Do you remember the grassroots organization called Coalition On Article X (COAX NY) ?
http://coaxny.org/
This is a grass roots organization formed to oppose and keep an eye on Cuomo's Article X legislation.
Here is their mission statement and purpose in their own words. The underlining emphasis is mine , not COAX.
The Coalition on Article X mission statement
"As a diverse, grassroots, statewide coalition we will act as advocates for the Towns of New York State that have lost their home rule to Albany bureaucrats in critical community planning and zoning decisions."
PURPOSE
"Our purpose as Coalition on Article X (“COAX”), is to protect and reinstate “Home Rule” regarding siting of energy facilities and to involve the public, elected officials and appointed officials in this cause." And remember this last underlined quote for my discussion below. It is important!
The following are not necessarily all together in one letter or comment, but from various places on the COAX Website
“What’s at stake is our long-held, Constitutional right to “home rule” — the right to decide for ourselves what we want our communities to look like 20, 40, and 60 years down the road."
"Article 10, as currently written, has put the decision-making regarding the siting of all energy facilities in New York State into the hands of five (5) distant, unelected Albany bureaucrats. Neither we, nor our duly-elected local officials, will have a vote on these very important matters."
"Make no mistake, Big Corporate has been lobbying the state hard to make changes to this law that best suits them and their bottom line, and completely removes our right to self-determination through Municipal Home Rule.”
Every New Yorker should revile this bill and its’ passage process. This bill was passed with zero transparency, deliberately kept under the radar by the legislature because the assembly and senate knew how outraged the towns and counties would be once they learned the contentious details. The Power NY Act was passed in only one day — with absolutely NO public input! While Governor Andrew Cuomo ran on promises of upholding only the highest of ethics standards and transparency in government, the passage of the Power NY Act and the theft of freedoms it includes have proven otherwise. "
Now as you read these things do you think COAX NY would agree with the statement from our town of Cape Vincent officials that the Art X rules are ..fair and impartial????
But here is another quote that I particularly like where COAX makes several recommendations to towns on how to unite and show opposition to Art. X taking their critical rights away. And as I understand it the the directors of COAX are veteran NY wind fighters. So I would say their advice should be well taken and credible!
"4.) Work together with your respective Boards to develop and pass a resolution AGAINST Article X!"
Well isn't that an interesting recommendation?
Twice last fall I went before our CV town board to try to encourage them to pass just such a resolution in opposition to Art X, exactly as the Jefferson County Legislators had done earlier. They would have NO part of it and weren't really even willing to discuss it. Even in a private meeting myself and Dave Lamora met with Supervisor Hirschey and Councilman John Byrne and Mr. Gebo the town attorney to try to convince them to among other tactics pass an opposition resolution to Art X. Again Mr. Hirschey and Councilman Byrne would have no part of it.
Now notice I mentioned that CV Councilman John Byrne was in this meeting. That is important. He was also present when I proposed the resolution to the board in the privilege of the floor portion of tow town board meetings.
So why is this important to know? Well..last I knew Councilman Byrne was an active member of COAX!!! Now to be fair maybe he is no longer with the COAX group or no longer supports their beliefs against Art X.
The reason I say that is because if you review the letter the town sent to the NYPSC where they make the statement that the Art. X rules are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, our very own Councilman Byrne's signature is clearly shown on that document!
It seems one would have to conclude as a result that he supports the town's belief that the Art. X process and rules are fair and impartial. It would seem this is very contrary to the mission of the COAX group he either belongs to or did at one time. I know I am baffled! Well not really, we will save that for election time!
During the two times I presented the idea of a resolution to oppose Art. X Councilman Byrne sat quietly, he listened respectfully, but never supported the idea, never called for a discussion of the idea among his fellow board members, or for a committee to draft the language of a resolution ( which would have been easy since I had one drafted that was exactly like the County's) and certainly did not get behind me or the idea, even though his group seems to consider it a very important recommendation, and even though our County apparently took the COAX recommendation and passed an Art. X opposition resolution!
What we get instead is a public statement to the NYPSC from our town baord including Councilman Byrne that the Art. X system and rules are fair and impartial!!!
Now I know right away supporters of this CV govt will immediately try to claim I am just attacking Councilman John Byrne. Not the case. Does any of this make sense to you?
I believe since Mr. Byrne is an elected official (who I supported and voted for when he came to my residence and personally asked for my vote ) and as a result has to be accountable to the public for his actions and his beliefs. In my opinion there is something here that seriously does not add up on a credibility level, and it is important for a public official to account for what appears to be such a glaring inconsistency, and that is not an attack but a reasonable question. I know that reasonable questions seem not to be allowed by our current govt. or their supporters but I am going to ask this one anyhow!
This glaring inconsistency makes me wonder how clear the judgment is of our town officials especially Mr. Byrne at this point. Did he not consider the cross fire his associations and the town comments he supports would put him in?
More importantly based on Councilman Byrne's COAX association and his important position as a town officer directly at the heart of the NY wind and Art. X battle, why is he not more aggressive to oppose Art X, but instead goes along with it AND signs a letter declaring Art X is fair and impartial?
I would have thought the administrators at COAX NY would have popped a blood vessel by now after seeing one of their members signing a document declaring the Art. X rules are fair and impartial. Seems like the Cape Vincent officials including Councilman Byrne, one of COAX's own members, just sucker punched them right in the head!!!
Unfortunately these are not the types of examinations you will see from the other CV blogs.
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.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
One Question
Since the Town officials made the statement that they thought the Art X rules were fair and impartial, my anger over that statement is obvious. So without my usual hard edged commentarty and the reaction it brings back, let's not lose focus. Let's just get down to the fundamental and I believe very critical question that now I think everyone in this community should weigh in on. It is important because I believe it goes directly to the heart of the philosophy of how we fight BP and whether we will be successful.
Do you think, as our Town Board and most other town Cape Vincent officials have stated in a letter to the NYPSC, that the Article X process and rules, that were lobbied by powerful corprorate and political interests, to strip away one of our most important community rights to land use decisions...are fair and impartial?
