Clif, as usual you present a well articulated expose of the relationship between corporate wind developers and a supposed watchdog for the environment, the NYSDEC. Your words carry extra weight, considering your background with the DEC, your professional integrity as a scientist ,and your long time service in local government. Also as usual, I offer you kudos for speaking to the issue unreservedly and in name. You serve as an example to all who fear speaking out on issues that concern us all.Having said that I disagree with your conclusion and the premise for it.You state that you presume the intent of ART 10 was to provide a diverse composite of State Agency's perspectives. The evidence that you provide in your expose, and the very language in the rules of the art 10 process suggests you misinterpret that intent. Having had conversations with representatives of the PSC personally ,my interpretation is that ART 10 was intended and designed to implement the energy policy of Gov. Cuomo regardless of and in spite of public opposition and or genuine environmental issues that may be associated with industrial wind development. Your expose is excellent, but I don't believe the solution is to call for the recusal of the very environmental regulatory agency that should provide the unbiased protection we expect. The solution is to expose and remove the inherent bias and corruption that permeates the entire ART 10 process and is the root cause of that bias. ART 10 was not intended to provide a comprehensive unbiased review that would lead to responsible siting of wind energy projects. It is flawed in its intent, and the legislation that provided the authority to establish the process,and trample on local autonomy should be challenged and repealed. The bias you cite with the DEC is but one result of that inherent corruptness. The pre-emption of local law authority is at least as horrific, and an insult to the citizenry of the State and every local governing body. The sham of public input is meaningless as long as the pre-emption rule exists. The very letter you submit as evidence here while dramatic in its scope,and certainly extremely relevant, can simply be dismissed if the review panel so chooses.I value your contributions, but see no hope for the diverse, fair process you pine for until this law and process has been challenged and dismantled. Please consider supporting supervisor Storandt's appeal for broad public support for the joint municipal effort to challenge the constitutionality of this bad law.
David Lamora wrote, "Please consider supporting supervisor Storandt's appeal for broad public support for the joint municipal effort to challenge the constitutionality of this bad law."Out of due respect for the Clayton Supervisor don't you think you should at least extend the courtesy of checking with him before you speak for him?I don't think that is what Mr. Starandt has said at all.You might want to call him and ask him, David.
Post a Comment