I
am dumbfounded how the Times' editors could have so completely missed
the bus on the Cape Vincent wind issue in their editorial Blown Away
(Feb. 28). Times' editors opined that full-time residents had to
deal with the ups and downs of the local economy, and can you blame
them for not wanting to take advantage of the opportunity for making
money off their land with industrial wind development.
Unfortunately,
the editors also exposed their bias regarding the rights of part-time
residents, “
But
part-time residents objected to the notion of introducing a wind farm
into the community.” They didn’t want to spend their leisure
time staring at numerous wind turbines.”
With this comment Times' editors could not have been more
disingenuous to the majority of us Cape residents.
Here
are just two important points editors of the Times missed. In a
survey of all Cape Vincent residents in 1992 (well before wind) the
overwhelming majority of both full-time and part-time residents
rejected future industrial development. The conclusion of that study
was “They
(Cape Vincent residents) would like to see improved job opportunities
and services, but not at the expense or sacrifice of the very
qualities that make Cape Vincent so appealing – its beauty, history
and small town atmosphere.”
Furthermore,
Cape Vincent’s first master plan for future development and growth
(2003) specifically discouraged development such as industrial wind,
“Location
of towers, prisons or utility facilities where their impact would
have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets.” What
became obvious to those full-time residents that did not support
industrial wind development (there are many of us), a number of town
leaders and full-time residents ignored the wishes and plans of the
entire community in order to take advantage of their own economic
opportunities via leasing their land to industrial wind developers.
Their
attitude was to hell with the community planning, we want our money!
Apparently the editors of the Times also believe that community
planning for future development is just a waste of time.
The
other major oversight of the Times was their continuing refusal to
ignore the corrupting influence of BP’s payments to local
officials. The Times broke the story on conflicts of interest in
2006, but subsequently always chose to view the issue as only wind
development and not wind corruption. The Times has yet to report on
the language in BP’s wind lease contracts that requires the full
cooperation of leaseholders in forwarding their project. This
information has been available for years and has important ethical
implications for public servants.
For
town officials who are expected to serve the public’s interests
these leases were disastrous and the payments to officials by BP
tainted their service to their constituents. The Jefferson County
Board of Ethics understood the importance of this issue; I just wish
the editors of the Times could have understood it as well.
Finally,
the Times recommends, “Residents
must begin the process of healing some of the wounds caused by this
experience. They can start by recognizing that perhaps they
themselves were responsible for some of the pain inflicted.”
Unfortunately, this editorial by the Times does absolutely nothing
to help that process. The paper could have helped far more by
leaving their editorial page blank.
But,
their editorial does prove that it is impossible for editors sitting
in an Washington Street office some 30 miles distant to understand a
very complex community issue - at best the editors of the Times get
all their information about Cape Vincent second-hand.
What
is also obvious to us now with this editorial today is that not only
have we had to fight BP for the past eight years, but we have had to
fight the Watertown Daily Times as well.
Clif
Schneider