If you are not willing to publicly answer that question, and I won't hold my breath that anyone will...at least very seriously ponder it for a while in the context of what BP and the Art. X process has already done to our community and then discuss it with our town officials!!!
Do you think, as our Town Board and most other town Cape Vincent officials have stated in a letter to the NYPSC, that the Article X process and rules, that were lobbied by powerful corprorate and political interests, to strip away one of our most important community rights to land use decisions...are fair and impartial?
If you are not willing to publicly answer that question, and I won't hold my breath that anyone will...at least very seriously ponder it for a while in the context of what BP and the Art. X process has already done to our community and then discuss it with our town officials!!!
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
A Response to a Readers Comments
I wanted to respond to one readers comments, that among personal attacks was at least willing to engage on some of the issues I raised. But it was too long for the comment section to accept. So I am posting it here. First I was inflamed when I became aware of the town's statement, so I will at the advice of a good friend try to tone it down as best I can!
First here is the readers comments. They are listed as anonymous 2:55 under the post with the baby's picture
Anonymous April 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM
"Since you guy have spent any time in a court room or practiced law, I am not sure why you would profess that the town has given up their right for legal action if the process turns out not to be fair or partial.
To dumb it down for you, that’s like saying I thought my husband or wife, was fair and partial when the marriage took place, but now I want a divorce. You are espousing that a divorce cannot be filed, let alone won on the grounds that one or the other turned out to be unfair and/or unreasonable. That is complete and utter hog wash AND YOU KNOW IT. And if you don’t know it, you should keep your mouth shut when it comes to offering legal opinions.
Your line of thinking and the attacks you use to drive them home is very myopic and stated only to support your position. Now that is what I call unfair and unreasonable by any standard.
We all get it, you don’t believe the direction the Town Board is heading down is the right path, and you’re surely entitled to your opinion. But it is unfair and unreasonable to call the Town Board desperate, irrational, naïve, out of touch, or to state that they indulge themselves in an illusion to support their position, just because you think your methods are superior to the direction they are taking.
To quote one of your remarks to Julia Gosier, “These two town boards were duly elected by majority citizens of each community.” It is therefore unfair and unreasonable to viciously attack their character, acumen or their commitment to fight off the onslaught of industrial wind just because they don’t follow your advice or direction. It is therefore evident by your own words that you are a hypocrite. You might want to look in the mirror and ask yourself who is really out of touch with reality here.
I have taken the time to read over your blog and what I see is a narcissistic man desperate to have his opinion heard and prove to the world that he is right. I suspect it is by no coincidence that you ended up living in the town that was one time destined to be the home of Napoleon Bonaparte.
The good news with your blog is, that should the state read it, and that is a big if, they will realize just how astute our town board is and understand that being fair and reasonable is the right thing to do for one of the town’s they represent. If they don’t, then regardless of what you would like us to believe, the Town Board still has the right to litigate the matter in court."
Now my comments back to 2:55
2:55
Thanks for your comments and engaging in the discussion. Now go back and carefully read my post or comments and you will see you mis-interpreted something fundamental about what I and D.L, said.
Your right...I am not a lawyer, but in this wind battle I have had the opportunity to interact with numerous lawyers and their thinking both in the CV wind issue AND here in AZ. That would include making a case with others to one of AG Cuomo's top lawyers and making a detailed case with others to his investigators. It would also include following all the WPEG law suits and the resulting court decisions very carefully and adding information to some of them. That doesn’t make me a legal expert, but I think it is enough to form a reasonable opinion. But keep in mind that ALL of the CV town officials are not lawyers either yet are making verty critical decsions on our future. And yes I am aware that they get legal advice. But that does not mean that advice will always be correct or solid. Much of this legal stuff is nothing more than a crap shoot! It really comes down to what legal counsel thinks they can get away with. And we KNOW that often they are just plain WRONG! But that is not the point.
The point is I NEVER said the town had given up their right to litigation. So your divorce analogy is not an appropriate analogy. What I said was I believed they had really weakened their potential legal defense if they chose a litigation direction. I DID NOT say they gave up a right to litigate!
My experience says you can bet any lawyer worth their expensive law degree would drag out this fair and impartial statement against any litigation from the town. Why wouldn’t they? Consistency is one point a good WPEG lawyer one time drove home to us. He made the point he would not go into court with his clients all over the map in their approach!
If you go to court what are you going to go after? Seems to me it would exactly be about the system or rules NOT being fair and impartial in some way as an actual basis. I mean isn’t that the whole point of going to court anyhow? If you thought everything had been “fair and impartial”…why would you go to litigation in the first place.
But let’s look directly at Art X law. Here is what it says about litigation and what the court can consider under Art X.
"2. The grounds for and scope of review of the court shall be limited to
whether the decision and opinion of the board are:
(a) in conformity with the constitution, laws and regulations of the state and the united states;
(b) supported by substantial evidence in the record and matters of judicial notice properly considered and applied in the opinion;
(c) within the board's statutory jurisdiction or authority;
(d) made in accordance with procedures set forth in this article or
established by rule or regulation pursuant to this article;
(e) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; or
(f) made pursuant to a process that afforded meaningful involvement of
citizens affected by the facility regardless of age, race, color,
national origin and income.
3. Except as herein provided article seventy-eight of the civil practice law
and rules shall apply to appeals taken hereunder."
So what does all this essentially say? Do you see anything about sound and bats and birds or setbacks??? NO. It says that the court is essentially going to look at the Art X PROCESS, or rules if you will, and if they were applied correctly. That is a limited scope. Just as the court did in two other WPEG cases, on utilities and the suit against the Edsall planning board’s final acceptance of the Acciona FEIS.
It was about rules regulations and the process, not the noise, birds, setbacks, and all that stuff. And that is where I think the fatal flaw is in their approach. The way I read this and other court decisions I have been involved in is the litigation is going to have to address flaws in the process and rules. And that is what the appeals court is basically restricted too.
