This will drive the anti SASS, anti government people crazy. Just one more document to stop development, especially wind development! Why don't these anti wind, pro SASS people just leave us alone - right?
Well it is always instructive to look at a little history and the record.
Look at the paragraphs below that are quotes from an important scenic protection document.
Is it from the TIRAP study?
Is it from SASS?
Is it from some environmental organization like TILT or Save the River?
Or was it written by the anti wind officials in one of the local towns trying to curb development, like wind development?
Here are the quotes.
"encourage the development of land for its most appropriate use, and to conserve and protect the rural, agricultural, and scenic resources;"
"minimize negative environmental impacts of development, especially in visually or environmentally sensitive areas, such as viewsheds, along the Lake and River, wetlands, and floodplains;"
"protect existing wooded areas, scenic views, agricultural lands, waterways, ground and surface water supplies, ecological systems, wildlife habitat, and natural vegetation;"
"Preserve and protect historically significant lands and buildings, regulate commerce and other non-residential uses in a manner that is sensitive to the natural scenic resources and provides freedom for land owners to make beneficial economic use of their land, provided that such uses are not harmful to neighboring properties."
Wow...that is pretty protective language to preserve sensitive scenic and environmental resources!
Here is some more of that environmentally protective language.
"...to attach safeguards and conditions to those
uses which might otherwise produce deleterious effects on the unique features,
environment, rural and scenic character ..."
"Furthermore, it is the purpose to disapprove a plan for any use, the deleterious effects of which cannot be mitigated because of the particular conditions on the site it is to occupy."
So who wrote this obviously govt. intrusive stuff???
Now sit down because the irony is ... these paragraphs are from the OLD Cape Vincent zoning law, written by some CV individuals who would now be considered very pro wind, against restrictive zoning, anti govt., and against the scenic designation that SASS would bring to the 1000 Islands area!!!
Go Figure!!!
The language was not written by the CV town board of the last few years, put in power in part by seasonal voters!! This was written going way back to 1998 long before there was a political ush to register seasonal people to vote in CV. This language in CV zoning was also in place during most of the CV wind battle.
The only words I redacted were references to the town or planning board so you could focus on the stand alone protective language.
The current CV zoning law was revised in 2012 with other revisions in 2014. Similar language still exists in the current zoning. And the further irony is that the CV town board of 2012
actually wrote a zoning law to allow some wind development which the old town board refused to pass. It actually puts us closer to wind development than the old law, if the old law was applied correctly.
So a lot of these people bitching about the potential SASS scenic preservation and so called regulations are apparently not bright enough to figure out they have been living with scenic protections for a long long time.
And the kicker is, this was written mostly by the pro wind, anti govt., leave us alone, you can't tell me what to do on my land types!
These people are so confused they can't figure out where they stand or even what they have supported in the past, yet they think we should take their advice!!!
When they wrote these restrictive scenic zoning regulations, apparently it was perfectly OK, but when others are asking for scenic protections, suddenly that is off limits.
Can you say hypocrisy????
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
A Little Enlightenment For Jefferson County Industrial Agency Chief Don Alexander and His "Thimble Theory"
Mr. Don Alexander of the JCIDA apparently feels the visual impact of 600 ft. wind turbines on Galloo Island viewed from land would be about like looking at something the size of a "thimble"!
This rang a bell for me about some computer files I had tucked away from the old Acciona and BP wind project SEQR environmental studies for Cape Vincent.
Well let's see how Donnie's" thimble theory" holds up in reality.
Below are quotes from the Acciona and BP studies on visual impacts. It is interesting that they are amazingly candid. I would assume that is because even the wind companies have been smart enough to figure out what Donnie hasn't...that you can't scam the public and hide the overwhelming visual impacts of industrial wind development and you look pretty stupid trying to hide the obvious.
Below are the quotes of the visual studies. Emphasis added is mine.
Or let's look at Donnie's "thimble" theory" in this comparison below.
