On July 21, 2006, Supreme Court Justice John J. Ark issued a Decision and Order in the matter of James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus et al., constituting the Town Board of the Town of Cohocton. Judge Ark dismissed Mr. Hall’s petition on the narrow grounds that Mr. Hall lacked standing to commence his lawsuit.
Mr. Hall disagrees with the Court’s decision and regrets that the Court declined to address the merits of the case, namely that the Town Board failed to comply with the State SEQR environmental review process before it adopted the windmill local law. This was an allegation made by Mr. Hall in his lawsuit and which was not denied, by the Town Board in any of its responding papers.
Mr. Hall firmly believes that as a resident of the Town of Cohocton in an area where wind turbines generators are now permitted he does have the standing to contest the Town Board’s action. Furthermore, he believes that the Cohocton Town Board should have complied with New York State law before it adopted the windmill law. Accordingly, Mr. Hall will appeal the Court’s decision.
David P. Miller - ESQ
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Glenn R. Schleede letter to the Editor
July 27, 2006
The Editor
The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Your July 27, 2006, story, "Energetic turn to wind power," is a perfect example of an apparently naive reporter being "taken in" by Washington-based industry lobbyists. The result is a biased, uninformed story about wind energy masquerading as "news."
You and your reporters need to realize that the wind industry and other wind advocates, including the US DOE, have for years been spreading false and misleading information about "wind energy."
If the wind industry or its sycophants in DOE were in fact able to get President Bush to "predict" that wind might someday supply 20% of US electricity needs, the President's staff needs to give him better protection from DOE officials and check facts before having him make more uninformed statements and "predictions."
Specifically, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that wind provided 36/100 of 1% of US electric generation in 2005 and predicts that wind might provide 1.09% by 2030.
In fact, the wind industry and DOE have greatly overstated the environmental and energy benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs. Their lobbying has led to faulty federal and state wind energy policies, tax shelters and other subsidies that:
1. Annually transfer millions of dollars from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a few large companies that own "wind farms" or manufacturer wind turbines.
2. Misdirect billions in capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms" or "wind parks") that produce little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
Thanks to citizen-led groups from around the US and other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built, facts about wind energy are gradually being exposed. Those facts are quite readily available if your reporter had looked for them instead of listening to obviously biased wind industry lobbyists. She would have learned, for example, that:
1. Tax avoidance, not environmental and energy benefits, has become the primary motivation for building “wind farms.†Currently, two-thirds of the economic value of wind projects comes from federal tax benefits.
2. Huge windmills – some 35 stories tall -- produce very little electricity, as demonstrated by the data provided above.
3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units.
4. The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates admit.
5. Wind energy has NOT been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines is also growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
If you or your reporter would like documentation for the above facts, please let me know -- or you might have her check such web sites as http://www.windwatch.org/ and http://www.windaction.org/.
Above all, please do not again let your reporters turn in such one-sided, uninformed stories.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
cc: White House speech writers and fact checkers
The Editor
The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Your July 27, 2006, story, "Energetic turn to wind power," is a perfect example of an apparently naive reporter being "taken in" by Washington-based industry lobbyists. The result is a biased, uninformed story about wind energy masquerading as "news."
You and your reporters need to realize that the wind industry and other wind advocates, including the US DOE, have for years been spreading false and misleading information about "wind energy."
If the wind industry or its sycophants in DOE were in fact able to get President Bush to "predict" that wind might someday supply 20% of US electricity needs, the President's staff needs to give him better protection from DOE officials and check facts before having him make more uninformed statements and "predictions."
Specifically, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that wind provided 36/100 of 1% of US electric generation in 2005 and predicts that wind might provide 1.09% by 2030.
In fact, the wind industry and DOE have greatly overstated the environmental and energy benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs. Their lobbying has led to faulty federal and state wind energy policies, tax shelters and other subsidies that:
1. Annually transfer millions of dollars from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a few large companies that own "wind farms" or manufacturer wind turbines.
2. Misdirect billions in capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms" or "wind parks") that produce little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
Thanks to citizen-led groups from around the US and other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built, facts about wind energy are gradually being exposed. Those facts are quite readily available if your reporter had looked for them instead of listening to obviously biased wind industry lobbyists. She would have learned, for example, that:
1. Tax avoidance, not environmental and energy benefits, has become the primary motivation for building “wind farms.†Currently, two-thirds of the economic value of wind projects comes from federal tax benefits.
2. Huge windmills – some 35 stories tall -- produce very little electricity, as demonstrated by the data provided above.
3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units.
4. The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates admit.
5. Wind energy has NOT been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines is also growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
If you or your reporter would like documentation for the above facts, please let me know -- or you might have her check such web sites as http://www.windwatch.org/ and http://www.windaction.org/.
Above all, please do not again let your reporters turn in such one-sided, uninformed stories.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
cc: White House speech writers and fact checkers
WHY I VOTED AGAINST WINDPOWER by John F. "Jack" Sullivan
John F. “Jack” Sullivan
Town Councilor
Malone, NY
July 22, 2006
To whom it may concern:
To some, my vote against wind power in Malone was a vote against progress; however, be assured that this decision was based on hundreds of hours of study and research, as well as numerous mathematical calculations backed by years of business experience and a graduate degree in physics. This vote was against the degradation of local property values, destruction of some wonderful viewsheds, lowering the quality of life of some local residents, and the accruing of millions of dollars of NY taxpayer dollars by a few wind developers.
The following should be kept in mind concerning New York wind power projects:
(1) Not a single kw-hr. of electricity will go directly to local residents. Over 99.9% of the power produced goes out of town, mostly to large urban areas.
(2) Wind power WILL NOT be cheaper. Currently, National Grid offers wind power at 1.5 cents above market. ( How can they possibly separate wind power to an individual house?) Last year, when the largest wind project in the east went on-line, did your light bill decrease?
(3) Wind power has almost no relation to oil imports. Almost no electricity is produced by burning oil. Because of the expense of oil, the few oil fired plants in the country are used mainly as backups during peak demand, such as sultry summer days when wind is virtually nonexistent. Wind power would not dent our oil imports. All of New York's wind turbines produce less energy in a year than is contained in ONE DAY’S WORTH of imported oil. Besides this, the tiny amount of oil used to generate electricity all comes from the residue (basically, sludge) left over in the tanks from refining gas and diesel fuel. Essentially, then, this oil is a waste by-product of gas and diesel refinement.
(4) The typical PILOT program offered by area wind developers is far less than 1% of the total budgets of the taxing entities involved. PILOTS are a tiny percentage of company profits. You & I pay full taxes; it is unfair not to demand this of the wind energy companies, which contribute very little by way of jobs to the local economy.
(5) Currently, North Country wind projects can have towers within 1000' of an inhabited dwelling. This distance is much too close for a 400' tall tower. Towers this close have a potential for causing many problems, including: lowering property values, shadow flicker (an annoying problem and, for people prone to seizure disorder or car-sickness or sea-sickness, a serious health hazard that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon), bird kills (especially on migratory routes, as we have here with the Greater Snow Geese and other species), and excessive (health-damaging) sound levels. NOTE: sound pressure levels (decibels) emitted by wind turbines vary widely, depending on wind speed and direction, distance from turbine blades, and even time of day. Scientists using professional-grade instruments have measured sound levels up to 84 db. at 3300' ( over half a mile). That's twice the noise level of a 500 hp Corvette under full throttle.
(6) Windpower is unpredictable: you never know how much you are going to get or how long it will last. The wind salesmen are wont to lead us to believe that the nameplate capacity is the same as the constant output of the turbines. A 1.5 MW GE turbine doesn't produce 1.5 MW until wind gets to 16-18 m/s (about 36 to 40 mph ). Production drops off dramatically at lower wind speeds: less than 0.2 MW at 20 mph, and a miniscule 0.02 MW at 10 mph. Malone's past 2-year average wind speed was 6.05 mph—not enough even to start a large wind turbine. Why try to have a wind project in Malone? READ ON!
(7) The current 1.5 MW turbines have been in use over ten years. Why then, only now, do we get this onslaught of wind developers? The answer is recent government tax credits, subsidies and rapid depreciation allowances. Actually, their cumulative value is more than the value of the electricity produced. It seems likely that without our tax dollars the New York wind industry would simply vanish.
(8) In testing its own turbines GE found their overall net efficiency to be 10 percent!
(9) Wind developers say wind turbines use free fuel and are totally emission free. What they don’t acknowledge is that the emissions produced in manufacturing, transporting, construction and erection of a tower may take up to 7 years of operation to get back.
(10) The wind industry's goal is to produce 10% of NY's electricity. This is either an impossible dream or a blueprint for unbelievable destruction of rural NY landscape. Ten percent of NY's power is about 4000 MW, which translates into 15,000 1.5 MW turbines at 25% efficiency (probably a generous figure ). Since NY wind projects use an average of 60 acres per tower (according to NYSERDA), this means using 900,000 acres of our land for the next 20-50 years. According to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority), 4000MW of (unpredictable, often gusting) wind power is likely to completely destabilize the entire power grid.
(11) Wind turbines shut down other facilities when in operation, thus reducing polluting emissions. However, figures of reduced emissions published by wind developers are greatly overblown, since only certain types of plants are taken off-line. The first to shut down are pure turbine natural gas plants, which produce much less pollution than coal plants and, secondly, hydro plants are shut down. It is absurd to replace one non-polluting renewable source with another.
(12) In initial presentations the wind salesmen promised up to 45 permanent jobs as a result of a 67 turbine project in Malone. My research found the industry average was 1 job per 10-12 turbines. Either the wind salesmen were exaggerating or they had the most inefficient company in the industry. In addition, their claimed "economic benefits" for the area included the cost of turbines (purchased in foreign countries) and construction contracts (most of which would certainly be awarded to out-of-area firms).
(13) The wind salesmen who invaded Malone actually had their lawyers write a zoning ordinance to govern themselves and then tried clandestinely to sneak it into the Planning Board as a sample from another town. One provision would have allowed 400’ high turbines less than 500’ from a home (the closest in NY State, I believe).
(14) The Malone wind project proposal would have impacted 5000 acres of land for up to 50 years, with little net gain to the community at large.
In attending a number of wind developer presentations it became obvious that they contained duplicitous, misleading statements, exaggerated benefits, and ignored the disadvantages. This, alone, was enough to turn me against wind power for Northern New York.
In addition, I really can’t reconcile the wind companies’ insistence on leasing land when they can buy it cheaper. Liability avoidance? Plans to walk out when the project is depreciated?
And you should see the lease agreements! I have never seen such a one-sided document in my life! I find it hard to believe anyone who signed this read it carefully. I’m sure many only read the financial clauses. I say, “Get a lawyer!” I would be happy to share a lease agreement with anyone wishing to examine one.
Is industrial wind power presently a viable choice for Northern New York? I think not. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and find user-friendly alternatives. Here are some realistic ways of accomplishing this:
(1) Industrial & residential conservation. The average homeowner can reduce electricity use by 15-25% with only very affordable expenditures.
(2) Clean up emissions from coal plants. Entirely feasible and less costly per megawatt-hour than wind power.
(3) Build some nuclear plants. France is 80% nuclear, SAFELY. It is far more dangerous to cross Malone’s Main St. than to live near an American nuclear power plant.
(4) Encourage small wind turbines (as the Malone local law does) and solar installations, both of which give realistic energy aid to local residents, instead of resorting to industrial wind turbines, which provide billions in tax money to multi-billion-dollar companies that take most of the profits out of the area.
Town Councilor
Malone, NY
July 22, 2006
To whom it may concern:
To some, my vote against wind power in Malone was a vote against progress; however, be assured that this decision was based on hundreds of hours of study and research, as well as numerous mathematical calculations backed by years of business experience and a graduate degree in physics. This vote was against the degradation of local property values, destruction of some wonderful viewsheds, lowering the quality of life of some local residents, and the accruing of millions of dollars of NY taxpayer dollars by a few wind developers.
The following should be kept in mind concerning New York wind power projects:
(1) Not a single kw-hr. of electricity will go directly to local residents. Over 99.9% of the power produced goes out of town, mostly to large urban areas.
(2) Wind power WILL NOT be cheaper. Currently, National Grid offers wind power at 1.5 cents above market. ( How can they possibly separate wind power to an individual house?) Last year, when the largest wind project in the east went on-line, did your light bill decrease?
(3) Wind power has almost no relation to oil imports. Almost no electricity is produced by burning oil. Because of the expense of oil, the few oil fired plants in the country are used mainly as backups during peak demand, such as sultry summer days when wind is virtually nonexistent. Wind power would not dent our oil imports. All of New York's wind turbines produce less energy in a year than is contained in ONE DAY’S WORTH of imported oil. Besides this, the tiny amount of oil used to generate electricity all comes from the residue (basically, sludge) left over in the tanks from refining gas and diesel fuel. Essentially, then, this oil is a waste by-product of gas and diesel refinement.
(4) The typical PILOT program offered by area wind developers is far less than 1% of the total budgets of the taxing entities involved. PILOTS are a tiny percentage of company profits. You & I pay full taxes; it is unfair not to demand this of the wind energy companies, which contribute very little by way of jobs to the local economy.
(5) Currently, North Country wind projects can have towers within 1000' of an inhabited dwelling. This distance is much too close for a 400' tall tower. Towers this close have a potential for causing many problems, including: lowering property values, shadow flicker (an annoying problem and, for people prone to seizure disorder or car-sickness or sea-sickness, a serious health hazard that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon), bird kills (especially on migratory routes, as we have here with the Greater Snow Geese and other species), and excessive (health-damaging) sound levels. NOTE: sound pressure levels (decibels) emitted by wind turbines vary widely, depending on wind speed and direction, distance from turbine blades, and even time of day. Scientists using professional-grade instruments have measured sound levels up to 84 db. at 3300' ( over half a mile). That's twice the noise level of a 500 hp Corvette under full throttle.
(6) Windpower is unpredictable: you never know how much you are going to get or how long it will last. The wind salesmen are wont to lead us to believe that the nameplate capacity is the same as the constant output of the turbines. A 1.5 MW GE turbine doesn't produce 1.5 MW until wind gets to 16-18 m/s (about 36 to 40 mph ). Production drops off dramatically at lower wind speeds: less than 0.2 MW at 20 mph, and a miniscule 0.02 MW at 10 mph. Malone's past 2-year average wind speed was 6.05 mph—not enough even to start a large wind turbine. Why try to have a wind project in Malone? READ ON!
(7) The current 1.5 MW turbines have been in use over ten years. Why then, only now, do we get this onslaught of wind developers? The answer is recent government tax credits, subsidies and rapid depreciation allowances. Actually, their cumulative value is more than the value of the electricity produced. It seems likely that without our tax dollars the New York wind industry would simply vanish.