I have two WPEG court decisions right here on my desk that clearly show that the courts aren’t going to get into the detailed arguments of birds, bats, sound and health. It will be all about the process and even the Art X law above says so. So in my view it is very unwise to be up front claiming the process is already fair and impartial.
So if the litigation comes down to the court looking at flaws in the rules and regulations how does it help you if up front you have already declared those rules and that process is fair and impartial?
In their best interest the town instead of bending over backwards to try to look “reasonable” and appease the State should have just kept quiet on this fair and impartial comment!! And some probably don't think it is a big deal. I think it is a REAL BIG DEAL! Of course this all assumes the town would even go to court. I think it is just as likely they will throw up there hands and say we did everything we could, and it's not worth litigating!
Note also that line ( e ) about arbitrary and capricious and abuse of discretion. Apparently our board has already consented by their comment that before they have even set foot inside a court room with an argument that the Art X board will not be arbitrary and capricious, yet they haven't even been handed a decision to know if that is the case or not. That could be a defense to be used. So on one hand you are saying up front the rules were fair and impartial, and then in the next breath you are in court saying it was all arbitrary and capricious????? Have our town official become so over confident in facing the extremes of political power and money in Albany they can confidently say the rules are FAIR in an attempt to appease those run amuck Albany powers who are running around removing community rights with the overwhelming support of both parties in the NYS legislature????!!! Wow that is real bravado!!!
A couple other points on your comments. Where does it say that because I voted for elected officials and they are a duly elected board that I am suddenly required to not challenge their decision and do so with a hard nosed approach? Funny thing that didn't see to matter to WPEG or anyone when I was doing it on their behalf against the previous conflicted govt! Not sure that represents the intent of democracy or even open and transparent govt. And the scary part is that NO ONE in town except pro wind is challenging any of their decsions. So you mean to tell me that with an issue as hot, critical and complicated as this , NO ONE has any alternative input other than me and Dave Lamora and a very very few others? That doesn't even seem rational!
You are also correct that town officials have not taken my advice. In fact that would be the zoning committee completely and willfully ignoring specifically one citizen’s two 25 page detailed papers on my research about the alternative of banning wind development simply because they didn’t like my approach. You want to explain to me how an official town committee targeting and marginalizing one citizen adds up to the promise of open govt. democracy, and THEM being FAIR and IMPARTIAL!!! Maybe they should not be so quick to make a judgment on what is or isn't fair and impartial! In that case they were NEITHER!
And you avoided the real question.
Do you think that a system that was lobbied by inordinate corporate power and money and influenctial political interests to remove certain critical community rights is a system that is somehow "fair and impartial y any stretch of the imagination?
THAT is the real question and the root of my gripe. It is just beyond belief that a town that has been directly stripped of it's critical right to create and enforce it's own laws by a big brother govt. would even consider saying such a thing and so many town officials would consent to sign such a declaration!
It seems that is just significantly disrespecting the vast majority of people, even who support the current CV govt. but also clearly realize that Art X has been anything but fair and impartial since it's inception.
And let me give you a concrete example of what I mean. At the Oct 23rd 2012 meeting the many people that turned out to protest BP and Art X and support the CV and Lyme officials against BP and Art X , they had a huge sign in protest of Cuomo and Art X...
...and it sure as hell did not say we thought the Art X rules were FAIR AND IMPARTIAL!!!
I was a particpant in that protest even with my objections to our town board's direction on wind zoning. Had I known the town officials would do an about face and declare the Art X rules we were so vehemently protesting were fair and impartial, then I would not have wasted my time.
To me if nothing else that is a siginificant slap in the face to people who clearly recognized Art X as a disasterous big govt over reach that could ultimately destroy our community.
It seems to me that with the town's unresearched and arbitrary support of an industrial solar project brought to us by BP of all companies, and now a declaration that the Art X rules are fair and impartial, somewhere they have come of the rails in their efforts to appear "reasonable"!
Their statement may have appearred reasonable to Albany and was just wht Albany wanted to hear. But it was NOT reasonable to others...many who are probably too afraid to speak up because of the trashing they see I get for any challenge to the current govt.
First here is the readers comments. They are listed as anonymous 2:55 under the post with the baby's picture
Anonymous April 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM
"Since you guy have spent any time in a court room or practiced law, I am not sure why you would profess that the town has given up their right for legal action if the process turns out not to be fair or partial.
To dumb it down for you, that’s like saying I thought my husband or wife, was fair and partial when the marriage took place, but now I want a divorce. You are espousing that a divorce cannot be filed, let alone won on the grounds that one or the other turned out to be unfair and/or unreasonable. That is complete and utter hog wash AND YOU KNOW IT. And if you don’t know it, you should keep your mouth shut when it comes to offering legal opinions.
Your line of thinking and the attacks you use to drive them home is very myopic and stated only to support your position. Now that is what I call unfair and unreasonable by any standard.
We all get it, you don’t believe the direction the Town Board is heading down is the right path, and you’re surely entitled to your opinion. But it is unfair and unreasonable to call the Town Board desperate, irrational, naïve, out of touch, or to state that they indulge themselves in an illusion to support their position, just because you think your methods are superior to the direction they are taking.
To quote one of your remarks to Julia Gosier, “These two town boards were duly elected by majority citizens of each community.” It is therefore unfair and unreasonable to viciously attack their character, acumen or their commitment to fight off the onslaught of industrial wind just because they don’t follow your advice or direction. It is therefore evident by your own words that you are a hypocrite. You might want to look in the mirror and ask yourself who is really out of touch with reality here.
I have taken the time to read over your blog and what I see is a narcissistic man desperate to have his opinion heard and prove to the world that he is right. I suspect it is by no coincidence that you ended up living in the town that was one time destined to be the home of Napoleon Bonaparte.
The good news with your blog is, that should the state read it, and that is a big if, they will realize just how astute our town board is and understand that being fair and reasonable is the right thing to do for one of the town’s they represent. If they don’t, then regardless of what you would like us to believe, the Town Board still has the right to litigate the matter in court."
