Monday, March 11, 2013

Cape Vincent Supervisor nominates Four candidates for BP Wind Farm Article 10 ad hoc committee

Update: 3/11/13/2:15 PM

Nominees Resumes 




10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What will happen now is that pro wind will launch a personal attack on each of these individuals rather than address the actual issues. Pro wind has nothing left. Wind is a failed economic, social, health and technological model. So, pro wind will up the prejudice and increase the slurs and interject irrelevant issues with an attempt to disrupt the government and spread more hate in the community. What next? Green hoods and burning little turbines on people's lawns?

Anonymous said...

It is becoming obvious that there is incredible resistance to the bp Cape project. We are now at the stage that jobs of local State reps are in jeopardy if they don't step in and recommend that the PSC reject bp pursuit before it gets out of hand.

Anonymous said...

Excellent selections...all smart well informed people with no conflicts of interest.

Anonymous said...

It goes without saying that the Jefferson County Board will respect the wishes of the supervisor in his endorsement of these fine choices.

Assembly Woman Russell, Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush and Senator Ritchie all favored home municipal rule and voted against article 10 legislation.

Therefore, it will be expected that they will also endorse the choices.

Anonymous said...

If there will only be two ad hoc members selected to sit on the siting board ,can anyone explain why in the hell we would nominate four?

Why should we give the state anymore opportunities to make our choices for us?

Anonymous said...

Well -- you might need an alternate who could be put forward quickly if something unforeseen should happen....you know, with drone strikes and all.

Anonymous said...

Four were chosen because that's the Article 10 law.

Anonymous said...

6:57 I should have signed my last comment. It was an earnest question. How obvious is it that the State wants ultimate control over this review process. Even the policy of allowing two ad hoc members to represent the local municipality, cannot escape the ignominy of interference from the State.

Why are we not allowed to select the two sitting members. Why is it necessary for this final,arrogant, act of absolute control? Is it symbolic, or is there some quality inherent in any one of the candidates that would make him or her seem more acceptable to the State? If there is not ,why are we not allowed the final choice?

We are being manipulated,insulted, patronized, and treated like insolent children. If there is any further evidence needed beyond the mere existence of ART.X, this final act of imposition clearly lets us know our place.

Anonymous said...

"treated like insolent children"
Article x is a law passed by all but a few State Reps.
Insolent children don't understand the laws which is why we call them insolent children.
Cape Vincent is very fortunate to have the brain power and the dedication of a large group of people. They are doing a good job despite the pro wind and even one or two anti wind who suffer from lack of understanding and are trying to tear them down.

Anonymous said...

"It is becoming obvious that there is incredible resistance to the bp Cape project. We are now at the stage that jobs of local State reps are in jeopardy if they don't step in and recommend that the PSC reject bp pursuit before it gets out of hand"

Which State reps are you referring to ,and what makes you think they would have any impact on the PSC? Just how are their jobs in jeopardy?