This rang a bell for me about some computer files I had tucked away from the old Acciona and BP wind project SEQR environmental studies for Cape Vincent.
Well let's see how Donnie's" thimble theory" holds up in reality.
Below are quotes from the Acciona and BP studies on visual impacts. It is interesting that they are amazingly candid. I would assume that is because even the wind companies have been smart enough to figure out what Donnie hasn't...that you can't scam the public and hide the overwhelming visual impacts of industrial wind development and you look pretty stupid trying to hide the obvious.
Below are the quotes of the visual studies. Emphasis added is mine.
Acciona Visual Assessment
The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates
an obvious disruption of the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of
turbines on the horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct
perpendicular element into the landscape. The proposed turbines would be the tallest visible
elements within view and will be disproportionate to other elements on the
regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended
area would result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant
visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of
the turbine blades would heighten the conspicuity of the turbines; no matter
the degree of visibility.
BP Visual Assessment
Measured from the ground to the tip of an
extended blade, each wind turbine would be up to 420 feet high and visible from numerous
locations in the surrounding area. The height and density
of the turbines would make them a focal point and would
change the
visual character of the town.
Sorry Mr. Alexander. It looks like even the wind companies are telling you your "thimble" doesn't hold water!!!!
Below you can see some "thimbles" from the Acciona and BP visual simulations for Cape Vincent!
And keeping in mind that the turbines modeled in these simulations were approximately 400 ft. high. The Galloo Island turbines could be nearly 200 ft. higher!!!
Below you can see some "thimbles" from the Acciona and BP visual simulations for Cape Vincent!
And keeping in mind that the turbines modeled in these simulations were approximately 400 ft. high. The Galloo Island turbines could be nearly 200 ft. higher!!!
Or let's look at Donnie's "thimble" theory" in this comparison below.
Friday, April 10, 2015
The SASS Debate -The "Reasonable Zoning" Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost!
The Thousand Islands Regional
Assessment Project (TIRAP) associated with SASS has a critical quote repeated
numerous times regarding massive industrial structures. See below.
“Consequently, massive industrial
and infrastructure projects should not be built within the SASS district or
within its surrounding viewshed. There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of
these structures because they are so tall, massive and frequently in motion."
So the TIRAP which many anti wind
people support clearly indicates that structures such as industrial wind turbines
cannot
be mitigated. That is pretty cut and dried, with no wiggle
room.
They have stated what no town board along
the river involved in SASS was willing to actually commit to. Professional TIRAP land planning consultants believe there are currently no methods to mitigate
these structures, yet towns wrote wind regulations, along with their lawyers, that do the opposite and try to mitigate.
Now keep in mind the consultants on
this report are highly reputable and very experienced in this type of scenic
evaluation and land planning.
The Cape Vincent zoning law, like others along the river has appeased the State’s Art. 10 process by passing zoning that appears “reasonable” that in one form or another accommodates industrial wind energy in the very places the TIRAP says it shouldn’t be.
In other words those people who believe in
SASS, and like other towns along the river wrote wind zoning laws to
accommodate industrial wind, now are in a bit of an ideological pickle!
Their actual actions on the record don’t
back up their support for SASS!
They were not willing to take the
obvious steps against wind development that would have really protected the
region on a legal fundamental level, with power granted to them by NYS law but
now expect SASS will help them!
Reading the TIRAP report from very
reputable consultants, all indications are now that industrial wind development
should be prohibited. Yet not one town
along the river has done that. Talk by
some of us about prohibiting was called radical and lunatic, and was like poison.
So if you support the TIRAP
conclusion on industrial wind development type structures, and are not disingenuous,
you can’t support laws that allow industrial wind development, and support SASS
at the same time?
Cape Vincent and other rivers town got snookered into
appeasing Art. 10 on wind energy so they looked “reasonable”, when the fact is the very reputable professional consultants of
the TIRAP report are now clearly indicating the supposed “unreasonable”
approach of prohibiting is the appropriate one.