Now my comments back to 2:55
2:55
Thanks for your comments and engaging in the discussion. Now go back and carefully read my post or comments and you will see you mis-interpreted something fundamental about what I and D.L, said.
Your right...I am not a lawyer, but in this wind battle I have had the opportunity to interact with numerous lawyers and their thinking both in the CV wind issue AND here in AZ. That would include making a case with others to one of AG Cuomo's top lawyers and making a detailed case with others to his investigators. It would also include following all the WPEG law suits and the resulting court decisions very carefully and adding information to some of them. That doesn’t make me a legal expert, but I think it is enough to form a reasonable opinion. But keep in mind that ALL of the CV town officials are not lawyers either yet are making verty critical decsions on our future. And yes I am aware that they get legal advice. But that does not mean that advice will always be correct or solid. Much of this legal stuff is nothing more than a crap shoot! It really comes down to what legal counsel thinks they can get away with. And we KNOW that often they are just plain WRONG! But that is not the point.
The point is I NEVER said the town had given up their right to litigation. So your divorce analogy is not an appropriate analogy. What I said was I believed they had really weakened their potential legal defense if they chose a litigation direction. I DID NOT say they gave up a right to litigate!
My experience says you can bet any lawyer worth their expensive law degree would drag out this fair and impartial statement against any litigation from the town. Why wouldn’t they? Consistency is one point a good WPEG lawyer one time drove home to us. He made the point he would not go into court with his clients all over the map in their approach!
If you go to court what are you going to go after? Seems to me it would exactly be about the system or rules NOT being fair and impartial in some way as an actual basis. I mean isn’t that the whole point of going to court anyhow? If you thought everything had been “fair and impartial”…why would you go to litigation in the first place.
But let’s look directly at Art X law. Here is what it says about litigation and what the court can consider under Art X.
"2. The grounds for and scope of review of the court shall be limited to
whether the decision and opinion of the board are:
(a) in conformity with the constitution, laws and regulations of the state and the united states;
(b) supported by substantial evidence in the record and matters of judicial notice properly considered and applied in the opinion;
(c) within the board's statutory jurisdiction or authority;
(d) made in accordance with procedures set forth in this article or
established by rule or regulation pursuant to this article;
(e) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; or
(f) made pursuant to a process that afforded meaningful involvement of
citizens affected by the facility regardless of age, race, color,
national origin and income.
3. Except as herein provided article seventy-eight of the civil practice law
and rules shall apply to appeals taken hereunder."
So what does all this essentially say? Do you see anything about sound and bats and birds or setbacks??? NO. It says that the court is essentially going to look at the Art X PROCESS, or rules if you will, and if they were applied correctly. That is a limited scope. Just as the court did in two other WPEG cases, on utilities and the suit against the Edsall planning board’s final acceptance of the Acciona FEIS.
It was about rules regulations and the process, not the noise, birds, setbacks, and all that stuff. And that is where I think the fatal flaw is in their approach. The way I read this and other court decisions I have been involved in is the litigation is going to have to address flaws in the process and rules. And that is what the appeals court is basically restricted too.
I have two WPEG court decisions right here on my desk that clearly show that the courts aren’t going to get into the detailed arguments of birds, bats, sound and health. It will be all about the process and even the Art X law above says so. So in my view it is very unwise to be up front claiming the process is already fair and impartial.
So if the litigation comes down to the court looking at flaws in the rules and regulations how does it help you if up front you have already declared those rules and that process is fair and impartial?
In their best interest the town instead of bending over backwards to try to look “reasonable” and appease the State should have just kept quiet on this fair and impartial comment!! And some probably don't think it is a big deal. I think it is a REAL BIG DEAL! Of course this all assumes the town would even go to court. I think it is just as likely they will throw up there hands and say we did everything we could, and it's not worth litigating!
Note also that line ( e ) about arbitrary and capricious and abuse of discretion. Apparently our board has already consented by their comment that before they have even set foot inside a court room with an argument that the Art X board will not be arbitrary and capricious, yet they haven't even been handed a decision to know if that is the case or not. That could be a defense to be used. So on one hand you are saying up front the rules were fair and impartial, and then in the next breath you are in court saying it was all arbitrary and capricious????? Have our town official become so over confident in facing the extremes of political power and money in Albany they can confidently say the rules are FAIR in an attempt to appease those run amuck Albany powers who are running around removing community rights with the overwhelming support of both parties in the NYS legislature????!!! Wow that is real bravado!!!
A couple other points on your comments. Where does it say that because I voted for elected officials and they are a duly elected board that I am suddenly required to not challenge their decision and do so with a hard nosed approach? Funny thing that didn't see to matter to WPEG or anyone when I was doing it on their behalf against the previous conflicted govt! Not sure that represents the intent of democracy or even open and transparent govt. And the scary part is that NO ONE in town except pro wind is challenging any of their decsions. So you mean to tell me that with an issue as hot, critical and complicated as this , NO ONE has any alternative input other than me and Dave Lamora and a very very few others? That doesn't even seem rational!
You are also correct that town officials have not taken my advice. In fact that would be the zoning committee completely and willfully ignoring specifically one citizen’s two 25 page detailed papers on my research about the alternative of banning wind development simply because they didn’t like my approach. You want to explain to me how an official town committee targeting and marginalizing one citizen adds up to the promise of open govt. democracy, and THEM being FAIR and IMPARTIAL!!! Maybe they should not be so quick to make a judgment on what is or isn't fair and impartial! In that case they were NEITHER!
And you avoided the real question.
Do you think that a system that was lobbied by inordinate corporate power and money and influenctial political interests to remove certain critical community rights is a system that is somehow "fair and impartial y any stretch of the imagination?
THAT is the real question and the root of my gripe. It is just beyond belief that a town that has been directly stripped of it's critical right to create and enforce it's own laws by a big brother govt. would even consider saying such a thing and so many town officials would consent to sign such a declaration!