(8) In testing its own turbines GE found their overall net efficiency to be 10 percent!
(9) Wind developers say wind turbines use free fuel and are totally emission free. What they don’t acknowledge is that the emissions produced in manufacturing, transporting, construction and erection of a tower may take up to 7 years of operation to get back.
(10) The wind industry's goal is to produce 10% of NY's electricity. This is either an impossible dream or a blueprint for unbelievable destruction of rural NY landscape. Ten percent of NY's power is about 4000 MW, which translates into 15,000 1.5 MW turbines at 25% efficiency (probably a generous figure ). Since NY wind projects use an average of 60 acres per tower (according to NYSERDA), this means using 900,000 acres of our land for the next 20-50 years. According to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority), 4000MW of (unpredictable, often gusting) wind power is likely to completely destabilize the entire power grid.
(11) Wind turbines shut down other facilities when in operation, thus reducing polluting emissions. However, figures of reduced emissions published by wind developers are greatly overblown, since only certain types of plants are taken off-line. The first to shut down are pure turbine natural gas plants, which produce much less pollution than coal plants and, secondly, hydro plants are shut down. It is absurd to replace one non-polluting renewable source with another.
(12) In initial presentations the wind salesmen promised up to 45 permanent jobs as a result of a 67 turbine project in Malone. My research found the industry average was 1 job per 10-12 turbines. Either the wind salesmen were exaggerating or they had the most inefficient company in the industry. In addition, their claimed "economic benefits" for the area included the cost of turbines (purchased in foreign countries) and construction contracts (most of which would certainly be awarded to out-of-area firms).
(13) The wind salesmen who invaded Malone actually had their lawyers write a zoning ordinance to govern themselves and then tried clandestinely to sneak it into the Planning Board as a sample from another town. One provision would have allowed 400’ high turbines less than 500’ from a home (the closest in NY State, I believe).
(14) The Malone wind project proposal would have impacted 5000 acres of land for up to 50 years, with little net gain to the community at large.
In attending a number of wind developer presentations it became obvious that they contained duplicitous, misleading statements, exaggerated benefits, and ignored the disadvantages. This, alone, was enough to turn me against wind power for Northern New York.
In addition, I really can’t reconcile the wind companies’ insistence on leasing land when they can buy it cheaper. Liability avoidance? Plans to walk out when the project is depreciated?
And you should see the lease agreements! I have never seen such a one-sided document in my life! I find it hard to believe anyone who signed this read it carefully. I’m sure many only read the financial clauses. I say, “Get a lawyer!” I would be happy to share a lease agreement with anyone wishing to examine one.
Is industrial wind power presently a viable choice for Northern New York? I think not. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and find user-friendly alternatives. Here are some realistic ways of accomplishing this:
(1) Industrial & residential conservation. The average homeowner can reduce electricity use by 15-25% with only very affordable expenditures.
(2) Clean up emissions from coal plants. Entirely feasible and less costly per megawatt-hour than wind power.
(3) Build some nuclear plants. France is 80% nuclear, SAFELY. It is far more dangerous to cross Malone’s Main St. than to live near an American nuclear power plant.
(4) Encourage small wind turbines (as the Malone local law does) and solar installations, both of which give realistic energy aid to local residents, instead of resorting to industrial wind turbines, which provide billions in tax money to multi-billion-dollar companies that take most of the profits out of the area.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
James Hall Article 78 against Town of Cohocton Decision
Hon. John J. Ark
Supreme Court Justice
Supreme Court Chambers
State of New York
412 Hall of Justice
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 428-3547
Facsimile 428-3570 Law Clerk 428-2488
July 21,2006
Patrick F. McAllister, Esq.
31 Main Street
P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
Re: James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus, et al. Index No. 97580
Dear Counsel:
Enclosed is the original Decision and Order relative to the above-captioned matter; a copy of which is herein forwarded to Mr. Miller.
Kindly file same with the Ontario County Clerk's Office and forward time-stamped copies to counsel and the Court.
Honorable John J. Ark Supreme Court Justice
JJA/dac Enclosure
c: David P. Miller, Esq. (w/enclosure)
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ONTARIO
JAMES HALL,
Petitioners,
DECISION and ORDER Index No. 97580
JACK ZIGENFUS, JEFFREY WISE, JOSEPH DYCKMAN, MILTON LEVESQUE, and WAYNE HUNT, Constituting the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, NEW YORK,
Respondents.
Petitioner, a resident of the Town of Cochocton, Steuben County, has brought an Article 78 Petition in Ontario County Supreme Court, seeking annulment of a local law. The Petition, brought against members of the Cohocton Town Board, asserts that Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (also known as the "Windmill Local Law") was promulgated in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").
The law purports to restrict and regulate the use and operation of residential, commercial and industrial windmills. The law is applicable to five town zoning districts which comprise the entire town. Petitioner resides in the Agricultural-Residential (AG-R) zoning district of the Town of Cohocton.
Respondents have moved for dismissal of the Petition, alleging that petitioner lacks standing to attack the local law in question. The affidavit of Jack Zigenfus, Cohocton Town Supervisor (and Town Board member) enumerates the public hearings that were held prior to the law's passage on January 24, 2006 (see, Zigenfus affidavit, paragraph II.). It further states that, while the petitioner may have attended various Town Board meetings and the public hearings, he was never heard to object to the proposed law's impact on the use or enjoyment of his property (kL paragraph 12.).
In the alternative, respondents request a change of venue to Steuben County, since the petitioner resides in the Town of Cohocton, said town is located entirely within Steuben County, all underlying events took place in the Town of Cohocton and Steuben County, and the respondents should not be required to travel outside the county within which Cohocton was incorporated, in order to respond to the Petition, which they deem to be groundless.
Before addressing the question of standing, the Court wishes to restate the parties' respective positions. Petitioner maintains that the Town Board did not follow the dictates of SEQRA in formulating the local law. Respondents point out that SEQRA is invoked in the law as part of the approval process, under §§ I (A)(l) and II (A)(l). Petitioner asserts that the law allows construction of windmills where none has ever existed. Respondents reply that the law, far from permitting windmill construction, merely regulates it, which regulation is of first impression, and of necessity beneficial to the town's environmental quality.
The thrust of petitioner's argument (though not well particularized) is that the method of enactment was deficient, in light of SEQRA's mandates. Respondents point to petitioner's failure to claim any existing or imminent danger to his property. They therefore deem the Petition to be fatally defective.
On the threshold issue of petitioner's standing, respondents cite The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., et al. v. County of Suffolk, et al. (77 NY2d 761 [1991]). That case required, as a prerequisite to standing, that a petitioner demonstrate an "injury in fact," and that the interest asserted be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the law. Respondents also cite Society of Plastics far the proposition that rite subject injury must be "... in come way different in kind or degree from (hat of the general public" (Matter uf Brighton Residents Against Violence to CMdrtn. Inc v. Town of Brighton. 3(K AD2d 33 (200)], at page 36. ching AvrfeQ' of Plastics} Petitioner is of the belief that mere residence in an affected zoning district grams him automatic stmding to challenge the validity of the Windmill Local Law. The parties also differ over whether Qiis is actually Bland use case. Petitioner holda that it ii not. Respondents claim that it is in fact a land use case. The Court is cooctrained to agree with the respondents
While petitioner opines that his denial of standing would prevent anyone else from gaining standing to challenge this or any contemplated legislation on the subject, he is missing the point In order for a party to have standing, there must first be a justiciable controversy.
SEQRA is an aivironmentally-mutivated statute. The inleresta it seeks to protect arc the integrity and viability of the physical environment. Petitioner's interest (though not articulated by him) is at beiiieconomK; and at the leasi, aesthetic. These are not interests germane to an environmental monitoring vehicle such as SEQRA.
Petitioner has not been damaged by the mere bet of enactment of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006. Unless and until a special ose permit for corutruciion and operation of a windmill is granted, there exists no potential Tor environmental injury to his property.
Onty after die granting of an application could petitioner assert con-compliance with SEQRA *s procedural mandates. He would also then be required to allege environmental degradation, current or potential. to his property. Factors sucb as numbers and proximity to his land of any proposed windmills would enter into any judicial review or the Town Board's action.
However, since any such procedural errors or incidents/threats of damage are speculative and hypoihelicnl, Ilic IMilion ift preiimlme.
James Hall fails to allege any items of actual or potential environmental injury to his property that would convey .sltuuliug on him to challenge this Windmill Local Law of Cohocton, New York. He has not in fact specified injury of any kind, whether of a type that would affect the public at large, or of a nature specific to his property.
HONORABLE JOHN J. ARK, JSC
A motion to dismiss James Hall's Article 78 Petition is granted. The alternative request for a change of venue is moot.
Supreme Court Justice
Supreme Court Chambers
State of New York
412 Hall of Justice
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 428-3547
Facsimile 428-3570 Law Clerk 428-2488
July 21,2006
Patrick F. McAllister, Esq.
31 Main Street
P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
Re: James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus, et al. Index No. 97580
Dear Counsel:
Enclosed is the original Decision and Order relative to the above-captioned matter; a copy of which is herein forwarded to Mr. Miller.
Kindly file same with the Ontario County Clerk's Office and forward time-stamped copies to counsel and the Court.
Honorable John J. Ark Supreme Court Justice
JJA/dac Enclosure
c: David P. Miller, Esq. (w/enclosure)
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ONTARIO
JAMES HALL,
Petitioners,
DECISION and ORDER Index No. 97580
JACK ZIGENFUS, JEFFREY WISE, JOSEPH DYCKMAN, MILTON LEVESQUE, and WAYNE HUNT, Constituting the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, NEW YORK,
Respondents.
Petitioner, a resident of the Town of Cochocton, Steuben County, has brought an Article 78 Petition in Ontario County Supreme Court, seeking annulment of a local law. The Petition, brought against members of the Cohocton Town Board, asserts that Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (also known as the "Windmill Local Law") was promulgated in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").
The law purports to restrict and regulate the use and operation of residential, commercial and industrial windmills. The law is applicable to five town zoning districts which comprise the entire town. Petitioner resides in the Agricultural-Residential (AG-R) zoning district of the Town of Cohocton.
Respondents have moved for dismissal of the Petition, alleging that petitioner lacks standing to attack the local law in question. The affidavit of Jack Zigenfus, Cohocton Town Supervisor (and Town Board member) enumerates the public hearings that were held prior to the law's passage on January 24, 2006 (see, Zigenfus affidavit, paragraph II.). It further states that, while the petitioner may have attended various Town Board meetings and the public hearings, he was never heard to object to the proposed law's impact on the use or enjoyment of his property (kL paragraph 12.).
In the alternative, respondents request a change of venue to Steuben County, since the petitioner resides in the Town of Cohocton, said town is located entirely within Steuben County, all underlying events took place in the Town of Cohocton and Steuben County, and the respondents should not be required to travel outside the county within which Cohocton was incorporated, in order to respond to the Petition, which they deem to be groundless.
Before addressing the question of standing, the Court wishes to restate the parties' respective positions. Petitioner maintains that the Town Board did not follow the dictates of SEQRA in formulating the local law. Respondents point out that SEQRA is invoked in the law as part of the approval process, under §§ I (A)(l) and II (A)(l). Petitioner asserts that the law allows construction of windmills where none has ever existed. Respondents reply that the law, far from permitting windmill construction, merely regulates it, which regulation is of first impression, and of necessity beneficial to the town's environmental quality.
The thrust of petitioner's argument (though not well particularized) is that the method of enactment was deficient, in light of SEQRA's mandates. Respondents point to petitioner's failure to claim any existing or imminent danger to his property. They therefore deem the Petition to be fatally defective.
On the threshold issue of petitioner's standing, respondents cite The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., et al. v. County of Suffolk, et al. (77 NY2d 761 [1991]). That case required, as a prerequisite to standing, that a petitioner demonstrate an "injury in fact," and that the interest asserted be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the law. Respondents also cite Society of Plastics far the proposition that rite subject injury must be "... in come way different in kind or degree from (hat of the general public" (Matter uf Brighton Residents Against Violence to CMdrtn. Inc v. Town of Brighton. 3(K AD2d 33 (200)], at page 36. ching AvrfeQ' of Plastics} Petitioner is of the belief that mere residence in an affected zoning district grams him automatic stmding to challenge the validity of the Windmill Local Law. The parties also differ over whether Qiis is actually Bland use case. Petitioner holda that it ii not. Respondents claim that it is in fact a land use case. The Court is cooctrained to agree with the respondents
While petitioner opines that his denial of standing would prevent anyone else from gaining standing to challenge this or any contemplated legislation on the subject, he is missing the point In order for a party to have standing, there must first be a justiciable controversy.
SEQRA is an aivironmentally-mutivated statute. The inleresta it seeks to protect arc the integrity and viability of the physical environment. Petitioner's interest (though not articulated by him) is at beiiieconomK; and at the leasi, aesthetic. These are not interests germane to an environmental monitoring vehicle such as SEQRA.
Petitioner has not been damaged by the mere bet of enactment of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006. Unless and until a special ose permit for corutruciion and operation of a windmill is granted, there exists no potential Tor environmental injury to his property.
Onty after die granting of an application could petitioner assert con-compliance with SEQRA *s procedural mandates. He would also then be required to allege environmental degradation, current or potential. to his property. Factors sucb as numbers and proximity to his land of any proposed windmills would enter into any judicial review or the Town Board's action.
However, since any such procedural errors or incidents/threats of damage are speculative and hypoihelicnl, Ilic IMilion ift preiimlme.
James Hall fails to allege any items of actual or potential environmental injury to his property that would convey .sltuuliug on him to challenge this Windmill Local Law of Cohocton, New York. He has not in fact specified injury of any kind, whether of a type that would affect the public at large, or of a nature specific to his property.
HONORABLE JOHN J. ARK, JSC
A motion to dismiss James Hall's Article 78 Petition is granted. The alternative request for a change of venue is moot.
Notice to Sandor Fox, Jack Zigenfus, and Jim Sherron by Robert C. Strasburg II
Below are two letters that you may have seen. My reason for bringing them to your attention is because they bring sound reasons to consider an immediate moratorium on all wind turbine projects in Steuben County. We have all studied this issue long enough to understand it is simply about money, not energy. If you consider this fact, and if money is the sole justification for this project, please consider the logical points brought out below.
We all know how the dark side of politics works. Wind Companies have bought their way into the income streams of government supported high jacking of tax revenues. There have got to be better answers for Steuben County and its Towns. I urge all of you to consider how you can in good conscience go forward with this violation. Concerned citizens of honorable reputation and education have brought sufficient information to the forefront of this issue to justify a moratorium.