Some people supporting SASS are
attempting to talk out of both sides of their mouths and hope you don’t notice,
but there is a public record.
So which way is it? Do you support the TIRAP conclusion, and are
you willing to bring your zoning in line with the recommendations that you
cannot mitigate these structures, and that would include traditional setback
zoning.
Myself and a few others, despite
many efforts to marginalize us, said that prohibition was the appropriate zoning
approach to industrial wind energy and the approach to try to be” reasonable”
would come back to bight you.
So here we are!
The anti wind faction who refused to
prohibit wind and wrote “reasonable” wind regulations to appease Art. 10 and
accommodate wind are now trying to get
the State to believe they want the SASS designation, in part to discourage wind, the supporting report of
which, essential says you should ban industrial wind type structures.
Hhhmmm…I wonder how the State views
this mixed message? I wonder which side
of the message a State administration that
is rabid about renewables and wind development will hear?
If you really don’t want industrial wind,
and then you write wind laws to
accommodate it you send a terrible message that you are willing to “be
reasonable” and may accommodate it, which flies directly in the face of the
TIRAP and SASS designation for scenic recognition and protection. I said many times if you are anti wind then you better stand behind what you truly believe
and stop walking the fence, That is
dangerous territory!
In the SASS debate SASS supporters
are quietly trying to avoid a very critical component.
If they are serious then we can’t
have a genuine discussion until we reconcile SASS support and scenic protection
with our zoning laws that are contradicting its conclusions.
Otherwise it seems this whole SASS
designation is pointless.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Important Information Posted on the JLL Blog
There is some important information posted on the JLL blog about the Galloo Island Wind project. The information is posted by Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. - Chairperson - The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and 1000 Islands Region
RAliasso@twcny.rr.com
You can use the link below to read Mr. Aliasso's information on the JLL blog.
http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/
Sweeping spectacular views across Henderson Harbor and Eastern Lake Ontario from the high viewpoint at Wescott Beach State Park. These precious views will be dramatically altered by the significant negative visual impacts of the Galloo Island wind project.
Click on the images to enlarge.
Please note ... I have put no copyright on these images and anyone is free to use them with a simple photo credit, in any efforts to protect this region against industrial wind or other invasive industrial development, such as the Galloo Island project.
Thank you,
Art Pundt
RAliasso@twcny.rr.com
You can use the link below to read Mr. Aliasso's information on the JLL blog.
http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/
Sweeping spectacular views across Henderson Harbor and Eastern Lake Ontario from the high viewpoint at Wescott Beach State Park. These precious views will be dramatically altered by the significant negative visual impacts of the Galloo Island wind project.
Click on the images to enlarge.
Please note ... I have put no copyright on these images and anyone is free to use them with a simple photo credit, in any efforts to protect this region against industrial wind or other invasive industrial development, such as the Galloo Island project.
Thank you,
Art Pundt
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Anti SASS, Anti Govt Blowholes!
In the report that supports the SASS designation for our region, it says this about large industrial structures like industrial wind turbines.
"There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of these structures because they are so tall, massive and frequently in motion."
However, the 1000 Islands towns along the St. Lawrence on the NY side, and many other communities have done exactly that, and charged right ahead and attempted the futility of trying to "mitigate" industrial wind using zoning laws and setbacks even though a quick look at Wolfe Is. will graphically show you how this approach fails miserably.
When we talk about mitigating these huge structures it would take setbacks in the 10's of miles or much more. Fact is most communities simply aren't big enough to apply even the mitigation setbacks that might work with significant distances. That is one reason a regional approach is relevant.
It is one reason the SASS IS RELEVENT!!
Industrial wind energy has simply turned traditional zoning on its head!
What makes this zoning approach even more futile is that NYS can simply override a local wind law with Art. 10.
So the completely out of context paradigm zoning approach used so far is to try to mitigate with setbacks what obviously can't be mitigated, and no town has the appropriate land area to achieve, and use zoning laws that can simply be pre-empted anyhow.
