Sunday, August 19, 2012

What did Darrel Aubertine Consent to ?

Recently a reader asked a few questions about the documents that I have been posting lately.
  This post addresses the following question.

Why was the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets listed as completing a 'Consent' in June 2012 during a time when there was a moratorium on wind development in the Town of Cape Vincent?

Consent
The deed of consent listed in the recorded deeds concerns a parcel of land owned by Darrel Aubertine. The consent recognizes that a particular parcel of land owned by Aubertine is subject to a wind energy lease with St. Lawrence and a portion of the same parcel is also part of a proposed conservation easement under the USDA wetlands reserve program.
In this particular case the leaseholder agrees that no wind power facilities or transmission facilities (both as defined in the lease) will be located in the WRP easement area etc...

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.




7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The most important part of this post is on page 1 of the Consent - the date, June 13, 2012.

The moratorium probably does not apply to BP and leasees, but this shows that BP has been quietly active this summer. It shows that BP is preparing.

Also, BP recently flew Richard Chandler to Watertown to talk with Don Alexander and in another visit to talk with the NYSDEC. BP was also sniffing around this summer trying to write some additional good neighbor agreements. BP's Chandler may have also been involved with Trieste, VORYS and VFW's law suit against the blogs.

It seems that BP has awakened from their yearlong slumber and is finally getting ready for their 125 turbine assault on Cape Vincent. Didn't Chandler say as much when he wrote the PSC on May 29, 2012?

BP is coming at us and there only hope is that the Article 10 local siting board agrees with them when they say our zoning law is unduly burdensome and should be rejected. That may be a difficult case for BP and Chandler. It would have been so much easier for BP if Cape Vincent had only banned their turbines.

Anonymous said...

One of the comments made by Gross when he was here and then left is, "There is some bad information on the blogs and we have to get the Bp message out."

Now, Gross did not say the blogs were lying. He just said there was some bad information. Most likely for Bp. I think they want to shut you up and shut up anyone who disagrees with their message.

It appears that you are now their biggest project.

Blogger's Defense Fund

Box 8

Three Mile Bay, NY 13693

Anonymous said...

I can't figure out what he consented to this time. But back in 2006 Darrel consented to overlook industrial wind leases that he had while running for office.

He also consented to endorse the conflict of interests of Cape Town Board members and good buddy wind business partners on the CV town board.

He sent then this letter.


June 15, 2006

Cape Vincent Town Board Members
P.O. Box 680
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Re: Abstaining from Voting on the Location of
wind Turbines in Cape Vincent.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing held on June 3rd. at which time the above referenced subject was discussed and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thought with you now.

Specifically, I would like to comment about the issue of whether a board member should abstain from voting on an issue. As elected representatives, we are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community. This project, which affects thousands of acres and dozens of property owners, has the potential to positively affect every resident. Whether through a reduced property tax rate or new economic opportunities, Messrs. Wood, and (2) Masons (three members with wind contracts) will certainly not be the sole beneficiaries should the project move forward.

While some may feel that these elected officials should abstain from voting on this matter-my belief is that they should not. If they are restrained from voting in this instance, then shouldn't the community decide now what the guiding principle will be for future abstention in different matters and with different representatives? i.e. voting on a tax rate that affects their personal property.

Healthy and positive discourse is mandatory in a democracy; however, governing by referendum is unwise. After careful reflection, I feel that it is ethically proper that in this case all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so.

Sincerely,
Darrel J. Aubertine.

Anonymous said...

Let me add.

Darrel is in the thick of things with the bootleg water district #2 that the people they are supplying to refuse to give information on. It is a potential safety and legal issue for the Cape Vincent town board and the State Agriculture Commissioner is involved. He is not setting a good example for a New York State Public Official.

This is more than politics. It is the safety of a large water line.

But, speaking of politics, you might want to think twice about putting Darrel's son on the board because he is involved in the district 2 waterline mess also.

Anonymous said...

It would be very embarrassing for a Article X siting board to come into Cape Vincent.

When Bp challenges our home rule zoning the whole matter of conflicts of interest that prevented progress on community laws will come into play.

So will the role of the Agriculture Commissioner and his encouragement of wind corruption.

The only thing that will ever save this community is for Bp and this project to go away and let the ten year history of wind ugliness die.

Anonymous said...

Darrel has consented to a lot of things that I don't think have been good for our community.
Now he is messed up in the bootleg water district.

Anonymous said...

9:41
I don’t remember consenting to having 2 industrial wind giants take over our town.