It seems that is just significantly disrespecting the vast majority of people, even who support the current CV govt. but also clearly realize that Art X has been anything but fair and impartial since it's inception.
And let me give you a concrete example of what I mean. At the Oct 23rd 2012 meeting the many people that turned out to protest BP and Art X and support the CV and Lyme officials against BP and Art X , they had a huge sign in protest of Cuomo and Art X...
...and it sure as hell did not say we thought the Art X rules were FAIR AND IMPARTIAL!!!
I was a particpant in that protest even with my objections to our town board's direction on wind zoning. Had I known the town officials would do an about face and declare the Art X rules we were so vehemently protesting were fair and impartial, then I would not have wasted my time.
To me if nothing else that is a siginificant slap in the face to people who clearly recognized Art X as a disasterous big govt over reach that could ultimately destroy our community.
It seems to me that with the town's unresearched and arbitrary support of an industrial solar project brought to us by BP of all companies, and now a declaration that the Art X rules are fair and impartial, somewhere they have come of the rails in their efforts to appear "reasonable"!
Their statement may have appearred reasonable to Albany and was just wht Albany wanted to hear. But it was NOT reasonable to others...many who are probably too afraid to speak up because of the trashing they see I get for any challenge to the current govt.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Letter to the NYPSC From Julia Gosier
Posted below is a letter from Julia Gosier of the Town of Lyme. In my opinion Ms. Gosier seems really confused if she is one of the spokespersons for pro wind. I have highlighted the confusing part in red.
Dear Mr. Cohen,
My husband and I are long-standing residents of the Town of Lyme and volunteer in fire service, EMS, Chamber of Commerce and many other local organizations. Three generations of our family have gone to Lyme Central School. Just as our friends in Cape Vincent, we know industrial wind can help sustain our small schools.
We have read the preliminary scoping statement for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm and feel it is thorough and well done.
We are however, very concerned about the lack of a level playing field in the names being offered for the ad hoc committee.
I am enclosing a letter which was sent to each member of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators in hopes that they would encourage their legislative chairwoman Carolyn Fitzpatrick to include a person knowledgeable in local agriculture as a nominee to the siting board's ad hoc membership. We have found no evidence that the matter was ever officially discussed. Ms. Fitzpatrick simply avoided her responsibility and endorsed the very questionable names put forth by Cape Vincent Supervisor Urban Hershey.
Those who tell you that the majority of people in our two towns don't want industrial wind are incorrect. They simply yell louder and longer.
Please help us get industrial wind in our neighborhood. It's ironic that we are relying on the state to give us back the "home rule" that our two town boards continue to take away from us.
Sincerely,
Julia Gosier
Mrs. Gosier,
You really need to at least get your basic facts straight before you post a letter to an important State agency!
I highly suggest you re-read the Power NY/ Art X Legislation so you can at least attempt a coherent argument. The two town boards of Lyme and Cape Vincent DID NOT take away your "home rule" and they have NO POWER to give it back to you on the wind issue. It is absurd that you don't recognize that the State you are begging to give back home rule was who took it away in the first place and has NO intention of honoring your request to please give it back.
What is really "IRONIC" as you suggest is that you fail to grasp this simple straight forward concept and then would write it to the State that took our home rule away. Can you explain your statement as to how you expect the State is going to give you back the very home rule power they took away with overwhelming support from both parties in the NY legislature?
The problem you people have in the pro wind faction is after 7 years you simply fail badly to grasp the fundamentals and realities and this statement in your letter is a prime example.
These two town boards were duly elected by a majority citizens of each community. Oh yeah I know about the seasonal vote blah blah blah. But consider who inflamed that season group. It was your pro wind actions to make war on the seasonal community and entrench and steadfastly refuse to consider anything else other than what BP wanted. You want to blame some one for taking your home rule? Then blame BP who in my opinion it appears you gave your brains and true home rule to! Probably the brilliant assessment of BP, Marion Trieste and your group Voters For Wind.
Just like when pro wind stood by as certain individuals in your cause passed an illegal voting law. Then when the top lawyer in the entire state ( NYAG Schneiderman ) declares it is unconstitutional Mason and Mason dig in and refuse to vote to rescind it. It was an outright frontal attack on the seasonal community and their perfectly legal right to vote. Then you wonder how and why these boards got elected... and become so disoriented you still think THEY are your problem taking your home rule away. They had NOTHING to do with the removal of your home rule. Get a grip!!!
Where you are really disoriented is when you believe that just because these duly elected boards appear to disagree with your cause that somehow this represents a removal of your home rule. You have to be kidding! That is POLITICS pure and simple and you lost because the people on your side were, and continue to act irresponsibly and recklessly and take faulty ridiculous advice!
And the bottom line is TOO BAD...YOU LOST!!!! You are now the sum total of your behavior and Trieste's advice. Hey...how is that working out for you?
And if you want to spout off an argument that these boards have to be fair and represent everyone, that is just as ridiculous too. I and many people don't vote for candidates in an elections, especially on hot issues like industrial wind, to have them fairly represent the other side. I want them to represent MY side, not the other side and the same would be the case for you and you KNOW it!
And anyone who makes that argument they are expecting fair representation is simply out of touch with political reality and what elections are really about and why we vote. The pro wind people in CV and Lyme sure as hell didn't vote so they could win and then the town board they elected would fairly represent the wind opposition side!
That is absurd and you know it!
And I am sure if your side won and controlled the town boards that you would not give a rats ass about representing me, or the wind opposition either. Nor would you give a rats ass if I complained that because of an election I thought you "took away my home rule"
And this was blatantly proven over and over again in CV with the old officials repeated marginalization of the wind opposition view point, right to the point of shutting down public meetings and our voices.
No matter who it was or is now... you need to face facts that you have repeatedly been given THE WORST ADVICE POSSIBLE!!! And you continue to take it. AND THAT IS YOUR FUNDAMENTAL PR AND STRATEGY DISASTER!!!