Zoning laws which in the end are a tacit invitations to wind developers to start wind development conversations.
Why give them that opening
It is time for a different approach and Henderson prohibiting industrial wind is the right approach. And that can be backed by other political moves as well.
The prohibition approach puts the right argument on the table, both politically and for protection of significant regional scenic resources, instead of getting into a losing pissing match with a wind developer and the State over setbacks that in fact don't even work anyhow.
The real fact is by involving yourself in setback zoning and the Art. 10 process you have already given away the relevant and most powerful tools to actually protect your community.
Now think about this for a minute. Communities get convinced by the Sate to get involved in the zoning/setback, Art. 10 paradigm. You bring to the table zoning and setbacks as your primary weapon. However the State and wind lobbyist aren't that stupid. Sure they encourage you to write a wind law...now gee why would that be? Because they are also bringing to the fight a weapon that can simply make your primary weapon (zoning and setbacks) completely irrelevant, and powerless!!!
The state and wind developers come to the fight knowing they have the power to not even make it a fight. Yet this is how virtually every town facing wind development takes on this battle. You come to the battle with a gun, yet the state determines if you get any bullets. Yet town after town charges into these battles as it is a fight they can win. Under these circumstances this is not bravado, but political stupidity.
Yet some people, towns, and blogs, try to convince you to engage in this effort as if it is a fair fight, when in fact under the rules it isn't even a fight at all...but cleverly engineered to be a slaughter.
Whenever you hear them telling you, you will have "input" you should recognize the "code words" and who real controls the fight and you are going to get slaughtered.
Besides, wake up! Any game that starts by trying to convince you that you have "input and it will be important", at the very same time they can simply preempt your input, then it should be clearly recognized who controls the game and why.
What fool plays this kind of game????
How does SASS play into this?
What the anti SASS anti govt people really fail to comprehend
is if you want to oppose govt in your lives, then stand up as a political region and take on NYS backed wind energy and Art. 10 head on instead of playing the wind zoning game that the state can just preempt anyhow.
You anti SASS people aren't even making sense in your own anti govt. arguments and need to get your head screwed on straight.
The way to fight govt., if that is what you want, isn't to withdraw yourselves in pissing matches behind little community borders, prodded on by outside influences, but make yourself a real geographic political force.
That is what the wind developers and people like Cuomo fear and understand.
What you miss, no matter what the issue is, is that SASS, although born of govt. identifies you as power in a political region.
If you want to fight Cuomo's Safe Act, (and I haven't seen you repeal it yet), do you think Cuomo or the legislature is politically frightened when your region is so politically impotent it can't even get behind something as simple as SASS to protect the best interest of your area?
The tourism economy is the backbone of this region, and SASS helps protect it. Cuomo and the legislature are probably laughing their asses off watching you anti SASS people piss right on an opportunity to enhance and protect your own economy.
You can't even do this right. So I doubt Albany isn't real threatened by your ramblings about the Safe Act and anti govt. rhetoric.
As long as you are pissing all over yourselves they know you aren't going to piss in them!!!
A fact many "anti" people don't seem to consider is that political power in Albany promoting wind and renewables, themselves may in fact not be real comfortable with SASS in a region where they want to promote wind development.
The biggest threat to this region isn't the Safe Act, or SASS, it's the fact that despite your anti govt bullshit you don't have the first clue about the subtleties, or ability to actually back your anti govt rhetoric with effective political action, by organizing to support even a simple regional concept.
And you may think I am blowing smoke, but the fact is myself and a few others took a political battle right to Cuomo' office door and got our foot in.
We sat across from his top lawyers and staff and had the political "goods" to get him to investigate the old wind conflicted Cape Vincent govt. Apparently he calculated there was a political cost to ignoring us.
Now some might say that the investigation was never completed and didn't amount to anything. That is true, but that would be very politically naive, and was but one political goal. Finished or not, the political PR was priceless, and basically helped overturn a local govt.