Can any Town government point to a serious study from an unbiased reputable source in which all economic impacts from this program have been considered? We as residents of Steuben County are at the bottom of the food chain in this Federal and State level political swindle of taxpayers, yet we do have the ability to stop this with the cooperation of our government.
Preserve us from the victimization being perpetrated on us.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
We all know how the dark side of politics works. Wind Companies have bought their way into the income streams of government supported high jacking of tax revenues. There have got to be better answers for Steuben County and its Towns. I urge all of you to consider how you can in good conscience go forward with this violation. Concerned citizens of honorable reputation and education have brought sufficient information to the forefront of this issue to justify a moratorium.
Can any Town government point to a serious study from an unbiased reputable source in which all economic impacts from this program have been considered? We as residents of Steuben County are at the bottom of the food chain in this Federal and State level political swindle of taxpayers, yet we do have the ability to stop this with the cooperation of our government.
Preserve us from the victimization being perpetrated on us.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bradley E. Jones letter to Philip J. Roche - Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
July 22, 2006
Philip J. Roche
Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, New York 14810
Dear Mr. Roche,
I was part of a group of neighbors who spoke out against the Windfarm Prattsburgh at last Thursday’s Public Hearing. We were all very appreciative that you took the time to attend and listen to our concerns. Though we will be submitting a comprehensive analysis and critique of the DEIS, I wanted to send you some comments sooner so that you may have some additional time to consider some of the broader economic development issues.
First, let me give you a little background. Our family has worked our 175 acres in the town of Italy since 1958. We have done Timber Stand Improvement, planted tens of thousands of pine, spruce, and larch, thousands of wildlife shrubs, built four ponds (stocked with bass or trout), and strived always to maintain the character of the former farm and forestlands. In recognition of our accomplishments we received the Conservationist of the Year award from the NY DEC. Dad was deservedly proud of this recognition. Today we are a Certified Tree Farm with a DEC-approved Forest Management Plan. And our heritage orchard, which was planted last year, will be bearing fruit next season.
It goes without saying that we are totally committed to this area, its continued economic development, and the preservation of its cultural roots.
Regarding economic development I believe that there are a number of potential threats given the scope of the proposed windfarms that require serious, thoughtful, and objective analysis. The DEIS consideration of economic development impact is not serious, thoughtful, or objective. Here are a few issues that deserve further study.
1. Impact on Central Finger Lakes Tourism. Carole Kost covered this issue well in her remarks Thursday. Based on the studies she referred to as well as plain common sense the windfarms are a major threat to this $200M annual revenue stream. This threat needs to be carefully looked at by the various tourism groups, and studies need to be conducted by objective third parties.
2. Impact on property values. This issue will be covered in detail in our DEIS comments prepared by local real estate experts who believe that the impact to higher value properties will be devastating. For example, Canadaigua Lake waterfront is some of the most expensive property in the entire country. There are many multimillion-dollar homes, the majority of which are permanent residences. Danny Wegman (CEO of Wegmans Food and Pharmacy) and his wife reside on the west side. Tom Golisano (billionaire founder of Paychex) also has a place there. In addition to the waterfront value, there are hundreds of high-end homes on the hillsides overlooking the lake, including the massive investment at Bristol Harbor. The Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton windfarms will be directly in the viewsheds of hundreds of millions of dollars of residences, yet there is not even a mention of this in the impact statements. The potential impact on such real estate should not be overlooked. It needs to have fair and objective analysis so that negative impact can be quantified and evaluated.
3. Implications for population growth and tax rolls. Back about six years ago my sister built a beautiful new log home on the northern portion of the property. Two years ago we completed a major renovation and expansion of our own home. Our neighbors to the north, the Bromleys, have just completed a significant expansion to their residence. Our new neighbors to the east, the Livingstons, just moved into their newly built home last summer. All of these families re-located from urban areas to make their permanent residences here. The total construction cost for these four projects was well over a million dollars, money that went to local suppliers, builders, and craftsmen. This incremental value is directly reflected in the tax rolls, and our taxes. Additionally, because we now all live here full-time, we spend our money here. A significant amount of annual revenue now goes to local businesses because of these new residents such as these.
This aspect of economic development is also quite eco-friendly, as existing large parcels were utilized; there has been no subdividing whatsoever. Perhaps it is not surprising that all us came from different places (Buffalo, Rochester, Geneva, and Raleigh-Durham) but we all came and made major investments for the same reasons: the countryside is just spectacular, and the peace, tranquility, and rural character more than make up for the inconvenience (several of us have rather long commutes). We came hear to live with nature; we moved away from urban, industrial, and commercial areas. It is quiet here all of the time; it is so quiet at night that guests from the city remark about it. The skies are deep black with billions of visible stars. There is no ambient light at night. There are no manmade structures anywhere in our viewshed. For those of us who choose to be here, it truly is God’s country. And for many of us who have been here for a long time, it is part of our culture and heritage.
I’ve only told you about four families within a single square mile. But our stories are not unique. They are being repeated throughout the area in Italy, Naples, Jerusalem, Prattsburgh, Cohocton, Springwater, Middlesex, and South Bristol. In aggregate, this influx of new residents is an economic development engine. We pay lots of taxes, we spend our money locally, we contribute to local institutions, and (in general) we demand few if any additional municipal services. This is an economic development engine that is all positive. There are loads of positives with no tangible negatives. A simple analysis of changes in residential values in Appendix K clearly shows rapid growth over 5 years in the >$100,000 sector while the lower end (<$60.000) is flat. New money is coming to our towns.
I expect you can see where I am going with this but it is an undeniable fact that none of us would have come here to live next to industrial scale wind turbines, to have our viewsheds ruined, our dark and still evenings taken away, or to have our health and safety compromised. If the turbines go up, this economic engine will cease to operate. And without question the economic value contributed from all of these new residents is far greater than what the windfarm developers promise, even if you believe what they claim. Will some of our neighbors decide to leave because their quality of life has been impacted? I can only speak for our own situation, and for now, we just don’t know. This property has been a central part of my life for 48 years and is a significant element of my identity. Since I was a child, I wanted to live at “the farm”. Our dream is now reality. This property speaks to our priorities and to our values. Should the Prattsburgh and Italy projects sprout multiple clusters of giant turbines smack dab in the center of our view, we may decide to move on. As I said, we just do not yet know. Of course, selling a high-end property with a viewshed marred by an industrial park may be pretty difficult.
So please study and carefully consider the longer-term implications of the windfarms on population growth and the tax rolls.
4. For a number of years I held an executive level position with ALSTOM USA. Of our 28 sites across the country, two were in upstate NY, in Rochester and Hornell. Between these two sites we had over 500 white-collar professionals in addition to a large blue-collar workforce. Recruiting professionals to Rochester was relatively easy. Recruiting them to Hornell was very difficult. Here is why. Most of today’s college grads live and work in urban or suburban environments. They make these choices for lifestyle, amenities, plentiful jobs, and friends and family. The decidedly rural character of Hornell is not the least bit attractive to the vast majority of engineers and scientists that ALSTOM Transport required. Based on many years of recruiting experience I would estimate that less than 10% of technical professionals would choose to work in a place like Hornell. So right off the bat we had a tiny applicant pool compared to Rochester or Seattle or Hartford or other sites. Since we were not going to be successful marketing Hornell as the next Silicon Valley, we had to sell it for its genuine assets: natural beauty, rural lifestyle, etc. This did appeal to that small segment of the population that would consider living in Bath, or Arkport, or Dansville, or Geneseo, or Naples (we still have a number of managers residing in Naples). This recruiting strategy paid off, and our attrition for technical professionals was quite low. Those that joined up liked it here, and stayed.
Unfortunately widespread development of industrial windfarms would significantly reduce our ability to attract new technical talent because we will lose the attributes that they value. In search of rural, they will not choose industrial. With all of the project plans on the table right now, I cannot in good conscience recommend that a client consider an expansion site in Steuben or Yates Counties. The risk of not being able to attract top talent would simply be too great. Again, this is an area of substantial economic risk that isn’t even considered in the DEIS.
I would also like to offer another example, a rather timely one. There are plans underway to build a luxury hotel/spa adjacent to Reservoir Creek Golf Course on Route 21 south of Naples village. If the Cohocton windfarm is built it will place a large number of turbines on Pine Hill that would tower over the hotel and ruin the entire southern viewshed. This project (120 permanent jobs) will not move forward if there is any possibility that Windfarm Cohocton (4 – 6 jobs) will be. This is not a rational economic development trade-off. We need to look at the bigger picture; we need to evaluate the cumulative impact of all of the proposed developments. Looking at each project separately without considering the aggregate impact on the local economy is not sufficient due diligence.
I believe that much additional study is required to honestly and objectively determine the real economic impact of the windfarm projects. To do this, one would first need to accurately quantify the economic benefits of the projects, and correct many of the blatant inaccuracies in the DEIS. Everyone agrees that there is economic benefit in PILOT’s and lease payments but they may be trivial in light of the economic risks described above. Another economic benefit described in the DEIS is the amount of electricity generated by the windfarm. But a close examination of the facts (courtesy of NYSERDA and GE Energy) reveals that they will generate a mere fraction of the usable energy claimed: only about 8 or 9% of nameplate capacity, not the 50 to 75 MW claimed in the DEIS. There is also the $75M price tag for decommissioning that somehow must be funded.
So by overstating the benefits and understating the risks, the DEIS wrongly concludes that the project will result in positive economic development. In fact, it is highly probable that the windfarms will hurt tourism, reduce property values, discourage business investment, and result in public health and safety problems. This is not alarmism. Rather, it is a valid conclusion based on many hours of research. In my professional opinion, industrial windfarms have the potential to turn Steuben, Yates, and surrounding counties into an economic development wasteland. Given what I have learned to date, I do not see that the risks can be justified by the rewards. Surely it is prudent to have unbiased experts objectively and comprehensively evaluate the pros and the cons of such a massive undertaking before we proceed any further.
Should you or Mr. Sherron wish to discuss any of these issues in more detail, I am available to meet at your convenience. I have also enclosed for your review a letter that was published in the local paper last week. Thank you for your consideration.
Bradley E. Jones
President, PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road, Naples NY 14512
585 374 2627 (office), 585 233 8539 (cell)
cc. James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County IDA
Philip J. Roche
Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, New York 14810
Dear Mr. Roche,
I was part of a group of neighbors who spoke out against the Windfarm Prattsburgh at last Thursday’s Public Hearing. We were all very appreciative that you took the time to attend and listen to our concerns. Though we will be submitting a comprehensive analysis and critique of the DEIS, I wanted to send you some comments sooner so that you may have some additional time to consider some of the broader economic development issues.
First, let me give you a little background. Our family has worked our 175 acres in the town of Italy since 1958. We have done Timber Stand Improvement, planted tens of thousands of pine, spruce, and larch, thousands of wildlife shrubs, built four ponds (stocked with bass or trout), and strived always to maintain the character of the former farm and forestlands. In recognition of our accomplishments we received the Conservationist of the Year award from the NY DEC. Dad was deservedly proud of this recognition. Today we are a Certified Tree Farm with a DEC-approved Forest Management Plan. And our heritage orchard, which was planted last year, will be bearing fruit next season.
It goes without saying that we are totally committed to this area, its continued economic development, and the preservation of its cultural roots.
Regarding economic development I believe that there are a number of potential threats given the scope of the proposed windfarms that require serious, thoughtful, and objective analysis. The DEIS consideration of economic development impact is not serious, thoughtful, or objective. Here are a few issues that deserve further study.
1. Impact on Central Finger Lakes Tourism. Carole Kost covered this issue well in her remarks Thursday. Based on the studies she referred to as well as plain common sense the windfarms are a major threat to this $200M annual revenue stream. This threat needs to be carefully looked at by the various tourism groups, and studies need to be conducted by objective third parties.
2. Impact on property values. This issue will be covered in detail in our DEIS comments prepared by local real estate experts who believe that the impact to higher value properties will be devastating. For example, Canadaigua Lake waterfront is some of the most expensive property in the entire country. There are many multimillion-dollar homes, the majority of which are permanent residences. Danny Wegman (CEO of Wegmans Food and Pharmacy) and his wife reside on the west side. Tom Golisano (billionaire founder of Paychex) also has a place there. In addition to the waterfront value, there are hundreds of high-end homes on the hillsides overlooking the lake, including the massive investment at Bristol Harbor. The Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton windfarms will be directly in the viewsheds of hundreds of millions of dollars of residences, yet there is not even a mention of this in the impact statements. The potential impact on such real estate should not be overlooked. It needs to have fair and objective analysis so that negative impact can be quantified and evaluated.
3. Implications for population growth and tax rolls. Back about six years ago my sister built a beautiful new log home on the northern portion of the property. Two years ago we completed a major renovation and expansion of our own home. Our neighbors to the north, the Bromleys, have just completed a significant expansion to their residence. Our new neighbors to the east, the Livingstons, just moved into their newly built home last summer. All of these families re-located from urban areas to make their permanent residences here. The total construction cost for these four projects was well over a million dollars, money that went to local suppliers, builders, and craftsmen. This incremental value is directly reflected in the tax rolls, and our taxes. Additionally, because we now all live here full-time, we spend our money here. A significant amount of annual revenue now goes to local businesses because of these new residents such as these.
This aspect of economic development is also quite eco-friendly, as existing large parcels were utilized; there has been no subdividing whatsoever. Perhaps it is not surprising that all us came from different places (Buffalo, Rochester, Geneva, and Raleigh-Durham) but we all came and made major investments for the same reasons: the countryside is just spectacular, and the peace, tranquility, and rural character more than make up for the inconvenience (several of us have rather long commutes). We came hear to live with nature; we moved away from urban, industrial, and commercial areas. It is quiet here all of the time; it is so quiet at night that guests from the city remark about it. The skies are deep black with billions of visible stars. There is no ambient light at night. There are no manmade structures anywhere in our viewshed. For those of us who choose to be here, it truly is God’s country. And for many of us who have been here for a long time, it is part of our culture and heritage.
I’ve only told you about four families within a single square mile. But our stories are not unique. They are being repeated throughout the area in Italy, Naples, Jerusalem, Prattsburgh, Cohocton, Springwater, Middlesex, and South Bristol. In aggregate, this influx of new residents is an economic development engine. We pay lots of taxes, we spend our money locally, we contribute to local institutions, and (in general) we demand few if any additional municipal services. This is an economic development engine that is all positive. There are loads of positives with no tangible negatives. A simple analysis of changes in residential values in Appendix K clearly shows rapid growth over 5 years in the >$100,000 sector while the lower end (<$60.000) is flat. New money is coming to our towns.
