. Orvis over the wind issue, but in the end I woud still like to thank him for his service and committment to the town despite those differences over wind development.

But it is a sad state of affairs into which he and all the rest of us were thrust over wind development in our town.

Just Give Me My Bag of Cash!!!

So the other day I asked the question on this blog  as to where is the Property Value Assurance Guarantee (PVA) in our zoning law that was such a point of discussion several months ago and further back?  Mr. Schneider and other’s on our town board  were promoting this idea heavily.  Mr. Schneider before he was elected to the town board even presented a letter to our town boards endorsing the idea.  The CV blogosphere immediately jumped on board indicating this was the best thing since sliced bread to mitigate the industrial wind property value impact.  And of course anyone who dared not march lock step (like myself) and started applying some actual reasoning to the idiocy of this idea  was immediately marginalized.

The noted property appraiser Michael McCann that reviewed the CV Wind Economic Committee’s report was suggesting a PVA as well. A quote from Mr. McCann.

“The applicant has not agreed to implement any reasonable measures to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the WET that result in value loss.

Property Value Guarantees are effective tools, if carefully designed to leave property owners “whole”, and even the LBNL author now recognizes the validity of a PVG.”

And a side note here.  I think it is extremely misguided to look at  this situation of property values and assume that stuffing some wind company cash into someone’s pocket is going to make them “ whole” after having to sell and leave a location they love and have so much emotional attachment to.  To me that represents a cold hearted major flaw in the mentality of people who can only measure being whole as being compensated financially.   After all in the end it is the emotional values in your property that make it valuable to you.  The view, the memories, the emotional stability of place and importance of the setting and belonging.  I think it is really absurd to believe that can simply be replaced with a bag of cash from the wind developer.

Now I noted this AM on both CV blogs, Pandora’s and JLL, are once again raising the property values question as related to industrial wind development and quoting McCann.  But I don’t see a word about the PVA from them unless you read well into McCann’s own report.  The blogs are not addressing the obvious absence of what once was being so heavily recommended by the “experts”   And geee it’s a funny thing that after all this property value hoopla and all this group think PVA hoopla that there is NO PVA in the new CV zoning laws.  So once again I will ask…what ever happened to that??????  A lot of time was spent on the CV Wind Economic Committee about property values and they came to essentially the same conclusion McCann did on a PVA. They supported the idea.

Under recommendations number 5 and 6 in the CV wind  economic report:

5. Require property value protection assurance.

6. Require a buyout plan for properties negatively impacted.

For some reason the PVA vanished.  And rightly so because it was and still is a really screwy notion.

Now I am not stupid.  I understand the implications of industrial wind on property values and the part it plays.  But when we going to grasp the to the realization of the far more important issue going on right in front of our noses.

We need to get our heads out of our checkbooks and realize that if all these wind developers get their way regionally  we will have a front row seat and be witness to the wholesale mass  environmental destruction of a beautiful and unique  region on a historical scale and it could all be endorsed by our State on behalf of these developers. Do you have any concept at all of the overwhelming corporate destructive precedent that could be set here right on our doorsteps??? THAT is the story and the insanity of what is happening here.

Yet we put blinders on and approach this from a ridiculous town by town myopic setback approach, and worry about our individual property values.   This is like worrying about the location and value of a deck chair on the Titanic!

What are you going to say to your grandkids if they ask were where you and what where you doing when much of NNY and the once beautiful, and environmentally precious and unique  Golden Crescent was destroyed by an industrial wind development tax scam and scandal? 

Are you going to tell them “Well geee I was primarily  worried  about my property and counting the cash the wind developer gave me to move out so they could continue destroying  the area!!!! Sounded like a good idea at the time!!!”

There has been talk about revolution and noisy protest against Article X if BP brings it here. In the context of the environmental disaster that could occur I think that is exactly what should happen.

Where Is The Accountability On That Old PVA Idea? - Is It Possible Somebody Was Wrong????

Back in March soon after I opened this blog I put up a post about the concept of a Property Value Assurance Guarantee ( PVA)  The basic idea of a PVA being that if you are driven from your home by the disturbing and overwhelming impacts of industrial wind development nearby that the town zoning would require the  wind company to compensate you for the drop in your property values if you chose to sell out.  This was promoted as a form of “zoning protection” for Cape Vincent property owners.