It doesn't hurt your campaign to truthfully say your opponent is under an ethics investigation by the NYAG!!!
You anti govt, anti SASS people are so distracted I doubt you can even focus your political efforts coherently or on the right target.
"There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of these structures because they are so tall, massive and frequently in motion."
However, the 1000 Islands towns along the St. Lawrence on the NY side, and many other communities have done exactly that, and charged right ahead and attempted the futility of trying to "mitigate" industrial wind using zoning laws and setbacks even though a quick look at Wolfe Is. will graphically show you how this approach fails miserably.
When we talk about mitigating these huge structures it would take setbacks in the 10's of miles or much more. Fact is most communities simply aren't big enough to apply even the mitigation setbacks that might work with significant distances. That is one reason a regional approach is relevant.
It is one reason the SASS IS RELEVENT!!
Industrial wind energy has simply turned traditional zoning on its head!
What makes this zoning approach even more futile is that NYS can simply override a local wind law with Art. 10.
So the completely out of context paradigm zoning approach used so far is to try to mitigate with setbacks what obviously can't be mitigated, and no town has the appropriate land area to achieve, and use zoning laws that can simply be pre-empted anyhow.
Zoning laws which in the end are a tacit invitations to wind developers to start wind development conversations.
Why give them that opening
It is time for a different approach and Henderson prohibiting industrial wind is the right approach. And that can be backed by other political moves as well.
The prohibition approach puts the right argument on the table, both politically and for protection of significant regional scenic resources, instead of getting into a losing pissing match with a wind developer and the State over setbacks that in fact don't even work anyhow.
The real fact is by involving yourself in setback zoning and the Art. 10 process you have already given away the relevant and most powerful tools to actually protect your community.
Now think about this for a minute. Communities get convinced by the Sate to get involved in the zoning/setback, Art. 10 paradigm. You bring to the table zoning and setbacks as your primary weapon. However the State and wind lobbyist aren't that stupid. Sure they encourage you to write a wind law...now gee why would that be? Because they are also bringing to the fight a weapon that can simply make your primary weapon (zoning and setbacks) completely irrelevant, and powerless!!!
The state and wind developers come to the fight knowing they have the power to not even make it a fight. Yet this is how virtually every town facing wind development takes on this battle. You come to the battle with a gun, yet the state determines if you get any bullets. Yet town after town charges into these battles as it is a fight they can win. Under these circumstances this is not bravado, but political stupidity.
Yet some people, towns, and blogs, try to convince you to engage in this effort as if it is a fair fight, when in fact under the rules it isn't even a fight at all...but cleverly engineered to be a slaughter.
Whenever you hear them telling you, you will have "input" you should recognize the "code words" and who real controls the fight and you are going to get slaughtered.
Besides, wake up! Any game that starts by trying to convince you that you have "input and it will be important", at the very same time they can simply preempt your input, then it should be clearly recognized who controls the game and why.
What fool plays this kind of game????
How does SASS play into this?
What the anti SASS anti govt people really fail to comprehend
is if you want to oppose govt in your lives, then stand up as a political region and take on NYS backed wind energy and Art. 10 head on instead of playing the wind zoning game that the state can just preempt anyhow.
You anti SASS people aren't even making sense in your own anti govt. arguments and need to get your head screwed on straight.
The way to fight govt., if that is what you want, isn't to withdraw yourselves in pissing matches behind little community borders, prodded on by outside influences, but make yourself a real geographic political force.
That is what the wind developers and people like Cuomo fear and understand.
What you miss, no matter what the issue is, is that SASS, although born of govt. identifies you as power in a political region.
If you want to fight Cuomo's Safe Act, (and I haven't seen you repeal it yet), do you think Cuomo or the legislature is politically frightened when your region is so politically impotent it can't even get behind something as simple as SASS to protect the best interest of your area?
