October 28,2012
BY: TOM PRECIOUS
ALBANY
– The Cuomo administration, which last year scuttled as too expensive a plan to
construct the nation’s first wind energy farm in the Great Lakes, is putting
its offshore focus in an area 15 miles into the Atlantic Ocean off New York
City.
Now questions are arising about whether Lake Erie and Lake Ontario will ever be tried, at least by the current administration, as a source for the renewable form of energy generation.
Now questions are arising about whether Lake Erie and Lake Ontario will ever be tried, at least by the current administration, as a source for the renewable form of energy generation.
Continue reading via this link to the Buffalo News
11 comments:
For all the conservative fence sitters who think there is no value in protesting or taking a definitve stand on wind turbines ,consider this statement-
" Maziarz said community protests were heard by regulators and politicians alike. “The local communities were up in arms in opposition to it. I would think it would be a nonstarter,” Maziarz said of future Great Lakes wind projects."
There is no reason a comparable, unifed opposition to Art. X would not accomplish the same result!
Maziarz was one of the main forces in the Legislature to push through Article 10. Maziarz is very proud of Article 10 and considers it to be a signature accomplishment.
It is not Article 10 itself that can be successfully attacked. What can be successfully resisted is the mis-application of Article 10. In theory and on its face (we don't really know because it hasn't been tested yet) Article 10 is not written to overcome local zoning laws that are reasonably written to protect local health, safety and welfare (including the tax base, and are equitably enforced and which are consistent with a town's economic development planning.
The battle will be to fight an abuse of Article 10 by a developer who seeks to find a justfication to overturn a zoning law that is perfectly reasonable.
To understand this reality isn't "fence sitting." What we need to be doing - on all fronts - political, in the media, legally and bureaucratically -- to to prevent abuses of Article 10.
Thanks for posting this article K...it have extreme relevence to our situation. This article goes on blah blah blah about the excuses why the state backed off lake wind.
But Maziarz finally gets down to the real reason that counts. Because he and his fellow legislators and Cuomo are real good at math and they can definitely COUNT VOTES!!!
"Maziarz said community protests were heard by regulators and politicians alike. “The local communities were up in arms in opposition to it. I would think it would be a nonstarter,” Maziarz said of future Great Lakes wind projects."
Can you imagine that! Maziarz gets it, and he is one of the big Rep. proponents of Art X.
That is exactly what we should be doing with community opposition in NNY. Join numerous communities in opposition to Art X and refuse to participate and assert our home rule rights instead of going along with the process. The county already at least passed a resolution to A-10 so why won't our towns at least do this...just like the resolutions numerous communities and counties did against lake wind.
And Maziarz payed attention and he got it, and so did Cuomo and the state legs. on lake wind.
THAT is how you fight Art X...not by going along with it and validating it as a process.
Article X exists and it will overrule us...because we let it!
8:59 You can't be serious.
"Article 10 is not written to overcome local zoning laws that are reasonably written to protect local health, safety and welfare"
OK then all we have to all do as communities is write reasonable zoning laws, and Cuomo and Article X just give community after community a pass on wind. you can't be serious.
And BTW you are throwing around that term "reasonable rather loosely. What exactly is "reasonable"? CV's law is a defacto ban...is that reasonable or will that be one of those laws that gets preempted.
Article X removed home rule on this issue...you find THAT reasonable. I do not!!!
Politics says Art X IS about preempting laws.
Art,
Keep in mind that that Galloo and the other NY Great Lakes wind projects were essentially discarded as unworkable and unaffordable(By NYPA and others).
The protests (Maziarz refers to) from local communities and county legislatures along the Lake shores helped kill these projects. But the more important factor was that no developer could be found to undertake such very expensive in-water projects. Even a potential big tax credit couldn't make the math work with these projects. Galloo and the proposed in-water projects would need the additional help of a power purchase agreement from (probably with NYPA) guaranteeing long term above market prices for any power generated. NYPA was sane enough not to go along with such requests.
I have no problem making full use of all possible means of communications and persuasion (including demonstrations).
But you keep saying that we must avoid the trap of participating in the Article 10 "process." At the same time you have acknowledged there is no practical liklihood of getting Article 10 repealed of significantly amended. I can't figure that out. What do you mean?
If you are not going to try to appeal Article 10 (and do that within this decade) than you have no choice but to work with the process. If you boycott the process, that is equivalent to pleading "no contest." You lose. The developer's earth moving equipment shows up and starts digging turbine footings while you are boycotting the process.
I will agree with you that CV leaders must be very agressive on all fronts in countering BP. The town's comp plan and laws are perfectly legitimate. That case can be made -- but it must be made. There is no way out. If BP can be persuaded that they have carried a good joke too far, finally sensing the real anger in the community, and decide to pull out (or if they lose their precious tax credits and pull out) while the Art. 10 process is still ongoing, then that would be very good.