I expect you can see where I am going with this but it is an undeniable fact that none of us would have come here to live next to industrial scale wind turbines, to have our viewsheds ruined, our dark and still evenings taken away, or to have our health and safety compromised. If the turbines go up, this economic engine will cease to operate. And without question the economic value contributed from all of these new residents is far greater than what the windfarm developers promise, even if you believe what they claim. Will some of our neighbors decide to leave because their quality of life has been impacted? I can only speak for our own situation, and for now, we just don’t know. This property has been a central part of my life for 48 years and is a significant element of my identity. Since I was a child, I wanted to live at “the farm”. Our dream is now reality. This property speaks to our priorities and to our values. Should the Prattsburgh and Italy projects sprout multiple clusters of giant turbines smack dab in the center of our view, we may decide to move on. As I said, we just do not yet know. Of course, selling a high-end property with a viewshed marred by an industrial park may be pretty difficult.
So please study and carefully consider the longer-term implications of the windfarms on population growth and the tax rolls.
4. For a number of years I held an executive level position with ALSTOM USA. Of our 28 sites across the country, two were in upstate NY, in Rochester and Hornell. Between these two sites we had over 500 white-collar professionals in addition to a large blue-collar workforce. Recruiting professionals to Rochester was relatively easy. Recruiting them to Hornell was very difficult. Here is why. Most of today’s college grads live and work in urban or suburban environments. They make these choices for lifestyle, amenities, plentiful jobs, and friends and family. The decidedly rural character of Hornell is not the least bit attractive to the vast majority of engineers and scientists that ALSTOM Transport required. Based on many years of recruiting experience I would estimate that less than 10% of technical professionals would choose to work in a place like Hornell. So right off the bat we had a tiny applicant pool compared to Rochester or Seattle or Hartford or other sites. Since we were not going to be successful marketing Hornell as the next Silicon Valley, we had to sell it for its genuine assets: natural beauty, rural lifestyle, etc. This did appeal to that small segment of the population that would consider living in Bath, or Arkport, or Dansville, or Geneseo, or Naples (we still have a number of managers residing in Naples). This recruiting strategy paid off, and our attrition for technical professionals was quite low. Those that joined up liked it here, and stayed.
Unfortunately widespread development of industrial windfarms would significantly reduce our ability to attract new technical talent because we will lose the attributes that they value. In search of rural, they will not choose industrial. With all of the project plans on the table right now, I cannot in good conscience recommend that a client consider an expansion site in Steuben or Yates Counties. The risk of not being able to attract top talent would simply be too great. Again, this is an area of substantial economic risk that isn’t even considered in the DEIS.
I would also like to offer another example, a rather timely one. There are plans underway to build a luxury hotel/spa adjacent to Reservoir Creek Golf Course on Route 21 south of Naples village. If the Cohocton windfarm is built it will place a large number of turbines on Pine Hill that would tower over the hotel and ruin the entire southern viewshed. This project (120 permanent jobs) will not move forward if there is any possibility that Windfarm Cohocton (4 – 6 jobs) will be. This is not a rational economic development trade-off. We need to look at the bigger picture; we need to evaluate the cumulative impact of all of the proposed developments. Looking at each project separately without considering the aggregate impact on the local economy is not sufficient due diligence.
I believe that much additional study is required to honestly and objectively determine the real economic impact of the windfarm projects. To do this, one would first need to accurately quantify the economic benefits of the projects, and correct many of the blatant inaccuracies in the DEIS. Everyone agrees that there is economic benefit in PILOT’s and lease payments but they may be trivial in light of the economic risks described above. Another economic benefit described in the DEIS is the amount of electricity generated by the windfarm. But a close examination of the facts (courtesy of NYSERDA and GE Energy) reveals that they will generate a mere fraction of the usable energy claimed: only about 8 or 9% of nameplate capacity, not the 50 to 75 MW claimed in the DEIS. There is also the $75M price tag for decommissioning that somehow must be funded.
So by overstating the benefits and understating the risks, the DEIS wrongly concludes that the project will result in positive economic development. In fact, it is highly probable that the windfarms will hurt tourism, reduce property values, discourage business investment, and result in public health and safety problems. This is not alarmism. Rather, it is a valid conclusion based on many hours of research. In my professional opinion, industrial windfarms have the potential to turn Steuben, Yates, and surrounding counties into an economic development wasteland. Given what I have learned to date, I do not see that the risks can be justified by the rewards. Surely it is prudent to have unbiased experts objectively and comprehensively evaluate the pros and the cons of such a massive undertaking before we proceed any further.
Should you or Mr. Sherron wish to discuss any of these issues in more detail, I am available to meet at your convenience. I have also enclosed for your review a letter that was published in the local paper last week. Thank you for your consideration.
Bradley E. Jones
President, PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road, Naples NY 14512
585 374 2627 (office), 585 233 8539 (cell)
cc. James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County IDA
Wind Farms, Why Here, Why Now? by Linda and Brad Jones
Wind farms are certainly not a new phenomenon. Particularly in Europe, with Denmark being the clear leader, wind farms have been producing electricity for many years. So why is it that the developers didn't arrive here back in 1980 or 1990? What took them so long to discover our hilltops? And why have they been so aggressively persistent in the face of so much opposition?
The reason the developers need us so badly today was explained in a Wall Street Journal article several months ago (2-9-06). This article tells the story of Denmark's national commitment to renewable energy, and its rather sudden demise.
In the late 1990's the Danish government mandated that utility companies sign 10 year agreements with suppliers of wind-based electricity. These agreements required the utilities to buy wind-based power at above market rates, sometimes double the market price. These mandated subsidies made wind-based power popular and profitable - for the people who owned the state-subsidized turbines. The general public did not profit from this arrangement, as they were forced to pay much higher prices for their electricity.
In 2005 though, things began to change. A more market-friendly and citizen-friendly government was voted in. According to the Journal, this resulted in "a shift in philosophy, a belief that the market will give more cost-effective solutions." The new government immediately began to reduce the subsidies for renewable energy and will end them completely in 2009.
"The result was a collapse of the overall domestic market for wind turbines. Although the market is small and saturated it had been a laboratory for Danish turbine makers like Vestas Wind Systems A/S to hone their technology. Now Vestas is depending on China, the U.S. and other markets for growth."
So the reason that Vestas is so desperate for sales here is because their own government recognized the folly of propping up a non-competitive business. Today, without subsidies, wind power is not viable in Denmark. The only reason it is even being considered here is because of our own government subsidies (courtesy of corrupt politicians who have accepted contributions from the turbine manufacturers and the developers). Your tax dollars provide the sole profit opportunity for the developers. No subsidies means no wind farms.
The existing federal subsidy is a temporary one, requiring Congressional re-approval every two years. Given massive federal deficits and the impending Social Security collapse, our lawmakers are scrambling to find money to pay the bills. Isn't it likely that subsidies for non-competitive technology will be high on their list of cuts? Isn't it possible that our lawmakers are at least as smart as the Danes?
Without subsidies, there is no market for wind power. Without subsidies, there is no money for turbine maintenance and repair. Without subsidies the developers cannot make any money. Without subsidies there will be a lot of very large, very useless, but well-lit towers sitting idly on our hilltops.
We encourage elected officials in neighboring towns to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously, to educate themselves about the factual economics of wind power, and to act in the best long-term interests of all citizens of our region. And although it should go without saying, they must exercise full disclosure to demonstrate that there is not even a hint of personal profit influencing their deliberations. Perhaps the Naples Record would do us all a favor and interview town board members on the full disclosure question.
One final comment on wind-based electricity. There are some good-hearted citizens who believe that the proposed wind farms will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The truth is that the proposed developments are so small that they will make no difference whatsoever. We have in this country over 963,000 MW of electrical generating capacity, 92% of which comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Petroleum contributes a mere 3.5%, and much of that is sourced domestically. Adding 100 MW of unreliable intermittent wind capacity in Prattsburgh and Cohocton will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is important that we look at facts, not the fiction handed out by the wind farm developers.
Linda and Brad Jones
Parish Hill
Published in The Naples Record, 7-18-06
The reason the developers need us so badly today was explained in a Wall Street Journal article several months ago (2-9-06). This article tells the story of Denmark's national commitment to renewable energy, and its rather sudden demise.
In the late 1990's the Danish government mandated that utility companies sign 10 year agreements with suppliers of wind-based electricity. These agreements required the utilities to buy wind-based power at above market rates, sometimes double the market price. These mandated subsidies made wind-based power popular and profitable - for the people who owned the state-subsidized turbines. The general public did not profit from this arrangement, as they were forced to pay much higher prices for their electricity.
In 2005 though, things began to change. A more market-friendly and citizen-friendly government was voted in. According to the Journal, this resulted in "a shift in philosophy, a belief that the market will give more cost-effective solutions." The new government immediately began to reduce the subsidies for renewable energy and will end them completely in 2009.
"The result was a collapse of the overall domestic market for wind turbines. Although the market is small and saturated it had been a laboratory for Danish turbine makers like Vestas Wind Systems A/S to hone their technology. Now Vestas is depending on China, the U.S. and other markets for growth."
So the reason that Vestas is so desperate for sales here is because their own government recognized the folly of propping up a non-competitive business. Today, without subsidies, wind power is not viable in Denmark. The only reason it is even being considered here is because of our own government subsidies (courtesy of corrupt politicians who have accepted contributions from the turbine manufacturers and the developers). Your tax dollars provide the sole profit opportunity for the developers. No subsidies means no wind farms.
The existing federal subsidy is a temporary one, requiring Congressional re-approval every two years. Given massive federal deficits and the impending Social Security collapse, our lawmakers are scrambling to find money to pay the bills. Isn't it likely that subsidies for non-competitive technology will be high on their list of cuts? Isn't it possible that our lawmakers are at least as smart as the Danes?
Without subsidies, there is no market for wind power. Without subsidies, there is no money for turbine maintenance and repair. Without subsidies the developers cannot make any money. Without subsidies there will be a lot of very large, very useless, but well-lit towers sitting idly on our hilltops.
We encourage elected officials in neighboring towns to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously, to educate themselves about the factual economics of wind power, and to act in the best long-term interests of all citizens of our region. And although it should go without saying, they must exercise full disclosure to demonstrate that there is not even a hint of personal profit influencing their deliberations. Perhaps the Naples Record would do us all a favor and interview town board members on the full disclosure question.
One final comment on wind-based electricity. There are some good-hearted citizens who believe that the proposed wind farms will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The truth is that the proposed developments are so small that they will make no difference whatsoever. We have in this country over 963,000 MW of electrical generating capacity, 92% of which comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Petroleum contributes a mere 3.5%, and much of that is sourced domestically. Adding 100 MW of unreliable intermittent wind capacity in Prattsburgh and Cohocton will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is important that we look at facts, not the fiction handed out by the wind farm developers.
Linda and Brad Jones
Parish Hill
Published in The Naples Record, 7-18-06
Why is our Town Board allowing elevated fire risk to threaten the neighbor’s of Industrial Wind Turbines?
Below is an exert from the site of Allianz Center for Technology:
Fire Engineering
”There's very little firefighters can do in the case of a fire at a height of 60 to 100 meters. If a wind turbine is not equipped with an automatic extinguishing system, a fire inevitably means a total loss. Falling parts or debris also represent a danger to the surrounding vicinity. AZT has been involved in the development of extinguishing systems and technology for decades and can also provide effective support in the area of fire engineering.”
SEE THE SITE
For those that have a serious interest in protecting Cohocton, it does not take long to understand that Windmill Law #2 leaves the entire burden for preventing and fighting fires from a wind turbine failure squarely on the back of our firefighters.
UPC is wishing to industrialize our Town. The burden to have fire sensing and automatic fire suppressant/extinguishing systems in place, including a firebreak band around the turbine site, should be the Burden of the developer.
How do we make this happen? Our Windmill Law #2 should have provisions in it for this requirement. Why should this come out of our pockets? Let it come out of the developer’s pocket!
Can a Negligent Wind Company or Leaseholder be Held Liable for a Forest Fire?
The following is an excerpt from: See the article “Under state and federal law, any person or corporation whose negligence or intentional acts cause a forest fire is liable to the relevant fire fighting agency for the costs and expenses of fighting the fire. Large forest fires burn millions of acres, and often take thousands of people, and millions of dollars, to put out. Perpetrators may also face criminal penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, probation, and a criminal record. In situations where little harm is done, the authorities may only issue a citation or warning.”
Letter to SCIDA's Jim Sherron by Robert C. Strasburg II
Jim,
As you know, I am opposed to the wind turbine industrialization of the Finger Lakes region as currently proposed. I am sure you have heard all the reasons why… that is not the purpose of this email. I told you I would send you some information, but before I do, I would like to review a part of our conversation after the Prattsburg meeting on DEIS. If I understood your correctly, did you say that each wind project is subject to the approval of SCIDA, or were you referring specifically to just the Prattsburg project?
If SCIDA is in position to approve/deny each project, what criteria are you setting for each project to meet? I have not been inclined to be politically involved in the past for reasons I will not take the time to explain right now, but this issue violates my core beliefs concerning what I believe America is all about. Bottom line, this boils down to money being offered to leaseholders and Towns to cooperate with this scam built on the back of a real energy need we have. Towns and leaseholders are violating sacred principles in pursuit of money without considering issues that effect people’s rights and safety and are currently willing to sacrifice long term benefits to our region for short term gain.
Are you aware of any program in the energy industry that fits into the nature of our area and competes in revenue with the wind program, yet yields a more substantial effect on our energy needs? How about the ethanol and/or the biomass programs? Is there anything good about either one of those programs that warrants investigation of them prior to commitment to wind energy? I am in the timber industry as you know and we are desperate for local markets for low grade timber. Our industry has been severely affected by the dramatic reduction in the demand for material used to make paper pulp. As a result of importing pre-processed pulp from South America and elevated trucking costs, our market for what we call “scragg” has all but disappeared.
The direct effect this has on timber management is very measurable. When a woods is marked for harvest, not only should mature good quality timber be considered for removal, but the low grade trees that are of no value to the stand because of injury that has effected their quality and health, or it is an undesirable specie, or it is consuming to much of the sun deterring the growth of other more desirable trees, etc, should be considered for removal for the betterment of the stand at the same time we are selectively harvesting desirable trees. The problem is, we cannot pay good wages and run machinery to cut and haul these low grade trees out of a woods when we have no good market for them, so many times they are just left standing in the woods. Prior to the high cost in fuel, this material could by used for paper pulp, masonite products and low grade uses like making pallets.