The tourism economy is the backbone of this region, and SASS helps protect it. Cuomo and the legislature are probably laughing their asses off watching you anti SASS people piss right on an opportunity to enhance and protect your own economy.
You can't even do this right. So I doubt Albany isn't real threatened by your ramblings about the Safe Act and anti govt. rhetoric.
As long as you are pissing all over yourselves they know you aren't going to piss in them!!!
A fact many "anti" people don't seem to consider is that political power in Albany promoting wind and renewables, themselves may in fact not be real comfortable with SASS in a region where they want to promote wind development.
The biggest threat to this region isn't the Safe Act, or SASS, it's the fact that despite your anti govt bullshit you don't have the first clue about the subtleties, or ability to actually back your anti govt rhetoric with effective political action, by organizing to support even a simple regional concept.
And you may think I am blowing smoke, but the fact is myself and a few others took a political battle right to Cuomo' office door and got our foot in.
We sat across from his top lawyers and staff and had the political "goods" to get him to investigate the old wind conflicted Cape Vincent govt. Apparently he calculated there was a political cost to ignoring us.
Now some might say that the investigation was never completed and didn't amount to anything. That is true, but that would be very politically naive, and was but one political goal. Finished or not, the political PR was priceless, and basically helped overturn a local govt.
It doesn't hurt your campaign to truthfully say your opponent is under an ethics investigation by the NYAG!!!
You anti govt, anti SASS people are so distracted I doubt you can even focus your political efforts coherently or on the right target.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Images From Beautiful Eastern Lake Ontario
Keep in mind that if the reincarnation of the Galloo Island wind project goes forward this scenery will be dramatically impacted visually with 600 ft. wind turbines and their flashing red lights.
Those wind turbines will be seen all over the Eastern Lake Ontario basin. Not to mention this will be in addition to the Wolfe Is. wind turbines that have already done tremendous damage to the visual beauty of this region
While you are contemplating what we will give up in this scenic and environmentally sensitive region, keep clearly in mind that when averaged annually (capacity factor) 70 to 80 percent of this wind farm's capacity is likely to not be used.
To sacrifice this beauty for that little unreliable power is just plain environmental insanity!!!
Storm at Wilson's Bay, Cape Vincent
Wescott Beach State Park
Charity Shoal Lighthouse, Eastern Lake Ontario
Fall color and farm from the Wescott Beach State Park high overlook.
Lake Ontario Shoreline at Tibbetts Point, Cape Vincent
Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, Cape Vincent
Lake Ontario beach, Robert Wehle State Park, Stony Point, Henderson, NY
Those wind turbines will be seen all over the Eastern Lake Ontario basin. Not to mention this will be in addition to the Wolfe Is. wind turbines that have already done tremendous damage to the visual beauty of this region
While you are contemplating what we will give up in this scenic and environmentally sensitive region, keep clearly in mind that when averaged annually (capacity factor) 70 to 80 percent of this wind farm's capacity is likely to not be used.
To sacrifice this beauty for that little unreliable power is just plain environmental insanity!!!
Kayaking below the cliffs of Galloo Island.
Storm at Wilson's Bay, Cape Vincent
Wescott Beach State Park
Charity Shoal Lighthouse, Eastern Lake Ontario
Fall color and farm from the Wescott Beach State Park high overlook.
Lake Ontario Shoreline at Tibbetts Point, Cape Vincent
Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, Cape Vincent
Lake Ontario beach, Robert Wehle State Park, Stony Point, Henderson, NY
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Seasonal Voters Should Vote in the Place They Love??? - A Little Reality
The Cape Vincent JLL blog administered by Rick Wiley is once again pounding on seasonal residents registering to vote locally rather than at their other residences.
http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/
I have no problem with this basic message. I am legally registered to vote in Jefferson County, NY although my other residence is in AZ.
However, as he does many times, Mr. Wiley makes some big leaps of logic hoping his readers will follow.
So here is a little voting reality.
