BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Don't trample rights of localities

Credit:  By Dennis C. Vacco, Commentary | Times Union | Wednesday, September 28, 2016 | www.timesunion.com ~~

By Dennis C. Vacco, Commentary
Thursday, September 29, 2016

Gov.Andrew Cuomo and the Public Service Commission recently mandated that 50 percent of the state's power be generated by renewable sources by the year 2030. This goal requires up to 370 industrial wind energy facilities to be built.


Gunther Schaller said...

It is an unusual tactic for a lawyer to challenge the authority of the system he was hired to protect his clients against. One would expect that he would produce the best legal document money can buy, a local zoning ordinance tailored to the specific municipality, and help defend this ordinance when challenged by the wind company during the article 10 application process. A challenge to a ruling unfavorable to his client could come after it has been rendered. It could go as far as a challenge to the constitutionality of the act itself.
This apparent preemptive strike is strictly a PR effort. At least I hope it is. It could be an admission that the case of his clients is hopeless in the face of overwhelming odds. As a PR piece, the article addresses the legislature in Albany when it should have called out to the residents of the communities where the turbines are supposed to go. You don't start a revolution in the halls of Albany, you do it at the local level.

Dave LaMora said...

Gunther, I would suggest that your expressed attitude is exactly why Mr. Vacco is taking his message to ALbany. Your comments are literally verbatim the same that Atty. Paul Curtin delivered to the residents of Cape Vincent at a public hearing on their zoning law. At that hearing I argued that the zoning law which Curtin produced was incompatible with the revised Comp. Plan. It was devised (ill-advisedly in my opinion) to supposedly fit the parameters of a "reasonable" law that would survive the scrutiny of the ART 10 review process. I disagreed and urged the Town officials to mount a challenge to the State's pre-emptive authority. An objective reading of the rules of the ART10 process leads one with the same conclusion that Mr. Vacco is now presenting. ART 10 was designed to circumvent local opposition to industrial wind projects. How can there be a revolution beginning at the local level, when local officials and involved citizens such as yourself refuse to recognize the significance of this legislation, and continue to persist with the notion that reason will prevail against the legalized abuse of authority.

Mr. Vacco is presenting a real dose of reality here, not only to the citizenry , but more importantly to the legal profession, and the legislative community. We should be heeding his warning and taking action, instead of seeking ways to diminish his message. The message is clear! The citizenry, including yourself has made it clear they aren't willing to take the steps necessary to redress this oppressive government action. I welcome Mr. Vacco's attempt to address it from the professional ranks.

Perhaps you should listen more intently to his message.

Gunther Schaller said...

I realize that Mr. LaMora will use any opportunity to advance his agenda and will turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't fit the message. As a high priced legal expert Mr. Vacco must know that the fracking ban implemented through zoning by the town of Dryden was based on existing mining laws. New York State has plugged the loophole of only addressing the "how" by also addressing the "where" in their article 10. Nice try, but no cigar! Also overlooked is the fact that the extraction of natural gas is considered "bad" by the high priests of renewable energy sects, while wind, biofuel and solar can do no wrong.

Mr. Vacco is poised to present a Saddam Hussein defense: "I don't recognize this tribunal". The crack legal team of Hussein made the same mistake Mr. Vacco is making by allowing his client to plead "not guilty" therefore accepting the tribunal. By having his foot soldiers become party to the article 10 process and by allowing his client, the town of Clayton to participate, the outcome will be very similar: Saddam was hanged and the town of Clayton will go down in flames.

Anonymous said...

David Lamora said above, "We should be heeding his warning and taking action."
After years of insults to others in your very own town and your subversion and mockery of their efforts who do you think would want to become part of your and the Art Pundt 'we'.
Just down the street in your own neighborhood in Cape Vincent you are about
to get the start of a wind turbine blight along the seaway trail while you
and Art Pundt have encouraged the deterioration of your own zoning
laws while you sit and do nothing. NOTHING! You guys are phonies and all bluster.
Mr. Schaller hit the nail on the head. You contribute NOTHING!

Anonymous said...

hey anonymous, you been drinking? maybe not many people agree with these two guys, but what you said makes no sense. They been sayin for years to ban these turbines, can't blame them if the town won't do it or fight against the State. Geez, that's goofy!

Art Pundt said...