The negative result of this practice is that a full improvement to a wood lot is not accomplished. Undesirable trees are left to grow and cast their seed producing more of the same. This results in a harvest that we call in the industry a “high-grade harvest”. Therefore because of lack of markets, this cycle gets repeated over and over at each harvest and rather than improving a woods through good forestry practices, many times the woods is left spiraling down in quality. If a biomass plant was to be considered in our County, it might develop a market that we could probably bring this material to and recoup the harvest cost and maybe even make some money and improve the woodlot we are harvesting. There is an abundant supply of this low grade wood just waiting to be utilized. Utilization of this renewable resource seems to fit our region better than the industrialization though the placement of 400 foot high turbines does.
Can a farmer grow a product to feed this biomass plant? Is ethanol a good way to put unproductive crop land into service and help the farmer? Rather than pay farmers not to plant to try to control supply and demand, can they productively contribute to our energy need and make money to help their farm. How can I help? I will wait for your reply.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
As you know, I am opposed to the wind turbine industrialization of the Finger Lakes region as currently proposed. I am sure you have heard all the reasons why… that is not the purpose of this email. I told you I would send you some information, but before I do, I would like to review a part of our conversation after the Prattsburg meeting on DEIS. If I understood your correctly, did you say that each wind project is subject to the approval of SCIDA, or were you referring specifically to just the Prattsburg project?
If SCIDA is in position to approve/deny each project, what criteria are you setting for each project to meet? I have not been inclined to be politically involved in the past for reasons I will not take the time to explain right now, but this issue violates my core beliefs concerning what I believe America is all about. Bottom line, this boils down to money being offered to leaseholders and Towns to cooperate with this scam built on the back of a real energy need we have. Towns and leaseholders are violating sacred principles in pursuit of money without considering issues that effect people’s rights and safety and are currently willing to sacrifice long term benefits to our region for short term gain.
Are you aware of any program in the energy industry that fits into the nature of our area and competes in revenue with the wind program, yet yields a more substantial effect on our energy needs? How about the ethanol and/or the biomass programs? Is there anything good about either one of those programs that warrants investigation of them prior to commitment to wind energy? I am in the timber industry as you know and we are desperate for local markets for low grade timber. Our industry has been severely affected by the dramatic reduction in the demand for material used to make paper pulp. As a result of importing pre-processed pulp from South America and elevated trucking costs, our market for what we call “scragg” has all but disappeared.
The direct effect this has on timber management is very measurable. When a woods is marked for harvest, not only should mature good quality timber be considered for removal, but the low grade trees that are of no value to the stand because of injury that has effected their quality and health, or it is an undesirable specie, or it is consuming to much of the sun deterring the growth of other more desirable trees, etc, should be considered for removal for the betterment of the stand at the same time we are selectively harvesting desirable trees. The problem is, we cannot pay good wages and run machinery to cut and haul these low grade trees out of a woods when we have no good market for them, so many times they are just left standing in the woods. Prior to the high cost in fuel, this material could by used for paper pulp, masonite products and low grade uses like making pallets.
The negative result of this practice is that a full improvement to a wood lot is not accomplished. Undesirable trees are left to grow and cast their seed producing more of the same. This results in a harvest that we call in the industry a “high-grade harvest”. Therefore because of lack of markets, this cycle gets repeated over and over at each harvest and rather than improving a woods through good forestry practices, many times the woods is left spiraling down in quality. If a biomass plant was to be considered in our County, it might develop a market that we could probably bring this material to and recoup the harvest cost and maybe even make some money and improve the woodlot we are harvesting. There is an abundant supply of this low grade wood just waiting to be utilized. Utilization of this renewable resource seems to fit our region better than the industrialization though the placement of 400 foot high turbines does.
Can a farmer grow a product to feed this biomass plant? Is ethanol a good way to put unproductive crop land into service and help the farmer? Rather than pay farmers not to plant to try to control supply and demand, can they productively contribute to our energy need and make money to help their farm. How can I help? I will wait for your reply.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Jasper works on wind law by Michelle King
JASPER — Wind companies be warned: The Town of Jasper is doing its homework before adopting a wind law.
In fact, town Supervisor Lucille Keman attended a seminar on local wind legislation at the State University of New York at Albany.
"There was a good law that Spitzer wrote, but there's some things that need to be included and we're working on it," she said. "It's to protect the town and its residents from being taken advantage of by a wind powered company."
That law — and several others — have been read and will be evaluated during the writing stages of Jasper's prospective law.
"While I was there (at the seminar) I picked up several different laws that have already been enacted by towns that seemed to have been working for them," Keman said. "It gave me a lot of insight into what we needed to do."
Although no wind companies have formerly presented a proposal, the wind energy company has approached the board about opportunities.
Not really, it's just in the very early stages of it," Kernan said when asked if there's any set plans yet. "They've talked to us and people in the area."
The next phase hearings with Invenergy in August, Kernan said, adding the town board is aiming for an informational meeting that will inculde public input.
"I really want people to tell me or the board members how they feel about it," she said. "I want it to be a very open process.
"I think maybe some of the other towns got in trouble when it looked like they tried to make it a secret, and I don't want mat to happen," Kernan added.
Above all, however, protecting me town will be the focus in drafting the wind law.
"It will give them guidance. Where they go they will have to pay for any testing and make sure it's feasible and post a bond, so if they walk away from what they're in with."
Some other things Kernan mentioned specifically are making sure the towers will be far enough from property lines, noise will not be offensive to neighbors and to ensure minimal lighting.
In fact, town Supervisor Lucille Keman attended a seminar on local wind legislation at the State University of New York at Albany.
"There was a good law that Spitzer wrote, but there's some things that need to be included and we're working on it," she said. "It's to protect the town and its residents from being taken advantage of by a wind powered company."
That law — and several others — have been read and will be evaluated during the writing stages of Jasper's prospective law.
"While I was there (at the seminar) I picked up several different laws that have already been enacted by towns that seemed to have been working for them," Keman said. "It gave me a lot of insight into what we needed to do."
Although no wind companies have formerly presented a proposal, the wind energy company has approached the board about opportunities.
Not really, it's just in the very early stages of it," Kernan said when asked if there's any set plans yet. "They've talked to us and people in the area."
The next phase hearings with Invenergy in August, Kernan said, adding the town board is aiming for an informational meeting that will inculde public input.
"I really want people to tell me or the board members how they feel about it," she said. "I want it to be a very open process.
"I think maybe some of the other towns got in trouble when it looked like they tried to make it a secret, and I don't want mat to happen," Kernan added.
Above all, however, protecting me town will be the focus in drafting the wind law.
"It will give them guidance. Where they go they will have to pay for any testing and make sure it's feasible and post a bond, so if they walk away from what they're in with."
Some other things Kernan mentioned specifically are making sure the towers will be far enough from property lines, noise will not be offensive to neighbors and to ensure minimal lighting.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Don Sandford letter to the Cohocton Town & Planning Boards
Last night at the T/Hartsville town board meeting about wind turbine law, it was proposed that a provision be include of a “Diminished Property Value Bond”, which would give monetary relief to any property owner who’s property falls in a designated area of adverse turbine impact which lowered property value. This provision is most interesting and certainly goes a long way to satisfy a persons concern that monetary relief for such a cases has been provided to them by law. The testimony at Hartsville was that property values WILL BE greatly lowered in value as I too also believe. This could be a powerful provision to incorporate in a local law in T/Cohocton and go along way to satisfy valid a concern.
It is my suggestion that somebody of the planning board contact the T/Hartsville and find out more about it, I for one had never heard it discussed before and I certainly hope you are concerned about effected parties as I, and interested enough to find out more about it and make it a priority in future plans.
Respectfully,
Don Sandford
It is my suggestion that somebody of the planning board contact the T/Hartsville and find out more about it, I for one had never heard it discussed before and I certainly hope you are concerned about effected parties as I, and interested enough to find out more about it and make it a priority in future plans.
Respectfully,
Don Sandford
Friday, July 21, 2006
Letter sent to Cohocton Wind Watch from Mark Cudney
I'm a retired illustrator, having spent thirty years as an artist in the Commercial Art field--including fourteen years as a staff illustrator for the Bob Wright Creative Group in Rochester. My wife and I live on Bronson Hill, pay town of South Dansville taxes and Wayland/Cohocton School taxes. We've been here for forty eight years. We became aware of the imminent invasion of our environment by the turbine developers in May of this year. I've been following the debate closely since then and have had, if you will, manic-depressive variances in temperament as a result.
One day my spirits are lifted knowing there is an element of the population such as you who are waging the good fight and standing up against the large conglomerate of developers/
investors/government operatives and all their big money. I'm in awe of the research you've done and the time you've sacrificed to get at and present the facts. On the other hand, I'm saddened by, frustrated and disgusted with town officials, not only in Cohocton, but all across our state, who are salivating at the dangled carrots offered by schemers and money-grabbers to the point of sacrificing the priceless heritage of their own turfs under the guise of pretensions of providence.
I find it difficult to believe that three or four men/women in small towns such as Cohocton have the power to force such an intrusive project down the throats of so many who have so much to lose. I'm worried too, about the scope of this scheme by numerous developers operating under different names selling their wares to all the neighboring towns. They're (the developers) like a bunch of frenzied sharks attacking bloodied bait. If this nightmare becomes reality, there won't be a clear horizon to be seen, there won't be any more "roads less traveled" and the historic ambience of this bejeweled rural area will be lost forever. Welcome to Turbineville. I guess, to their glee, the Wayne Hunts of New York will have lots of "green" spaces in which to stage their "parades" and "neat" towers to picnic under. They'll have no trouble accessing these areas what with the numerous new and widened roadways cutting across what used to be scenic fields. (By the way, who will be responsible for the expense and the manpower to maintain these roads, especially during the winter?)
If only I were a Cohocton resident and had the opportunity to vote there. Since I vote in So. Dansville I'll have to wait and see how the inevitable turbine proposals there play out. I cringe at the thought of even a single behemoth erected on this side of the Schwartzenbach Valley, as my Dad used to call the Route 21 corridor. He called this area "God's Country" and would use a blue choice of words to voice his thankfulness that these "virgin hills" at least, had not been screwed-over by man and industry. It's with an artist's eye, reinforced with the vision of my father, that I view the hills and the horizons. I can't imagine them any other way than the way they now stand. It'll be tragic that my grandkids may not see them in the future the way their great grandfather and grandfather saw them: in their natural state free from industry and its intrusion on our fields of view; free of metal and steel obliterating the horizon; free from the visual litter of obnoxious blinking strobe lights competing with the clarity of the stars in the beautiful night sky. What they'll lose in terms of nature's gifts will far exceed the gains to power a few more electric light bulbs or hot tubs of people far away from here. Those "born-again greeners" so enamored with wind power and the monies from the developers would do more to save energy by taking the second car off the road and driving less and it would have no impact upon their neighbors.
Here on Bronson Hill, we're proud of the work you're doing and we sincerely hope that when the time comes, there will be others like you in Dansville and Wayland and Fremont, et al, who have the courage and the will power and the resourcefulness to stand up for all who are in jeopardy of one day finding themselves living beneath the shadows of giant turbines. As for myself, I've relied on what I do best and have joined the fray in my own small way. I will continue to do so as my limited budget allows.
Thank You,
Mark Cudney
One day my spirits are lifted knowing there is an element of the population such as you who are waging the good fight and standing up against the large conglomerate of developers/
investors/government operatives and all their big money. I'm in awe of the research you've done and the time you've sacrificed to get at and present the facts. On the other hand, I'm saddened by, frustrated and disgusted with town officials, not only in Cohocton, but all across our state, who are salivating at the dangled carrots offered by schemers and money-grabbers to the point of sacrificing the priceless heritage of their own turfs under the guise of pretensions of providence.
I find it difficult to believe that three or four men/women in small towns such as Cohocton have the power to force such an intrusive project down the throats of so many who have so much to lose. I'm worried too, about the scope of this scheme by numerous developers operating under different names selling their wares to all the neighboring towns. They're (the developers) like a bunch of frenzied sharks attacking bloodied bait. If this nightmare becomes reality, there won't be a clear horizon to be seen, there won't be any more "roads less traveled" and the historic ambience of this bejeweled rural area will be lost forever. Welcome to Turbineville. I guess, to their glee, the Wayne Hunts of New York will have lots of "green" spaces in which to stage their "parades" and "neat" towers to picnic under. They'll have no trouble accessing these areas what with the numerous new and widened roadways cutting across what used to be scenic fields. (By the way, who will be responsible for the expense and the manpower to maintain these roads, especially during the winter?)
If only I were a Cohocton resident and had the opportunity to vote there. Since I vote in So. Dansville I'll have to wait and see how the inevitable turbine proposals there play out. I cringe at the thought of even a single behemoth erected on this side of the Schwartzenbach Valley, as my Dad used to call the Route 21 corridor. He called this area "God's Country" and would use a blue choice of words to voice his thankfulness that these "virgin hills" at least, had not been screwed-over by man and industry. It's with an artist's eye, reinforced with the vision of my father, that I view the hills and the horizons. I can't imagine them any other way than the way they now stand. It'll be tragic that my grandkids may not see them in the future the way their great grandfather and grandfather saw them: in their natural state free from industry and its intrusion on our fields of view; free of metal and steel obliterating the horizon; free from the visual litter of obnoxious blinking strobe lights competing with the clarity of the stars in the beautiful night sky. What they'll lose in terms of nature's gifts will far exceed the gains to power a few more electric light bulbs or hot tubs of people far away from here. Those "born-again greeners" so enamored with wind power and the monies from the developers would do more to save energy by taking the second car off the road and driving less and it would have no impact upon their neighbors.
Here on Bronson Hill, we're proud of the work you're doing and we sincerely hope that when the time comes, there will be others like you in Dansville and Wayland and Fremont, et al, who have the courage and the will power and the resourcefulness to stand up for all who are in jeopardy of one day finding themselves living beneath the shadows of giant turbines. As for myself, I've relied on what I do best and have joined the fray in my own small way. I will continue to do so as my limited budget allows.
Thank You,
Mark Cudney
Public hearing attracts crowd: Residents, board members contemplate wind law for three hours Thursday night
HARTSVILLE - While a public hearing in Hartsville was hosted for discussing a proposed wind ordinance, questions for town attorney David Pullen also delved into conflict and lawsuit questions.
Pullen was at the meeting to outline the law he developed based on one recently adopted by the Town of Clinton. He told the crowd he wants to make sure Hartsville protects itself.
“As of right now there is no zoning and no land use law in place,” Pullen said. “That means if someone wants to build windmills you have no way to stop it. I was asked to create one that allows the town board to consider each project.