Just because you vote locally and may possibly elect a town board majority sensitive to your seasonal concerns, including the big issue of industrial wind siting, it does not guarantee it will kill wind energy development in your town.
The siting of large scale wind energy is in the hands of NYS through the Art. 10 siting process. It is NO LONGER in the hands of local town boards. Mr. Wiley would like you to believe that if your board is against wind development and engages in the Art. 10 process, and you submit input to the Art. 10 process this will be taken into account by the Art. 10 board and you will likely defeat any local wind energy proposal.
There is no actual fact to support that.
Fact is that Art. 10 was developed to fast track wind development since local board got savy to industrial wind and where throwing up local zoning roadblocks that inhibited the State agenda to site wind energy.
Politically, Art. 10 would not even exist if developers thought it would be a significant roadblock to their development proposals such as Wiley is trying to make you believe. Has Wiley forgotten the power of industry lobbyists and bought off legislators?
Wiley is trying to make a direct connection between your vote and defeating wind development, which may not in fact be the case, because of the "middle man" which is Art 10 siting board that has the power to actually preempt your wind energy zoning.
Art. 10 stands between your vote for local candidates who may be anti wind and against siting wind development in your community.
Wiley even states that no wind farm has been sited where a board was against it and that includes state siting...Really??? Well I would like him to provide the details on that statement about state siting, but I'm sure he won't. If that is true there may have been other factors involved.
Of course you notice he lists all the wind farms that are currently proposed around NYS. That would be after a year or so ago informing us with confidence and his usual leap of logic that "wind was dead" I guess he has suddenly had a change of heart????
Mr. Wiley also likes to foster the impression that the Art. 10 worked in CV against BP because we had a board voted in by seasonal voters and was "opposed to wind." Fact is that is not reality. First, the board was not actually anti wind and then we got real lucky and BP simply abandon their Art. 10 process and their CV project for primarily economic reasons.
We have no clue how the process would have played out and if Art. 10 would have preempted our zoning laws for BP's project.
And the fact is BP made a complete travesty of the Art. 10 process because they knew they could get away with it. The town board complained repeatedly with no real relief from the NYPSC.
In addition I think there is a high probability the person who writes the letter on Wiley's blog and has a voter check list for you is not qualified to vote in CV and may not live their.
By all means, if you meet the legal requirements, register to voter locally, but do it with your eyes open since the Art. 10 process that removed our home rule rights, and Wiley supports, is a much bigger problem.
If you are lucky enough to elect a town board friendly to seasonal voter concerns and opposed to wind energy, then use your voting power to get them to fully oppose Art. 10, not appease that process by writing wind laws that invite wind developers to target your town.
Wiley needs to be more honest about the realities of seasonal voting, and not support the Art. 10 process that has the power to negate your voting power by preempting local home rule powers.
Wiley is trying to have it both ways. He wants you to register and vote locally, but supports the insidious Art. 10 process that makes your vote irrelevant when it come to one of the biggest zoning issues ever facing our communities.
And lastly, let's look at one actually fact about seasonal voting that Wiley won't touch with a ten foot pole!!! A lot of seasonal voters voted in CV to put Wiley's favorite Republican .Hirschey govt in power. Then recently Hirschey appointed THE MOST controversial pro wind person as deputy supervisor, Marty Mason. Then in a stunning reversal a few weeks later he drops Mason and appoints Councilman Byrne as deputy.
And Hirschey had previously appointed Dick Macsherry who wasn't even elected by the CV voters. Who in fact was rejected by CV voters in the 2009 CV elections when he ran cozy with pro wind candidates!!!
Not sure this recent move with Mason was in the best interest of the community already left with raw scabs from the past CV wind battle!!!
Too bad Wiley refuses to take comments on his blog. You might want to ask how these bone head moves encourage seasonal residents to vote locally!!!
http://jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com/
I have no problem with this basic message. I am legally registered to vote in Jefferson County, NY although my other residence is in AZ.