I have always found this to be a ridiculous idea, expressing that if the impact of the land use proposed was so invasive people would have to move away as a result that you had a much bigger zoning problem and should prohibit that use outright as the best protection.  To me  a PVA was just nonsense thinking and was one more way to dodge the real problem and not face up to it.  This PVA  line of thinking was promoted by some of our current town board members and others. This came up long before I opened my own blog and I opposed it on the other blogs and of course as you can imagine in came the swarms of nasty comments that I was out of touch, didn’t understand the problem, that we had to defer to the “experts”who  were promoting this idea etc etc etc.

Below is just one example of the typical comments I would received when I would  oppose the idea of a PVA by our new board.

“If the PVA comes up with our zoning committee I will applaud them for their foresight and encourage them to enact one. If you protest a PVA it would be a clear sign you just don’t get the big picture and that you think your opinion is more important than a real and comprehensive defense to the problem.”  

This was actually one of the more measured  comments I would receive.  Others of course would say I was a nut case, radical, lunatic etc and could not possibly understand the issue as our new town govt officials and experts did. 

But here is the thing about this PVA zoning discussion.  It evaporated!!!  Gone !!!  I  have looked through the zoning law several times and there is NO reference to a PVA anywhere.  Nothing, nada, zip!!!  And for a while this was THE mantra as you can see in the typical comment above. This was one of THE zoning savior ideas that at that time many thought could not be questioned.  It was sacred ground because it was promoted by some prominent people in our new govt. 

So…OK…where did that PVA go in our new CV zoning if it was the be all and end all as some claimed????  Is it possible that the “experts” on the zoning committee, and town board could have been in error in their judgment   about a PVA that was so heavily touted as the answer???? Is it possible that so many new govt supporters bought into the PVA idea so quickly and supported it with very little critical thought that they became group thinked and tunnel visioned  on the issue because some of the new prominent CV officials said they supported it and said it was the right idea.   Is it possible that the group think support and lack of willingness to question and analyze because of partisan political nonsense has led us astray on other zoning questions and approaches that seem to be so heavily set in stone and defended now????  That’s a rather disturbing thought!!! 

Or is it as the commenter above suggests about my analysis of the PVA as nonsense, that in the end it was a clear sign that they just didn’t get the big picture either by dropping the PVA????  

 I’ll tell you what I think likely happened.  The lawyer probably told them much the same thing myself and a few others had told them, that the PVA was a screwy idea and in the end was so far off base it was not even defendable.  Like I said, at one point this was a big ticket item brought before the planning board and town board by one prominent councilman and latched onto by numerous others on the blogs.

Interesting how things just evaporate so conveniently when the “experts” get it wrong.  Funny how after all this hoopla over a PVA and strong endorsement as a “must do” option that now you don’t see any discussion of this anywhere else.  No accountability???? 

Is it possible the “experts” on our zoning committee and town board  might have gotten some other things wrong too in their approaches to the CV wind zoning problem?  Things that seemed to be so set in stone at one time as an absolute that are  not to be questioned? 

Is it possible the town board and the zoning committee, and their unquestioning supporters  might  also  have it wrong in their approach to appeasing the NY PSC and Article X with a setback zoning law that has also been touted just like the PVA at one time as the must do absolute  answer?????

Size Matters!!!

The wind insanity just gets better and better.   I noted over on the JLL blog that Iberdrola is suddenly proposing a 376 MW wind factory in Clayton.  What happened to the 96 MW that was proposed?  BP has upped their wind  proposal for Cape Vincent to 285 MW. That’s 661 MWs total.   It appears the wind developers are getting a little more bold now that they think they have it in the bag with Article X.  Or is it a bluff and they will shoot for something less in reality after they scare the crap out of everyone?

But let’s look at this a bit.  How does 661 MW play out in turbine numbers.

That would be 440  - 1.5 MW turbines, or

330 – 2MW turbines, or

220 – 3MW turbines.

Of course all this gets added to the current 86 turbines on Wolfe Is.  So the worst case local scenario with the 1.5MW turbines could be 526 turbines!

Now I think it’s very erroneous to think that less of the bigger 500 ft plus turbines makes this any better. You either spread the impact out horizontally with the small turbines, or you spread it upward and outward with the larger taller turbines.

A couple of commenters at JLL saw it this way:

Anonymous said...

285 divided by 1.5 = 190 turbines. What happened to the plan for 146 turbines. Oh -could it be possible the turbines will be bigger/taller with larger output? Probably!

Anonymous said...

yes

the gross peter said they were looking at the bigger and taller 2.5's

They not only want to spoil our town they want to do it big time

Yup… now your getting the picture. If you think the new Cape Vincent Comp Plan and the new Zoning Law are the end of the game, you might want to stay tuned and we might want to  warm up that Article X protest “revolution” some people on the blogs have been talking about.