“As soon as this has been adopted, every potential windmill would be required to submit an application,” he added, saying projects would have to meet a certain set of standards. “Since no one has had any project approved by anyone, this would apply to any project.”
Before the law could be adopted it would have to go through the State Environmental Quality Review process, he said, adding he'd already approved the environmental assessment form. He stressed this SEQR process would only look at the environmental impact of the law, not wind farm projects. It is not expected the law would cause any negative impact, Pullen said, because it is not doing anything to the environment.
If the law is approved, it would require any permits submitted for a wind farm project to be subject to a public hearing.
“Every time there's a permit application there will be a public hearing,” Pullen said. “A notice will be sent to everyone within the site area.”
The standards set in the law include all power lines to be buried underground, a maximum height of 450 feet for turbines, a minimum distance of 20 feet from any blade to the ground, and a 50-decibel sound limitation. An exception with the sound standard would come if the ambient sound level exceeds 50 decibels; then it be the ambient level plus 6 decibels.
Setbacks also are provided for in the law. Turbines would be required to be at least 1,000 feet from off-site residences, 100 feet from state-identified wetlands, and 1.1 times the turbine height from nearest boundary lines, rights-of-way, above-ground utilities and off-site cabins.
Resident Steve Dombert did not feel the setbacks were adequate and called for longer distances.
“I think a setback of 1,000 feet is too permissive; that needs to be beefed up,” he said. “There should be a minimum of 1,200-feet on setbacks.
“I also don't think there should be a different standard for off-site cabins,” Dombert added. .1 times the height from property lines isn't enough, it's going to be flying a lot farther than that (if a turbine came down).”
He also said penalties spelled out in the law - $350 per week for violations - needed to be stiffer.
“There should be some mechanism in the event it goes on where the violator be increasingly punished,” Dombert said. “The one listed here seems to be insufficient.”
Pullen noted the law also spells out the fact the town may go to court to get an injunction if the violations continue.
“I think you have to give it more teeth,” Dombert responded. “It's unfair to expect one person with an uphill battle to fight it.”
Pullen said he was open to suggestion on how to do that.
“I don't know how to level the playing field between the people with money and the people without money,” he said.
A question about whether leaseholders would be able to sue the town if they declined to allow the Airtricity project to go forward, elicited an affirmative response from Pullen. He did, however, note that anyone is able to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
“Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything,” Pullen said. “You may be unhappy about something, but you may not be able to do anything about it.”
As for a perceived conflict of interest for Supervisor Amy Emerson voting on the wind ordinance due to the fact she and her parents all have some sort of agreement with Airtricity, Pullen said there is no conflict.
“If you adopt this law dealing with a matter of general interest - not a specific permit - she gets no special benefit from adopting this law,” he said. “No official will benefit from this law.
“If anything, it would protect all people in the town equally,” Pullen added.
The attorney will meet with the board to discuss the law, and if significant changes are made another public hearing will be scheduled. If only grammatical-type changes are needed, the law will go before the board for consideration.
Pullen was at the meeting to outline the law he developed based on one recently adopted by the Town of Clinton. He told the crowd he wants to make sure Hartsville protects itself.
“As of right now there is no zoning and no land use law in place,” Pullen said. “That means if someone wants to build windmills you have no way to stop it. I was asked to create one that allows the town board to consider each project.
“As soon as this has been adopted, every potential windmill would be required to submit an application,” he added, saying projects would have to meet a certain set of standards. “Since no one has had any project approved by anyone, this would apply to any project.”
Before the law could be adopted it would have to go through the State Environmental Quality Review process, he said, adding he'd already approved the environmental assessment form. He stressed this SEQR process would only look at the environmental impact of the law, not wind farm projects. It is not expected the law would cause any negative impact, Pullen said, because it is not doing anything to the environment.
If the law is approved, it would require any permits submitted for a wind farm project to be subject to a public hearing.
“Every time there's a permit application there will be a public hearing,” Pullen said. “A notice will be sent to everyone within the site area.”
The standards set in the law include all power lines to be buried underground, a maximum height of 450 feet for turbines, a minimum distance of 20 feet from any blade to the ground, and a 50-decibel sound limitation. An exception with the sound standard would come if the ambient sound level exceeds 50 decibels; then it be the ambient level plus 6 decibels.
Setbacks also are provided for in the law. Turbines would be required to be at least 1,000 feet from off-site residences, 100 feet from state-identified wetlands, and 1.1 times the turbine height from nearest boundary lines, rights-of-way, above-ground utilities and off-site cabins.
Resident Steve Dombert did not feel the setbacks were adequate and called for longer distances.
“I think a setback of 1,000 feet is too permissive; that needs to be beefed up,” he said. “There should be a minimum of 1,200-feet on setbacks.
“I also don't think there should be a different standard for off-site cabins,” Dombert added. .1 times the height from property lines isn't enough, it's going to be flying a lot farther than that (if a turbine came down).”
He also said penalties spelled out in the law - $350 per week for violations - needed to be stiffer.
“There should be some mechanism in the event it goes on where the violator be increasingly punished,” Dombert said. “The one listed here seems to be insufficient.”
Pullen noted the law also spells out the fact the town may go to court to get an injunction if the violations continue.
“I think you have to give it more teeth,” Dombert responded. “It's unfair to expect one person with an uphill battle to fight it.”
Pullen said he was open to suggestion on how to do that.
“I don't know how to level the playing field between the people with money and the people without money,” he said.
A question about whether leaseholders would be able to sue the town if they declined to allow the Airtricity project to go forward, elicited an affirmative response from Pullen. He did, however, note that anyone is able to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
“Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything,” Pullen said. “You may be unhappy about something, but you may not be able to do anything about it.”
As for a perceived conflict of interest for Supervisor Amy Emerson voting on the wind ordinance due to the fact she and her parents all have some sort of agreement with Airtricity, Pullen said there is no conflict.
“If you adopt this law dealing with a matter of general interest - not a specific permit - she gets no special benefit from adopting this law,” he said. “No official will benefit from this law.
“If anything, it would protect all people in the town equally,” Pullen added.
The attorney will meet with the board to discuss the law, and if significant changes are made another public hearing will be scheduled. If only grammatical-type changes are needed, the law will go before the board for consideration.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Letter by Don Sandford
Hello: My name is Don Sandford and I live on Brown Hill. Before this spring and public meetings on wind turbines at the school, I never heard of Mr. Robert Strasburg ll, Mr. James Hall or Mr. Steve Trude. Up to that time what I learned about wind turbines in Cohocton was from reports, radio, TV and friends and there was far more unanswered questions than answers supported by hard facts and the town boards were not proceeding as cautiously and prudently as I would have expected, so I attended board meetings knowing that I could be impacted negatively in the future. Now, after several weeks have gone by and board meetings, I am more convinced than ever Strasburg, Hall and Trude should be listen too and that a MORATORIUM needs to be enacted and seeing it for what it really is, a “Gold-Rush Mentality” money grab, supplied by taxpayers to UPC, and some board members that have a direct or indirect gain from a successful outcome. To proceed further is wrong, shortsighted and not acceptable. If it walks, sounds and looks like a duck, it no doubt is a duck and in this case you do not have to be business genius to recognized this a administrative money grabbing duck. The God given beauty of the hills of our town is well know but would be changed dramatically. The potential for devaluation of proper and homes is certainly very real around and near the proposed tower sites therefore any resale value greatly diminished. Have you heard of any “Diminished Property Value Bond” proposed by the town or UPC to cover this loss? I haven’t. WHY NOT? The silence says it loud and clear.
In particular, it would be hard not to notice that Mr. Strasburg has raised valid concerns about wind turbines and asks questions of our town board without having them answered and be continually ignored, brushed aside or made fun of, to silence him without success. I have witnessed this man’s amazing gift to be calm, confident and spontaneous in debate because of his careful, time consuming and extensive research of the facts to support his positions. He is a proud American, a leader that will not be silenced or put down for what he believes and is truly a special person who is that “candle in the darkness” giving light to much that has been hidden, silenced and the attempted legislative rape by UPC and the complacent town board.The obvious silence in public meetings by our town board members best shows why open and revealing debate isn’t considered. Perhaps they know they can’t defend their positions as opposed to Mr. Strasburg’s based on truth and facts. So much for democracy. Some prefer the Valley News for a good reason.
Retired from law enforcement, served my country in the US Military, I appreciate and recognize a man of honor and integrity. This man has earned my respect and I’m proud to stand with him .
Don Sandford
In particular, it would be hard not to notice that Mr. Strasburg has raised valid concerns about wind turbines and asks questions of our town board without having them answered and be continually ignored, brushed aside or made fun of, to silence him without success. I have witnessed this man’s amazing gift to be calm, confident and spontaneous in debate because of his careful, time consuming and extensive research of the facts to support his positions. He is a proud American, a leader that will not be silenced or put down for what he believes and is truly a special person who is that “candle in the darkness” giving light to much that has been hidden, silenced and the attempted legislative rape by UPC and the complacent town board.The obvious silence in public meetings by our town board members best shows why open and revealing debate isn’t considered. Perhaps they know they can’t defend their positions as opposed to Mr. Strasburg’s based on truth and facts. So much for democracy. Some prefer the Valley News for a good reason.
Retired from law enforcement, served my country in the US Military, I appreciate and recognize a man of honor and integrity. This man has earned my respect and I’m proud to stand with him .
Don Sandford
Just a math mistake? by Robert C. Strasburg II
Wayne Hunt said in the Valley News of July 18, 2006 “I have done a little math using the 1500 feet as a base line. A circle 3000 feet across contains 715.909 square feet. An acre is 43,560 square feet so each tower will stand IN ITS OWN (caps added) “green” island that is 16.4 acres big. There will be 41 towers on Lent Hill that will create 672.4 acres of “green” land that will NOT CONTAIN A HOUSE (caps added)”.
Actually a circle that is 3000 feet across has 7,065,000 feet in it when using “Pi” rounded to 3.14. This means each turbine would control 162.19 acres, not 16.4. This then means that these 41 turbines will control 6,649.79 acres, not 672.4 as you say. Now the purpose of this article is not to point out your mathematical error Wayne, we all make mistakes.
The purpose of this article is to point out two much more very serious problems:
1. The first is an ethical problem. When you say a turbine will stand “in its own” island, you are very wrong. Because you have worked very hard at discounting the importance of the neighbors to these projects, it may be possible that you are beginning to believe your own story and there is left no trace of any consideration of them in your mind. They obviously no longer come to mind to you when you are considering this project. If you allow these turbines to be placed *500 feet from a neighbors property line, the 1500 foot setback you mention in your article extends 1000 feet into the neighbors property. Therefore, your “green” island is sitting partially on the neighbor’s property. So, it is not sitting on “its own” “green island”, it is sitting partially on the land of the neighbor you obviously are not considering anymore. If you look carefully at the deed to the neighbor’s property, it does not name “turbine” as owner.
2. The second is evidence of a conceptual problem. Wayne, when your math revealed only 672 acres, didn’t this trigger anything. If you really have worked hard at understanding all the facets of this program, being four years into the study of this, didn’t 672 sound just a little out of place to you? Is this the first time you are learning that this is controlling over 6,600 acres on Lent Hill and not 672?
Wayne, you have declared yourself the “leader” of this parade. I humbly ask you to consider passing the baton.
Respectfully,
Robert C. Strasburg II
*500 feet – actually since this 500 foot measurement is to the center of the turbine, when you consider the 280 foot diameter of the blades, this means each blade will reach to within 360 feet of the neighbor’s property.
Actually a circle that is 3000 feet across has 7,065,000 feet in it when using “Pi” rounded to 3.14. This means each turbine would control 162.19 acres, not 16.4. This then means that these 41 turbines will control 6,649.79 acres, not 672.4 as you say. Now the purpose of this article is not to point out your mathematical error Wayne, we all make mistakes.
The purpose of this article is to point out two much more very serious problems:
1. The first is an ethical problem. When you say a turbine will stand “in its own” island, you are very wrong. Because you have worked very hard at discounting the importance of the neighbors to these projects, it may be possible that you are beginning to believe your own story and there is left no trace of any consideration of them in your mind. They obviously no longer come to mind to you when you are considering this project. If you allow these turbines to be placed *500 feet from a neighbors property line, the 1500 foot setback you mention in your article extends 1000 feet into the neighbors property. Therefore, your “green” island is sitting partially on the neighbor’s property. So, it is not sitting on “its own” “green island”, it is sitting partially on the land of the neighbor you obviously are not considering anymore. If you look carefully at the deed to the neighbor’s property, it does not name “turbine” as owner.
2. The second is evidence of a conceptual problem. Wayne, when your math revealed only 672 acres, didn’t this trigger anything. If you really have worked hard at understanding all the facets of this program, being four years into the study of this, didn’t 672 sound just a little out of place to you? Is this the first time you are learning that this is controlling over 6,600 acres on Lent Hill and not 672?
Wayne, you have declared yourself the “leader” of this parade. I humbly ask you to consider passing the baton.
Respectfully,
Robert C. Strasburg II
*500 feet – actually since this 500 foot measurement is to the center of the turbine, when you consider the 280 foot diameter of the blades, this means each blade will reach to within 360 feet of the neighbor’s property.
BOARD DENIES VERMONT WIND FARM PERMIT
MONTPELIER, Vt.
A company’s bid to build a wind farm atop a remote Northeast Kingdom mountain was rejected by the Public Service Board on Monday because of concerns about how the turbines would affect birds and bats.
In its decision, the board said that officials of the East Haven Wind farm had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the four 329-foot turbines would not hurt populations of bats and migratory birds in the area.
“We.. know that wind turbine sites located in eastern forested high-elevation sites have experienced elevated bat mortality rates. And we know that there are likely to be resident bat populations on East Mountain.” Said the board’s 108-page decision.”
“The record shows that there is little solid information on the risks of migrating bird collisions with wind turbines for high-elevation sites in the northeaster United States,” the order said. “Without preconstruction radar studies, we are unable to determine whether the project’s design has been optimized to avoid or minimize bird impacts.”
East Haven Wind farm Vice President Dave Rapaport said Monday officials were reading the decision.
FREMONT PLANNING BOARD GATHERING INFO FOR WIND LAW
Town looking to avoid conflicts taking place in other area municipalities
By Rob Montana staff writer
STEPHENS MILLS-No big decisions were made at the Fremont planning bard meeting Tuesday night- except it’s time for the town to get a wind ordinance in place.
While board members had heard rumors people in town had been contacted by wind companies, none knew of any plans for a wind project in Fremont. Nonetheless, Chairman Robert Osborn said it’s time to draft a law to protect the town in case of future development.