But the town must defend itself under the law. To refuse to defend ourselves because we think the law is a bad law is a certain plan for being overrun.
correction:
"If you are not going to try to repeal Article 10...."
8:59" Article 10 is not written to overcome local zoning laws that are reasonably written to protect local health, safety and welfare (including the tax base, and are equitably enforced and which are consistent with a town's economic development planning".
Show me where this statement is located in the Art. X language.
I believe the criteria for pre-empting a town law is whether or not it is overlyburdensome to a developer and the needs of the state.
You can play all the semantics you want about what can be resisted or not, in the end our rights to apply our own legally adopted zoning law have been denied.
Art. X is an abuse already, in theory and on its face. It is nothing more than a politically sanctioned regulation of land use laws, a right previously enjoyed by local municipalities.
"We don't really know because it hasn't been tested yet" borders on denial of something self- evident, simply on the basis of its existence and substance.
Dick Chandler said it all -one stop shopping that will increase his chances of obtaining a permit,denied by application of our local law.
We have been down this road before so we disagree.
But here is one thing that disturbs me. People keep suggesting that because our boards beat up on BP's Chandler that we are defending home rule, or asserting home rule rights. Or as JLL suggested the protesters and the board agreed on home rule rights. NO... that is not accurate and you know it!
The board is not asserting home rule rights. Art x already took them away on siting wind...there are NO home rule rights left to assert. The only way to possibly assert home rule is to declare A10 invalid in our community, not participate in it. They aren't going to do that, they will go along with Art x so there is NO asserting or defending home rule...period!
You keep saying my stand is confusing on opposition to A10.
Well why don't you ask the WPEG protestors what they expect in their protest. They were opposed to Art X and for home rule. OK do they want it repealed, do they want our board to opt out, or do they want our board to go along with the very thing they were very clearly opposed to? If the board goes along with the very thing they are opposed to then it is not credible to support the board willingness to go along. They did not qualify their protest saying they are opposed to art x oh but maybe not for this board! So what do they want and what were they protesting or supporting? When I pushed one protester on this they finally admitted they were REMINDING the board of their A10 opposition. I guess that is a nice way of putting it!!!
This is a complex battle, and we can't afford to take our eye off the ball and start projecting realities that don't actually exist. It may be more comfortable but it's not an effective way to fight.
Our board is not asserting home rule rights nor are they defending them if they participate in A10.
So let's at least be honest so we stay focused!
Also keep in mind the great performance our boards gave was after all completely within the confines and rules of Art X. They were after all participating in BP's PIP process as BP requested. Not exactly defending home rule or asserting home rule rights.
Above comment by Art Pundt. Hit wrong button.
Art
What do you say to 10:20's point that the Article X train will leave the station and head down the tracks without us? Wouldn't the developers love it if we ignored the law? That would make their job very easy. Wouldn't it be better to try to derail or reroute the train away from Cape Vincent.
I don't like paying income taxes either, but the law says I have no choice. So I spend my effort trying to pay as little tax as possible.
655
1020's comment I think makes a erroneous assumption. That the Art X process is a completely blank slate when they come to us. So you suggest that if we did nothing that the A10 board would simply give it all to BP and everything they asked for?
You are suggesting that the A10 board would only see BP's side, that they would not even investigate for themselves the impact on the town and 1000 Islands or they would have no opinion if we opted out? You mean to say without our participation these large state agencies like the DEC that has a large responsibility in the process to protect NY's environment would just hand it to BP? Do you really believe that?
If that is the case then we really are screwed already and all the hoopla about the A10 process being fair, and reasoned would be total bullshit on the state's part and we very definitely should not endorse it. You have to remember that this attitude that we must go along has been programed into us since infants.
What I smell in 1020's comments is probably a person who works or has worked in the big corporate world or big govt. So they really don't know anything else but to go along putting faith in the system and process.
The other erroneous assumption you make is that just because we opt out that we are giving up and not fighting. Not so,in fact we would truly be fighting much harder and more effectively because we take the battle out of the arena BP controls like setbacks etc and make it a nasty political fight that brings much higher political risk to the people who endorse A10. A10 is mainly political and we haven't done much to address that reality. Our boards hammering BP at least was a good start. But hammering BP and then just turning around and participating in the process WITH BP is completely disingenuous .
And your taxes analogy is not a good one. If you don't pay taxes you get arrested and put in jail. Not so for not participating in A10. And for taxes we actually at least get something back for the public good, not so with BP.
Any finally anyone who says we must go along has then endorsed the removal of our home rule rights.
I will say it again ...you can not claim defense or asserting home rule by participating in and validating the very system that has removed them.
There are only two people at this point truly and publicly suggesting or taking steps to defending our home rule rights, me and Dave Lamora.
That is pretty scary for a community that is babbling on about keeping home rule
Post a Comment