If you are paying Marion Trieste you should go get your money back. How has that worked out so far for you? If it had worked out you wouldn't be begging the State to ensure the towns give back you home rule with the fantasy that the town boards took it away!!!!
Your own actions are the reason you are where you are without turbines spinning, which if you had acted reasonably before many of us caught on, and fell for the brilliant idea to inflamed the seasonal vote, turbines might be up and spinning today.
What you fail to grasp is that we are basically ALL in the same boat when it comes to Art X. It is what took your home rule and community zoning rights away from all of us and, YOU are likely to end up just as much a victim as the rest of us who oppose wind.
NO ONE WINS when our rights to determine our own community futures are taken away.
In Cape Vincent at least, that old town board had several years to develop what many might have considered a fair wind zoning law that might have addressed many concerns. But what did they do? They entrenched and REFUSED to take any other path than what the wind companies dictated and that destroyed several attempts to come up with a wind law. If you think these current town boards are your problem...then you need to think again.
But by your own behavior I seriously doubt you will examine any of this, and will just keep distancing yourself from reality, and the possibility of truly directing your own future and fate and the future of our communities. And in your refusal to grasp reality, you and pro wind continue to blindly attempt to find desperate ways to blame this mess on the two existing town boards or on anyone you can scape goat to cover your failings and terrible decisions.
You might want to sit down and take a hard look at where that has gotten you so far.
When your little wind fantasy bubble , reinforced by your pro wind faction and advisers, has you so confused to think that legally and democratically elected town boards are who removed your home rule, when in fact it was the State, it should demonstrate to you how fundamentally out of touch your pro wind side is.
You will be far better of if you ever figure out that the State and Art X is not your friend. They are not going to run to your rescue and reinstate home your, no matter who you think took it away. The only true salvation from this Art X over reach is from within our own communities under a democratic system to determine our own futures, even if one side or the other doesn't like the outcome.
That is something fundamental both the Lyme and CV govts. need to grasp as well, and soon!
Dear Mr. Cohen,
My husband and I are long-standing residents of the Town of Lyme and volunteer in fire service, EMS, Chamber of Commerce and many other local organizations. Three generations of our family have gone to Lyme Central School. Just as our friends in Cape Vincent, we know industrial wind can help sustain our small schools.
We have read the preliminary scoping statement for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm and feel it is thorough and well done.
We are however, very concerned about the lack of a level playing field in the names being offered for the ad hoc committee.
I am enclosing a letter which was sent to each member of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators in hopes that they would encourage their legislative chairwoman Carolyn Fitzpatrick to include a person knowledgeable in local agriculture as a nominee to the siting board's ad hoc membership. We have found no evidence that the matter was ever officially discussed. Ms. Fitzpatrick simply avoided her responsibility and endorsed the very questionable names put forth by Cape Vincent Supervisor Urban Hershey.
Those who tell you that the majority of people in our two towns don't want industrial wind are incorrect. They simply yell louder and longer.
Please help us get industrial wind in our neighborhood. It's ironic that we are relying on the state to give us back the "home rule" that our two town boards continue to take away from us.
Sincerely,
Julia Gosier
Mrs. Gosier,
You really need to at least get your basic facts straight before you post a letter to an important State agency!
I highly suggest you re-read the Power NY/ Art X Legislation so you can at least attempt a coherent argument. The two town boards of Lyme and Cape Vincent DID NOT take away your "home rule" and they have NO POWER to give it back to you on the wind issue. It is absurd that you don't recognize that the State you are begging to give back home rule was who took it away in the first place and has NO intention of honoring your request to please give it back.
What is really "IRONIC" as you suggest is that you fail to grasp this simple straight forward concept and then would write it to the State that took our home rule away. Can you explain your statement as to how you expect the State is going to give you back the very home rule power they took away with overwhelming support from both parties in the NY legislature?
The problem you people have in the pro wind faction is after 7 years you simply fail badly to grasp the fundamentals and realities and this statement in your letter is a prime example.
These two town boards were duly elected by a majority citizens of each community. Oh yeah I know about the seasonal vote blah blah blah. But consider who inflamed that season group. It was your pro wind actions to make war on the seasonal community and entrench and steadfastly refuse to consider anything else other than what BP wanted. You want to blame some one for taking your home rule? Then blame BP who in my opinion it appears you gave your brains and true home rule to! Probably the brilliant assessment of BP, Marion Trieste and your group Voters For Wind.
Just like when pro wind stood by as certain individuals in your cause passed an illegal voting law. Then when the top lawyer in the entire state ( NYAG Schneiderman ) declares it is unconstitutional Mason and Mason dig in and refuse to vote to rescind it. It was an outright frontal attack on the seasonal community and their perfectly legal right to vote. Then you wonder how and why these boards got elected... and become so disoriented you still think THEY are your problem taking your home rule away. They had NOTHING to do with the removal of your home rule. Get a grip!!!
Where you are really disoriented is when you believe that just because these duly elected boards appear to disagree with your cause that somehow this represents a removal of your home rule. You have to be kidding! That is POLITICS pure and simple and you lost because the people on your side were, and continue to act irresponsibly and recklessly and take faulty ridiculous advice!
And the bottom line is TOO BAD...YOU LOST!!!! You are now the sum total of your behavior and Trieste's advice. Hey...how is that working out for you?
And if you want to spout off an argument that these boards have to be fair and represent everyone, that is just as ridiculous too. I and many people don't vote for candidates in an elections, especially on hot issues like industrial wind, to have them fairly represent the other side. I want them to represent MY side, not the other side and the same would be the case for you and you KNOW it!
And anyone who makes that argument they are expecting fair representation is simply out of touch with political reality and what elections are really about and why we vote. The pro wind people in CV and Lyme sure as hell didn't vote so they could win and then the town board they elected would fairly represent the wind opposition side!
That is absurd and you know it!