The board has copies of the Howard ordinance, as well as Ever Power’s building permit application submitted to Howard officials for construction of towers there. While the plan is to draft its own law, the board wanted something to look at before writing one.
“We need some sort of outline to go through for an ordinance, “Osborn said.
Code Enforcement Officer Dan Hammond also suggested the board keep the town residents informed about the process, and let them know the board is drafting a local wind law.
“If we get it in here before anybody is approached, they can’t complain.” He said.
“They won’t have a leg to stand on if we keep getting it out there that we’re meeting and talking about a law.”
The main thing, said Councilman Larry Hammond, is to eliminate the fighting that has occurred in other towns dealing with potential wind farm projects.
“What we need is to stay away from all that bickering like there is in Howard, Hartsville, and Cohocton,”he said.
The planning board will meet again at 8 p.m. Aug. 15 at the town hall.
A company’s bid to build a wind farm atop a remote Northeast Kingdom mountain was rejected by the Public Service Board on Monday because of concerns about how the turbines would affect birds and bats.
In its decision, the board said that officials of the East Haven Wind farm had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the four 329-foot turbines would not hurt populations of bats and migratory birds in the area.
“We.. know that wind turbine sites located in eastern forested high-elevation sites have experienced elevated bat mortality rates. And we know that there are likely to be resident bat populations on East Mountain.” Said the board’s 108-page decision.”
“The record shows that there is little solid information on the risks of migrating bird collisions with wind turbines for high-elevation sites in the northeaster United States,” the order said. “Without preconstruction radar studies, we are unable to determine whether the project’s design has been optimized to avoid or minimize bird impacts.”
East Haven Wind farm Vice President Dave Rapaport said Monday officials were reading the decision.
FREMONT PLANNING BOARD GATHERING INFO FOR WIND LAW
Town looking to avoid conflicts taking place in other area municipalities
By Rob Montana staff writer
STEPHENS MILLS-No big decisions were made at the Fremont planning bard meeting Tuesday night- except it’s time for the town to get a wind ordinance in place.
While board members had heard rumors people in town had been contacted by wind companies, none knew of any plans for a wind project in Fremont. Nonetheless, Chairman Robert Osborn said it’s time to draft a law to protect the town in case of future development.
The board has copies of the Howard ordinance, as well as Ever Power’s building permit application submitted to Howard officials for construction of towers there. While the plan is to draft its own law, the board wanted something to look at before writing one.
“We need some sort of outline to go through for an ordinance, “Osborn said.
Code Enforcement Officer Dan Hammond also suggested the board keep the town residents informed about the process, and let them know the board is drafting a local wind law.
“If we get it in here before anybody is approached, they can’t complain.” He said.
“They won’t have a leg to stand on if we keep getting it out there that we’re meeting and talking about a law.”
The main thing, said Councilman Larry Hammond, is to eliminate the fighting that has occurred in other towns dealing with potential wind farm projects.
“What we need is to stay away from all that bickering like there is in Howard, Hartsville, and Cohocton,”he said.
The planning board will meet again at 8 p.m. Aug. 15 at the town hall.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Naples may prohibit wind farms
Town officials used South Bristol'slaw as their guide.
By TARYN ELIZABETH DOBBS
Messenger Post Correspondent
The ones we don't
want to see are the
wind farms that are
400 feet high.
Doug Pulver, Naples Planning Board chair
NAPLES — Naples could adopt a wind-farm law that effectively bans industrial wind farms such as those proposed in neighboring Prattsburgh and Cohocton.
Town Planning Board Chairman Doug Pulver said Naples took its cue from South Bristol, which banned wind farms in August 2003.
Wind farms to power a home or a business are fine, Pulver said, adding, "The ones we don't want to see are the wind farms that are 400 feet high."
A turbine as tall as a skyscraper and bearing a flashing light would detract from Naples' scenic vistas, which draw tourists and their dollars.
"We want to have alternatives (to coal- and natural gas-fired power plants), but we want to be careful how we do it," Pulver said.
The Town Board held a hearing on the proposal July 10 and sent the draft to the Ontario County Planning Board for review. The Naples Town Board could vote to adopt the law at next month's meeting, Monday, Aug. 14, at 7 p.m., unless the county board suggests further work.
Height restrictions would be 150 feet for residential towers and 220 feet for towers powering a business. The turbines for the proposed Prattsburgh and Cohocton wind farms would be 400 feet tall to the tip of the rotor.
Additionally, the output for turbines may not exceed 20 kilowatts for residential use, or 50 kilowatts for commercial operations.
Turbines would be limited to one per parcel of land. However, if a business can prove to the Planning Board why a second turbine is necessary, it may be approved.
Two wind-energy companies, Ecogen and Windfarm Prattsburgh, want to put up about 50 turbines each in Prattsburgh while UPC Wind Management LLC has proposed two separate projects with 41, and 17 turbines respectively in Cohocton.
Prattsburgh has no wind-farm law. Cohocton has a law that does not ban industrial wind farms but does put certain limits on them. For example, the law requires that a turbine be at least 1,500 feet from a residence.
At least a few turbines from the Prattsburgh and Cohocton projects would be visible from Naples.
Messenger Post writer Lenore Friend contributed to this report. Contact us at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 256, or at messenger@mpnewspa-pers.com.
By TARYN ELIZABETH DOBBS
Messenger Post Correspondent
The ones we don't
want to see are the
wind farms that are
400 feet high.
Doug Pulver, Naples Planning Board chair
NAPLES — Naples could adopt a wind-farm law that effectively bans industrial wind farms such as those proposed in neighboring Prattsburgh and Cohocton.
Town Planning Board Chairman Doug Pulver said Naples took its cue from South Bristol, which banned wind farms in August 2003.
Wind farms to power a home or a business are fine, Pulver said, adding, "The ones we don't want to see are the wind farms that are 400 feet high."
A turbine as tall as a skyscraper and bearing a flashing light would detract from Naples' scenic vistas, which draw tourists and their dollars.
"We want to have alternatives (to coal- and natural gas-fired power plants), but we want to be careful how we do it," Pulver said.
The Town Board held a hearing on the proposal July 10 and sent the draft to the Ontario County Planning Board for review. The Naples Town Board could vote to adopt the law at next month's meeting, Monday, Aug. 14, at 7 p.m., unless the county board suggests further work.
Height restrictions would be 150 feet for residential towers and 220 feet for towers powering a business. The turbines for the proposed Prattsburgh and Cohocton wind farms would be 400 feet tall to the tip of the rotor.
Additionally, the output for turbines may not exceed 20 kilowatts for residential use, or 50 kilowatts for commercial operations.
Turbines would be limited to one per parcel of land. However, if a business can prove to the Planning Board why a second turbine is necessary, it may be approved.
Two wind-energy companies, Ecogen and Windfarm Prattsburgh, want to put up about 50 turbines each in Prattsburgh while UPC Wind Management LLC has proposed two separate projects with 41, and 17 turbines respectively in Cohocton.
Prattsburgh has no wind-farm law. Cohocton has a law that does not ban industrial wind farms but does put certain limits on them. For example, the law requires that a turbine be at least 1,500 feet from a residence.
At least a few turbines from the Prattsburgh and Cohocton projects would be visible from Naples.
Messenger Post writer Lenore Friend contributed to this report. Contact us at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 256, or at messenger@mpnewspa-pers.com.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
July 7, 2006 letter on the Upcoming Open Public Meeting by Robert C. Strasburg II
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Upcoming Open Public Meeting
Dear Town Board Members:
At your last regular meeting you stated that you are going to schedule a public meeting in which you are going to have professionals attend to answer specific questions concerning the proposed installation of the wind turbines.
As one opposed to this wind turbine program as it has been proposed, I have contributed to the effort to enlighten residents of particular concerns that establish my belief that these turbines as proposed are wrong for Cohocton. I have clearly identified areas where I believe the management of this program misses the mark.
Rather than a presentation of how “pretty” these things are, or a promotion filled with puff and sweet smelling powder, please make a diligent effort at presenting the entire picture. I have five areas that are central to my concern that I ask you to have professionally addressed at this public meeting:
The first is the economics. I would ask that you have a professional level presentation as to what the actual cost will be per kilowatt hour to produce this wind generated power. I ask that the analytical evaluation include all government subsidies, the tax savings from the P.I.L.O.T. program, N.Y.S.E.R.D.A incentives. Tax savings from accelerated depreciation and the actual cost paid to UPC for each kilowatt hour of generated electricity. I ask that this cost be compared to the traditional methods currently employed to produce electricity.
Since we are presented to be “co-investors” for the “good of our energy needs” with UPC on this program that is supposed to be good for Cohocton, Steuben County, the School, the State, and the Nation, I ask that you insist that UPC have available at this meeting in paper and electronic copy, a certified copy of the same business plan they are showing their financial investors. If we are truly investors, asked to invest in the future energy needs of our area with UPC, this should not be an unreasonable request. Surely we should be entitled to view this written Business Plan just as the other investors.
Included in this first analysis, I request an analytical financial evaluation in a percentage form, the actual amount of total yearly income to UPC that the proposed $160,000 to our Town represents. This will go a long way in showing the return on our investment in this program.
The second specific professional presentation that I am asking you to provide is a responsible explanation from both an economic and insurance advisor as to why a letter of credit, rather than a surety bond would be sufficient to protect the Town of Cohocton and its residents from liability and loss in the event of a bankruptcy on the part of UPC. Please ask this professional to explain the differences between a letter of credit and a surety bond.
The third presentation I would like the Town Board to personally present is their justification as to why they have proposed this wind turbine industrialization of Cohocton when it is in direct violation of our Town Comprehensive Plan.
The fourth area I would ask that you address is the specifics of how the Town thinks they can influence a private property by allowing a setback of only 500 from a property line when the turbines influence extend 1500 out as a result of you proposed law. How is someone going to be able to build closer to their property line if they want to? Will you have provision to make the wind company take down the turbine and place it 1500 ft. from this new building? I would like an answer presented as to why the Town Board thinks this will not be an issue for expensive lawsuits against the Town in the future? If you are going to reduce the use of these private properties, shouldn’t each private landowner that you put in this situation be entitled to a reduction in taxes? You are taking properties that are zoned residential, overlapping them with an industrial influence and restricting their currently zoned use. What if a landowner wants to subdivide and sell his property as building lots later? Do you see what this 1500 extension outward from these turbines does in this situation?
The fifth area of presentation I think you need to present is that of fire protection preparedness. I have brought this subject up before and it has been spun into a supposed disrespect of the fire department from me. This is not the case. I support the fire department, both publicly and financially. You are putting these volunteers into a situation where they do not have the equipment necessary to respond effectively and in a timely manner to the HAZMAT issues these turbines bring with them. I would like to see a presentation how the Town is prepared to help these good men and women fight a 500 gallon hydraulic oil fire 265 ft in the air at the hub of these turbines? They will need more than courage and ingenuity; they need tools to be effective.
There is millions of dollars worth of timber growing on these side hills. I am not saying that these fires will burn down these trees. I am saying that a simple ground fire sweeping through a forest can damage trees in such a way that although they may stand and grow for years to come, the damage sustained during fire can deteriorate their quality as potential timber producing trees. How many good boards can you get out of a tree that is hollow from fire damage?
This pseudo-environmentalist wind turbine program has the potential to devastate the very environment it is purported to protect if you allow negligence and lack of preparation prior to its installation. Again, please … no fluff; present us with a credible report of how you will deal with preparing our fire department. How are you going to pay for the new tools they need prior to these turbines being put up? Maybe UPC will donate a silver plated bucket to our firefighters inscribed with the words “I think I can” along with a sling shot big enough to launch this bucket 265 ft in the air filled with some foam to fight the oil fire. I use humor to emphasize this point, but … it is not funny. Your lack of attention to this point so far demonstrates just how unprepared you are and are apparently willing to remain.
Although I am positioned in what seems to be an adversarial stance against the Town Board, I would like to offer justification for being so. If you correctly recall, at the January 23rd Open Public Meeting that was held at the school, I stood up and asked several questions. At first, I was accommodated with polite but vague answers. Because I was not satisfied with the responses given, I pressed further with more pointed questions that were without a doubt well within my right to ask, being I have been a resident in this Town for eighteen years. My more pointed questions led to not just vague answers at that point, but rather a consciences effort to silence me.
I take no ego trip in calling public officials to accountability, instead I consider it my civic duty that was given to me as a benefactor of sacred privileges from those that have given their lives in military service to secure and protect them. My relatives, and probably yours, died to insure that we would have the freedom to live in a Country where our government would have the solemn responsibility to represent the people fairly. As you know, one of the checks in this democratic society we live in is for each citizen to call their government to accountability. This maintains balance and preserves stability.
I submit respectfully and without malice: You have been credited in public by the wind turbine supporters for all your hard work on this project, yet when I questioned Wayne Hunt as to his personal understanding of the economic issues surrounding this project, he had no answers. I challenge you to present to the residents of Cohocton a balanced presentation of all facets of this wind turbine program. Show us that you are seeking to be diligent to protect, preserve, enrich and honor our American way of life. Protect the rights we have and do not allow your Town to become the victim of a corporate enrichment scheme. It goes without saying that you are obligated to present us with a fair, open, transparent and professional assessment of this issue at the up and coming public meeting.
I have challenged Wayne Hunt and Jack Zigenfus to come out into the public and debate these points with me in a respectful point by point discussion and have been declined. If your position is defendable, come out and defend it in public, point by point with me. You can put all the shows on you want in which the public is not allowed to participate to try to promote this program, require that we submit our responses in writing which are never addressed, but each time you do you are losing credibility. As a citizen, I demand that you present us with a fair, balanced program in which both sides are represented. I call on those members of the Town Board that are conscientious, to exercise your responsibility to reign in other members who have left the principles of democracy and have replaced them with a self seeking agenda. This is not what the blood of your forefathers was spilled all over the world on foreign soil for.
This in not “LONG, LONG AGO … IN A KINGDOM NOT SO FAR AWAY ON THE ISLE OF LIVING” as portrayed by a misinformed and deceived supporter of “Yes!” in The Valley News, this is Cohocton in the here and now where there is no dictatorial King (or at least there is not supposed to be). Some are resentful at my aggressive stance on this issue. I am only aggressive in direct response to the dictatorial stance of my government.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Upcoming Open Public Meeting
Dear Town Board Members:
At your last regular meeting you stated that you are going to schedule a public meeting in which you are going to have professionals attend to answer specific questions concerning the proposed installation of the wind turbines.
As one opposed to this wind turbine program as it has been proposed, I have contributed to the effort to enlighten residents of particular concerns that establish my belief that these turbines as proposed are wrong for Cohocton. I have clearly identified areas where I believe the management of this program misses the mark.