However, as he does many times, Mr. Wiley makes some big leaps of logic hoping his readers will follow.
So here is a little voting reality.
Just because you vote locally and may possibly elect a town board majority sensitive to your seasonal concerns, including the big issue of industrial wind siting, it does not guarantee it will kill wind energy development in your town.
The siting of large scale wind energy is in the hands of NYS through the Art. 10 siting process. It is NO LONGER in the hands of local town boards. Mr. Wiley would like you to believe that if your board is against wind development and engages in the Art. 10 process, and you submit input to the Art. 10 process this will be taken into account by the Art. 10 board and you will likely defeat any local wind energy proposal.
There is no actual fact to support that.
Fact is that Art. 10 was developed to fast track wind development since local board got savy to industrial wind and where throwing up local zoning roadblocks that inhibited the State agenda to site wind energy.
Politically, Art. 10 would not even exist if developers thought it would be a significant roadblock to their development proposals such as Wiley is trying to make you believe. Has Wiley forgotten the power of industry lobbyists and bought off legislators?
Wiley is trying to make a direct connection between your vote and defeating wind development, which may not in fact be the case, because of the "middle man" which is Art 10 siting board that has the power to actually preempt your wind energy zoning.
Art. 10 stands between your vote for local candidates who may be anti wind and against siting wind development in your community.
Wiley even states that no wind farm has been sited where a board was against it and that includes state siting...Really??? Well I would like him to provide the details on that statement about state siting, but I'm sure he won't. If that is true there may have been other factors involved.
Of course you notice he lists all the wind farms that are currently proposed around NYS. That would be after a year or so ago informing us with confidence and his usual leap of logic that "wind was dead" I guess he has suddenly had a change of heart????
Mr. Wiley also likes to foster the impression that the Art. 10 worked in CV against BP because we had a board voted in by seasonal voters and was "opposed to wind." Fact is that is not reality. First, the board was not actually anti wind and then we got real lucky and BP simply abandon their Art. 10 process and their CV project for primarily economic reasons.
We have no clue how the process would have played out and if Art. 10 would have preempted our zoning laws for BP's project.
And the fact is BP made a complete travesty of the Art. 10 process because they knew they could get away with it. The town board complained repeatedly with no real relief from the NYPSC.
In addition I think there is a high probability the person who writes the letter on Wiley's blog and has a voter check list for you is not qualified to vote in CV and may not live their.
By all means, if you meet the legal requirements, register to voter locally, but do it with your eyes open since the Art. 10 process that removed our home rule rights, and Wiley supports, is a much bigger problem.
If you are lucky enough to elect a town board friendly to seasonal voter concerns and opposed to wind energy, then use your voting power to get them to fully oppose Art. 10, not appease that process by writing wind laws that invite wind developers to target your town.
Wiley needs to be more honest about the realities of seasonal voting, and not support the Art. 10 process that has the power to negate your voting power by preempting local home rule powers.
Wiley is trying to have it both ways. He wants you to register and vote locally, but supports the insidious Art. 10 process that makes your vote irrelevant when it come to one of the biggest zoning issues ever facing our communities.
And lastly, let's look at one actually fact about seasonal voting that Wiley won't touch with a ten foot pole!!! A lot of seasonal voters voted in CV to put Wiley's favorite Republican .Hirschey govt in power. Then recently Hirschey appointed THE MOST controversial pro wind person as deputy supervisor, Marty Mason. Then in a stunning reversal a few weeks later he drops Mason and appoints Councilman Byrne as deputy.
And Hirschey had previously appointed Dick Macsherry who wasn't even elected by the CV voters. Who in fact was rejected by CV voters in the 2009 CV elections when he ran cozy with pro wind candidates!!!
Not sure this recent move with Mason was in the best interest of the community already left with raw scabs from the past CV wind battle!!!
Too bad Wiley refuses to take comments on his blog. You might want to ask how these bone head moves encourage seasonal residents to vote locally!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)