And I am sure if your side won and controlled the town boards that you would not give a rats ass about representing me, or the wind opposition either. Nor would you give a rats ass if I complained that because of an election I thought you "took away my home rule"
And this was blatantly proven over and over again in CV with the old officials repeated marginalization of the wind opposition view point, right to the point of shutting down public meetings and our voices.
No matter who it was or is now... you need to face facts that you have repeatedly been given THE WORST ADVICE POSSIBLE!!! And you continue to take it. AND THAT IS YOUR FUNDAMENTAL PR AND STRATEGY DISASTER!!!
If you are paying Marion Trieste you should go get your money back. How has that worked out so far for you? If it had worked out you wouldn't be begging the State to ensure the towns give back you home rule with the fantasy that the town boards took it away!!!!
Your own actions are the reason you are where you are without turbines spinning, which if you had acted reasonably before many of us caught on, and fell for the brilliant idea to inflamed the seasonal vote, turbines might be up and spinning today.
What you fail to grasp is that we are basically ALL in the same boat when it comes to Art X. It is what took your home rule and community zoning rights away from all of us and, YOU are likely to end up just as much a victim as the rest of us who oppose wind.
NO ONE WINS when our rights to determine our own community futures are taken away.
In Cape Vincent at least, that old town board had several years to develop what many might have considered a fair wind zoning law that might have addressed many concerns. But what did they do? They entrenched and REFUSED to take any other path than what the wind companies dictated and that destroyed several attempts to come up with a wind law. If you think these current town boards are your problem...then you need to think again.
But by your own behavior I seriously doubt you will examine any of this, and will just keep distancing yourself from reality, and the possibility of truly directing your own future and fate and the future of our communities. And in your refusal to grasp reality, you and pro wind continue to blindly attempt to find desperate ways to blame this mess on the two existing town boards or on anyone you can scape goat to cover your failings and terrible decisions.
You might want to sit down and take a hard look at where that has gotten you so far.
When your little wind fantasy bubble , reinforced by your pro wind faction and advisers, has you so confused to think that legally and democratically elected town boards are who removed your home rule, when in fact it was the State, it should demonstrate to you how fundamentally out of touch your pro wind side is.
You will be far better of if you ever figure out that the State and Art X is not your friend. They are not going to run to your rescue and reinstate home your, no matter who you think took it away. The only true salvation from this Art X over reach is from within our own communities under a democratic system to determine our own futures, even if one side or the other doesn't like the outcome.
That is something fundamental both the Lyme and CV govts. need to grasp as well, and soon!
The Town of Cape Vincent Supports The Preemption Of Its Own Zoning Laws!!!
Oh My God!!! Did the Town of Cape Vincent officials really say that?????
Oh geeeez...now I am going to have to change my diapers again!
However, previously it was mostly the pro wind side and their nonsense that created these spectacular museum quality public gems. You know, like illegal unconstitutional voter laws, and then refusing to recind them. But lately it is our current Town officials that are adding to our prime entertainment!
A commenter on my blog reminded me of the statement below in the Town of Cape Vincent's review of BP's scoping statement. And it is a real hum dinger when you think about it!!! I missed it the first time around. Here is the quote! Somebody please pinch me and tell me the town didn't actually say this!!! Underlining and color emphasis is mine.
"The Town's Recommendations
The summary in the table below captures the recommendations that came from the Town's extensive discussion of the issues that follow the summary. These recommendations grew out of our understanding of both the Article 10 rules, which we view as fair and impartial, and BP's scoping statement."
Seriously!!!!! Art X is a fair and impartial process???????????????????????????????????????
The first thing that hits me is...when the hell did a process that stips away a community's right to form zoning laws that allow it to determine our own future suddenly become fair and impartial. It wasn't fair or impartial the day it was signed by Cuomo and rammed down our throats !
At what point did the Town decide on behalf of all of us to start taking steps with ignorant comments like this that do nothing more than badly defeat their own defense arguments against BP and Art X preemption. Why the hell don't they just say BP's PSS is fair and impartial too. This statement is about that ridiculous!
Let me see if I get this straight.
The Town officials almost unanimously have said over and over and over that they intend to defend our zoning laws, and that BP and the NYPSC must abide by our laws that defend our community's health safety and welfare.
Then right out of the other side of their mouth they are saying that the process that has already stripped away our community rights by being able to preempt any zoning we write and want to defend and ENFORCE is...
...fair and impartial!!!
The Town in it's infinite wisdom with this absurd statement just gave the NYPSC and the Art X siting board the blank check needed to preempt our zoning without objection.
Think about it for a minute.
If the Town thinks the Art X process is fair and impartial, and worse is stupid enough to say that in such a blanket startement in a legal public document, then what they are also saying is that any decision rendered by the Art X Siting Board would also have to be fair and impartial.
Even a decision to preempt our laws on BP's behalf!!!!
Now imagine you are an opposing lawyer for BP, the NYPSC, or the Art X siting board. Geee I don't know, think this would be a precious gem for them???? All the NYPSC, and the Art. X board and BP have to do is drag out this inane town letter and say to the Town...
" Sorry you didn't like the final decision, but even YOU agreed that this has been a fair and impartial process and decision. You said that in documents submitted to the Art X siting process public record. Thank you very much for endorsing and supporting our legal decision to preempt your laws!!!! So what are you complaining about and why the hell are you here!!!
Well thanks very much town board...you just completely screwed over any chances we had to win an Art X rehearing or litigation to challenge the siting board decision with your infinite "expert" efforts to prove you are "reasonable"! Being reasonable is one thing...being legally stupid is another especially when your community is on the brink. Brilliant move...just shut down one of your legal options to defend your community!
Want to really see how insane this has become?
You know it occurs to me that Richie Edsdall used to talk about Art X all the time, and he seemed to favor it. He thought the State would ultimately take over on wind siting. Remember also that former CV councilman Mikey Orvis thought Art X was a good idea and endorsed it. I'm sure numerous other of the pro wind side endorse the Art X process and we know BP and Iberdrola and Cuomo certainly endorse the process.