Gunther and 7:55 am

You both carry on as if a well designed wind law and comp plan are a given to protect a community.

Yet NO ONE including both of you can provide and evidence, case law, or siting decisions by any Art 10 board to show that this wind law/ appease Art 10 approach will even work at all. There is ZERO evidence so far. ZERO!!! Because as Mr. Vacco
said in another statement that the current Art 10 law is "untested" Get it...untested! There has of yet been NO siting decision or a test of any such wind law to examine under this version of Art 10.

As a result there are a lot of people unwittingly following this approach on basically nothing more that pure FAITH and deep over committment. Or because Mr. John Droz says it will work.

You better get a quick clue that a court is not likely to be swayed by..."because Droz says so", and I don't care how many lawyers or science he has.

Case in point. Cliff Schneider exposed the close connection between the DEC and wind developers on Galloo Island. He complained with a lot of research and evidence, and the WDT even chimed in. Did it make a difference? NO the DEC simply said we are going to participate in the Galloo process anyhow.

And THAT my friends is how this Art 10 process is going to go. Oh sorry...real nice wind law and great input...oh but we disagree...you're screwed!

So let's stop debating and how about you present us with concrete evidence that a wind law will stad against Art 10. Just show us one case to abck you claims.

More and more people and even Mr. Schneider who went part way through the Art 10 process have come to recognize what we have been saying for years that it is unfair and highly rigged to developers.

Art Pundt said...

Gunther you said:

I realize that Mr. LaMora will use any opportunity to advance his agenda and will turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't fit the message.

GIVE ME A BREAK...as if YOU don't have an agenda and don't pay attention to what doesn't fit your message???

This is why I find it hard to warm up to this wind law approach for one thing because you people are all over the logic map with contradictions like this absurd statement.

Art Pundt said...

4:43 Yup...and this is the kind of logic behind the wind law approach with Art 10.

Thank you!

Dave LaMora said...

7:55 You're beating the wrong horse pal! Check the records before you spout your garbage and make false accusations. I'm not the one who created or adopted the Cape Zoning Law that only established a 1.25 mile setback for turbines from the Seaway Trail. I vociferously protested this milk toast Law when it was proposed and still do. I haven't deteriorated the law in any way, the lack of enforcement does that quite adequately. If turbines are ever erected in Cape Vincent , it sure as hell won't be my fault.

Find someone else to beat up that deserves it.

Art Pundt said...

Not to mention Dave that the CV law pushes turbines back in to the CV interior to protect the high priced shore properties and sacrificed the people in the interior and on the borders of other towns. Can you say discriminatory and arbitrary?

And the CV law allows turbines a full 4 MILES CLOSER to the river than the proposed Iberdrola project in Clayton. Clayton even made a comment to the NYPSC about their concerns over the CV law allowing turbines to close to the river.

And there are several former and current CV officials that are admitting now the law was not intended to stop wind development.

Chew on that fact for a while 7:55. Your town wrote a law that actually ALLOWS industrial wind development. You wanna explain how that is supposed to work to protect the town and region??? And if you have a comp plan that is all about preserving the scenic resources of the town as a top priority, and then you write even a restrictive wind law and allow huge visually invasive industrial wind development, then your zoning is in violation of the intent of the comp plan and the state REQUIRES they should be in accordance with each other!

The CV law is a wind disaster...and one year after it was passed town zoning officials PROVED beyond a doubt they could not read interpret or apply the law correctly. And this is what we are supposed to battle the state Art 10 and wind developers with...goooooood luuuuck!

Anonymous said...

Thank's David for:

"I vociferously protested this milk toast Law when it was proposed and still do."

You have been a great help with our past elections. That stupid law is being tested
right now. Our present board elected with your help will now get rid of the people
who wrote that law and the new turbines will be placed.

Where you were were wrong and turbines were right is wind is coming and
you can't stop them. Coming soon on 12E. United wind!!!

Fighting article 10 is a waste of time and you and Art are right about that, too.

Writing letters to the PSC is a waste of time. You are right about that too.

Wind is coming!

Art Pundt said...

So turbines are coming on 12E???? Where specifically?

Anonymous said...

The following people are applying for area variances for 150 foot personal turbines.

1. Frank Giquinto Constance road.
2. Jarrod Radley rte.12
3. Rick Lawrence ???