Well guess who else sides with Cuomo, BP, Iberdrola pro wind, Edsdall and Orvis on this nonsense...that's right...
...OUR VERY OWN TOWN OFFICERS THINK IT IS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, AND THEY ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO PUT IT IN WRITING IN THE ART X PUBLIC RECORD!!!
You might as well stop bothering to fight the State and BP any longer , because your Town "experts" just told the State that no matter what they do to our zoning laws it was obviously...
...fair and impartial!
Essentially your defense and arguments are GONE!
And finally... If I was one of those people who devoted all this time to writing letters to the NYPSC, opposing BP's wind disaster, and some also opposing the Art X legislation and process...I would be pissed as hell that your very own town govt is now saying on the public record to the very State that is screwing YOU, that it is a fair and impartial process!
They just pissed all over your efforts. GOOOOOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Save the River Says Our Grassland Habitat Is Unique and Scarce!!!
Below is a quote from a letter written by Save the River to BP and the NYPSC concerning the BP scoping statement. Maybe our town officials should read this section on grassland habitats carefully before they run around and with no research or science or studies and start promoting a sprawling industrial solar projects from BP or anyone else.
From Save the River: (STR)
"The upper St. Lawrence River valley has one of the most unique and substantial grassland habitats in eastern North America; a habitat that is home to specialized grassland bird populations, as well as a home and critical seasonal foraging habitat for a variety of winter raptors. The grassland habitat includes Amherst and Wolfe Islands in Canada, Stony and Galloo Islands in the U.S., as well as major portions of the US and Canadian mainland towns bordering the River. The importance of this habitat is accentuated by the scarcity of such grasslands in this geographical region. :
Photograph below of huge graders ready to scape the ground clean for an industrial solar project in Nevada
.
Geee I wonder if this is what Save the River had in mind as a way to save our grassland bird habitat??????
Bye Bye unique and scarce grassland habitat!!!
Also keep in mind that the the town of Cape Vincent officials were at one time using BP's Brookhaven solar project as a shining example to the PSC as what could be done in CV by BP as an alternative. Really????
The Brookhaven project removed 42,000 trees. See link below
.http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/trees-uprooted-at-brookhaven-lab-for-bp-solar-project-1.2503396
Now here is the real hoot about this solar nonsense in Cape Vincent.
Like I said before in the town's scramble to appease Cuomo and Art X they have become desperate and irrational. Our own CV Councilman Clif Schneider was at one time at least a member of STR, and I believe was on their board. It is my understanding that he also was influential in writting of the STR positions on wind development and bird studies and region impacts on birds.
Yet according to a conversation with Clif I had last fall he is all in on this commerical solar nonsense if it could put off a BP wind project. He would take that ridiculous trade off between these two nonsense industrial tax subsidized renewables. Yet the impacts to grassland habitat and birds could be just as devastating with a sprawling commercial solar project, and worse the town is promoting it for other NYS communities. I guess that doesn't bother Clif. Maybe he should start talking to the very organization he is, or was part of trying to protect those grassland habitats before he tweeks off on this soalr idea AND promotes it for the whole damn State!!!! Oh...and that would be one of the least sunniest places in the US.
Like I said. Rather than face up to the facts that Art X is a disaster and we should not be appeasing it or participating in it, and we should fight it politically by taking a full public anti wind and Art X stance, instead they are running around with one hand not knowing what the hell the other hand is doing, and looking like irrational fools to try to keep playing Cuomo's appeasement game. Seems like Councilman Schneider and the CV board he is trying to promote commercial solar too is badly out of sync with STR's efforts to save grassland habitat! You are either going to save this grassland habitat or you aren't.
So let's try to stop wind turbines with more and more studies on bird impacts. But hey...here is an idea, let's just put up a sprawing commercial solar project instead and destroy what STR says is unique and scarce grassland habitat! Don't you people even talk to each other and try to get on the same page at those STR
wine and cheese get together fund raisers?
Geee whiz it seems to me we shouldn't be running around in environmental circles covering ANY of this habitat with solar panels OR wind turbines.
Anybody with a little intelligence at the NYPSC and BP must be laughing their ass off over these town officials and environmental groups running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperately trying to appease the system, and appear "reasonable".
What a freakin circus!!!
Cuomo's Art X legislation has these people so far on the run they can't even think straight! Probably just as the Art X scheme was intended to do!
Yup...let's save that grassland bird habitat!
Want Solar????
Think solar is just a nice little friendly low impact power source? Apparently our town officials thinks so asking the NYPSC and BP for a solar alternative from instead of wind. Maybe they better get a clue!
The picture below is heavy graders lined up ready to start scaping the land flat for an industrial scale solar voltaic power plant in Nevada south of Las Vegas at the same solar installation as I pictured in a post below.
Now look at this and honestly tell me that this is what the intent of our new comp plan and zoning are providing for? Seriously? Where in the hell are our town officers coming up with this nonsense???
They have become this irrational to appease Art X, Cuomo and the PSC!
The picture below is heavy graders lined up ready to start scaping the land flat for an industrial scale solar voltaic power plant in Nevada south of Las Vegas at the same solar installation as I pictured in a post below.
Now look at this and honestly tell me that this is what the intent of our new comp plan and zoning are providing for? Seriously? Where in the hell are our town officers coming up with this nonsense???
They have become this irrational to appease Art X, Cuomo and the PSC!
What was that about the environmental concerns for our community
and the birds and animals that roam our fields and woods!!!
Gee I wonder what this would do to near by property values?????
And our town board has the arrogance to suggest to the NYPSC that
commercial industrial solar is a good thing for other NY communities!
This solar power plant when finished will produce 150MW of electricity
with an absurd 24% capacity factor, or 36 MW when averaged annually
for all this land and habitat destruction. And keep in mind this is in
Nevada ,one of the consistently sunniest places in the U.S. You ain't going
to get anywhere near that performance in Cape Vincent.
Yeah baby...let's just scrape it flat and put up them solar panels!!!!
Oh yeah... this is a brilliant idea from our town "experts"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)