Rather than a presentation of how “pretty” these things are, or a promotion filled with puff and sweet smelling powder, please make a diligent effort at presenting the entire picture. I have five areas that are central to my concern that I ask you to have professionally addressed at this public meeting:
The first is the economics. I would ask that you have a professional level presentation as to what the actual cost will be per kilowatt hour to produce this wind generated power. I ask that the analytical evaluation include all government subsidies, the tax savings from the P.I.L.O.T. program, N.Y.S.E.R.D.A incentives. Tax savings from accelerated depreciation and the actual cost paid to UPC for each kilowatt hour of generated electricity. I ask that this cost be compared to the traditional methods currently employed to produce electricity.
Since we are presented to be “co-investors” for the “good of our energy needs” with UPC on this program that is supposed to be good for Cohocton, Steuben County, the School, the State, and the Nation, I ask that you insist that UPC have available at this meeting in paper and electronic copy, a certified copy of the same business plan they are showing their financial investors. If we are truly investors, asked to invest in the future energy needs of our area with UPC, this should not be an unreasonable request. Surely we should be entitled to view this written Business Plan just as the other investors.
Included in this first analysis, I request an analytical financial evaluation in a percentage form, the actual amount of total yearly income to UPC that the proposed $160,000 to our Town represents. This will go a long way in showing the return on our investment in this program.
The second specific professional presentation that I am asking you to provide is a responsible explanation from both an economic and insurance advisor as to why a letter of credit, rather than a surety bond would be sufficient to protect the Town of Cohocton and its residents from liability and loss in the event of a bankruptcy on the part of UPC. Please ask this professional to explain the differences between a letter of credit and a surety bond.
The third presentation I would like the Town Board to personally present is their justification as to why they have proposed this wind turbine industrialization of Cohocton when it is in direct violation of our Town Comprehensive Plan.
The fourth area I would ask that you address is the specifics of how the Town thinks they can influence a private property by allowing a setback of only 500 from a property line when the turbines influence extend 1500 out as a result of you proposed law. How is someone going to be able to build closer to their property line if they want to? Will you have provision to make the wind company take down the turbine and place it 1500 ft. from this new building? I would like an answer presented as to why the Town Board thinks this will not be an issue for expensive lawsuits against the Town in the future? If you are going to reduce the use of these private properties, shouldn’t each private landowner that you put in this situation be entitled to a reduction in taxes? You are taking properties that are zoned residential, overlapping them with an industrial influence and restricting their currently zoned use. What if a landowner wants to subdivide and sell his property as building lots later? Do you see what this 1500 extension outward from these turbines does in this situation?
The fifth area of presentation I think you need to present is that of fire protection preparedness. I have brought this subject up before and it has been spun into a supposed disrespect of the fire department from me. This is not the case. I support the fire department, both publicly and financially. You are putting these volunteers into a situation where they do not have the equipment necessary to respond effectively and in a timely manner to the HAZMAT issues these turbines bring with them. I would like to see a presentation how the Town is prepared to help these good men and women fight a 500 gallon hydraulic oil fire 265 ft in the air at the hub of these turbines? They will need more than courage and ingenuity; they need tools to be effective.
There is millions of dollars worth of timber growing on these side hills. I am not saying that these fires will burn down these trees. I am saying that a simple ground fire sweeping through a forest can damage trees in such a way that although they may stand and grow for years to come, the damage sustained during fire can deteriorate their quality as potential timber producing trees. How many good boards can you get out of a tree that is hollow from fire damage?
This pseudo-environmentalist wind turbine program has the potential to devastate the very environment it is purported to protect if you allow negligence and lack of preparation prior to its installation. Again, please … no fluff; present us with a credible report of how you will deal with preparing our fire department. How are you going to pay for the new tools they need prior to these turbines being put up? Maybe UPC will donate a silver plated bucket to our firefighters inscribed with the words “I think I can” along with a sling shot big enough to launch this bucket 265 ft in the air filled with some foam to fight the oil fire. I use humor to emphasize this point, but … it is not funny. Your lack of attention to this point so far demonstrates just how unprepared you are and are apparently willing to remain.
Although I am positioned in what seems to be an adversarial stance against the Town Board, I would like to offer justification for being so. If you correctly recall, at the January 23rd Open Public Meeting that was held at the school, I stood up and asked several questions. At first, I was accommodated with polite but vague answers. Because I was not satisfied with the responses given, I pressed further with more pointed questions that were without a doubt well within my right to ask, being I have been a resident in this Town for eighteen years. My more pointed questions led to not just vague answers at that point, but rather a consciences effort to silence me.
I take no ego trip in calling public officials to accountability, instead I consider it my civic duty that was given to me as a benefactor of sacred privileges from those that have given their lives in military service to secure and protect them. My relatives, and probably yours, died to insure that we would have the freedom to live in a Country where our government would have the solemn responsibility to represent the people fairly. As you know, one of the checks in this democratic society we live in is for each citizen to call their government to accountability. This maintains balance and preserves stability.
I submit respectfully and without malice: You have been credited in public by the wind turbine supporters for all your hard work on this project, yet when I questioned Wayne Hunt as to his personal understanding of the economic issues surrounding this project, he had no answers. I challenge you to present to the residents of Cohocton a balanced presentation of all facets of this wind turbine program. Show us that you are seeking to be diligent to protect, preserve, enrich and honor our American way of life. Protect the rights we have and do not allow your Town to become the victim of a corporate enrichment scheme. It goes without saying that you are obligated to present us with a fair, open, transparent and professional assessment of this issue at the up and coming public meeting.
I have challenged Wayne Hunt and Jack Zigenfus to come out into the public and debate these points with me in a respectful point by point discussion and have been declined. If your position is defendable, come out and defend it in public, point by point with me. You can put all the shows on you want in which the public is not allowed to participate to try to promote this program, require that we submit our responses in writing which are never addressed, but each time you do you are losing credibility. As a citizen, I demand that you present us with a fair, balanced program in which both sides are represented. I call on those members of the Town Board that are conscientious, to exercise your responsibility to reign in other members who have left the principles of democracy and have replaced them with a self seeking agenda. This is not what the blood of your forefathers was spilled all over the world on foreign soil for.
This in not “LONG, LONG AGO … IN A KINGDOM NOT SO FAR AWAY ON THE ISLE OF LIVING” as portrayed by a misinformed and deceived supporter of “Yes!” in The Valley News, this is Cohocton in the here and now where there is no dictatorial King (or at least there is not supposed to be). Some are resentful at my aggressive stance on this issue. I am only aggressive in direct response to the dictatorial stance of my government.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Research wind farms' effects
We all know that Rochester is surrounded by great scenery and none is better than the area to our south — at least for now.
Some of the small towns in the Southern Tier are working on wind farm projects, which will consist of hundreds of enormously tall (400-foot) towers with wind turbines at the top. These wind towers will be erected on the top of the high hills, destroying the beauty of the area.
These projects are being heavily subsidized by our tax dollars and are supposed to be the answer to our energy problems. However, there are many issues related to wind turbines: actual efficiency of wind power; health issues; who really will profit from them; environmental issues; decline in property values; and, not the least, desecration of the beautiful scenery.
Let's find better ways of solving energy problems without destroying the beauty around us.
JUDITH BROWN IRONDEQUOIT
Some of the small towns in the Southern Tier are working on wind farm projects, which will consist of hundreds of enormously tall (400-foot) towers with wind turbines at the top. These wind towers will be erected on the top of the high hills, destroying the beauty of the area.
These projects are being heavily subsidized by our tax dollars and are supposed to be the answer to our energy problems. However, there are many issues related to wind turbines: actual efficiency of wind power; health issues; who really will profit from them; environmental issues; decline in property values; and, not the least, desecration of the beautiful scenery.
Let's find better ways of solving energy problems without destroying the beauty around us.
JUDITH BROWN IRONDEQUOIT
Friday, July 07, 2006
July 6, 2006 OPEN LETTER TO ALL IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON by Robert C. Strasburg II
I attended the Cohocton Planning Board meeting tonight and was able to have a conversation with Councilman Wayne Hunt after the meeting. If you remember in our open public meetings I recounted the story of an earlier conversation with Wayne as to why he was pushing for these turbines in our Town. He told me, “for the revenue”. I asked him, what revenue? He then told me that “well … we do not know”. Tonight when I talked to Wayne, the story has changed.
Let me break away for a minute and explain something. I have known Wayne Hunt for many years now because he works at the local hardware and he has been a lot of help to me and is very knowledgeable in his industry. As you all know, we have been “sparing” with each other over this issue of wind turbines. Tonight I was able to make him understand that my sparing with him has nothing personal attached to it. We disagree on this issue, but that is as far as it goes. I make no personal attacks against him as a person; it is his judgment relative to managing this wind turbine project I am calling into question.
Wayne was touting the supposed revenue that we would get from these turbines and now that UPC has released what we will actually get from the IDA brokered agreement on the P.I.L.O.T. funds, the truth is out. The income we stand to receive as a Town is far from what Wayne had hoped, and now his story has changed. Since the money from the P.I.L.O.T. funds is so minimal, he now is touting another story. He is still committed to these wind turbines, but it is now because “it is the right thing to do for energy”.
I am not going to deviate off into why this is such a ludicrous position to take. If you are interested in seeing if these turbines will make any significant contribution to solving our energy needs, please go to http://www.windaction.org/documents/1415 (download PDF file at bottom and read) and http://www.savewesternny.org/pdf/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf for detailed reports on the subject. The point of this letter is to alert this Town to a real problem we have. Now remember, this is not a personal attack against Wayne Hunt. This is a revelation of truth.
As a business man, I made the statement to Wayne Hunt that we as co-investors with this Wind Company ought to be entitled to see the Wind Company’s Business Plan, just as any other investor they have is entitle to. He looked at me puzzled and said, Bob, you can’t got to General Motors and ask for their business plan can you?” I said, Wayne, I am not a co-investor with General Motors. Wayne said, “how are we co-investors with the Wind Company?” Now, if you did not understand what is revealed by his last question to me, please go back and re-read his question. My heart fell inside me and a cold feeling of utter disbelief engulfed my entire soul.
This man, as good a person as he is, is so far out of touch with the realities of this entire issue, I now sincerely doubt his ability to effectively contribute to the leadership of this Town. If we are not co-investors with this Wind Company, then I ask you, what are we? We are investing our Town, all we have worked for, the sacred beauty of this area, our privacy, our small Town culture, and all for a cause that these wind turbines insignificantly affect … our need for electricity.
When one figures all the government subsidies (corporate welfare), the tax savings to the Wind Company created by the accelerated depreciation of these turbines, the revenue created for the Wind Company when they sell the electricity generated, the .02 per kilowatt hour kickback from N.Y.S.E.R.D.A., as best as I can tell, this Wind Company is in line to make over $25,000,000.00 per year off phase 1 and 2 of their program in our Town. Out of that they want to offer us 6/10ths of 1% of this revenue, or $160,000. L
I questioned Wayne on his understanding of the income stream for this Wind Company and folks, I am sad to tell you … this man has no clue! Remember, this is nothing personal. This man, as much as I like him as a person, is operating well outside of his league here. I challenge any Board member, either from the Town Board or the Planning Board, or any resident to ask Wayne his understanding of the income stream and how it breaks down in components of government subsidies, and what the true cost per kilowatt hour of this electricity really is. He cannot tell you! He is the self appointed leader of this parade and he is willfully void of understanding on the entire subject. This is nothing short of a corporate enrichment scam surpassing that of ENRON! It is not that he cannot see it, he does not want to!
Now I understand why all our effort to bring true facts to the surface about property value, the need to protect our Town from the liabilities these turbines bring with a well thought out plan and proper cash bonding, setbacks that do not devalue our properties nor restrict our future use of them, have all gone unnoticed by him. He has no interest in them. He is marching to the beat of a different drum as he leads his parade.
Wayne Hunt is committed to forcing these 400 ft. tall living abortions on our hills with insufficient safeguards and his mind is made up … the facts do not matter to him. He calls sound science and proven principles of good business practices including proper planning, “fools gold off the internet”. He will not debate me in public; he will not sit down in front of his constituents and defend his position. Wayne Hunt is an asset to the local hardware, but a liability to our Town in the position he is in. Wayne is the kind of man personally that I cannot help but like, but he does not belong in the position he is in as Councilman and he will never get my future vote for office. Cohocton ... we have a very serious problem with this man in office.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Let me break away for a minute and explain something. I have known Wayne Hunt for many years now because he works at the local hardware and he has been a lot of help to me and is very knowledgeable in his industry. As you all know, we have been “sparing” with each other over this issue of wind turbines. Tonight I was able to make him understand that my sparing with him has nothing personal attached to it. We disagree on this issue, but that is as far as it goes. I make no personal attacks against him as a person; it is his judgment relative to managing this wind turbine project I am calling into question.
Wayne was touting the supposed revenue that we would get from these turbines and now that UPC has released what we will actually get from the IDA brokered agreement on the P.I.L.O.T. funds, the truth is out. The income we stand to receive as a Town is far from what Wayne had hoped, and now his story has changed. Since the money from the P.I.L.O.T. funds is so minimal, he now is touting another story. He is still committed to these wind turbines, but it is now because “it is the right thing to do for energy”.
I am not going to deviate off into why this is such a ludicrous position to take. If you are interested in seeing if these turbines will make any significant contribution to solving our energy needs, please go to http://www.windaction.org/documents/1415 (download PDF file at bottom and read) and http://www.savewesternny.org/pdf/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf for detailed reports on the subject. The point of this letter is to alert this Town to a real problem we have. Now remember, this is not a personal attack against Wayne Hunt. This is a revelation of truth.
As a business man, I made the statement to Wayne Hunt that we as co-investors with this Wind Company ought to be entitled to see the Wind Company’s Business Plan, just as any other investor they have is entitle to. He looked at me puzzled and said, Bob, you can’t got to General Motors and ask for their business plan can you?” I said, Wayne, I am not a co-investor with General Motors. Wayne said, “how are we co-investors with the Wind Company?” Now, if you did not understand what is revealed by his last question to me, please go back and re-read his question. My heart fell inside me and a cold feeling of utter disbelief engulfed my entire soul.
This man, as good a person as he is, is so far out of touch with the realities of this entire issue, I now sincerely doubt his ability to effectively contribute to the leadership of this Town. If we are not co-investors with this Wind Company, then I ask you, what are we? We are investing our Town, all we have worked for, the sacred beauty of this area, our privacy, our small Town culture, and all for a cause that these wind turbines insignificantly affect … our need for electricity.
When one figures all the government subsidies (corporate welfare), the tax savings to the Wind Company created by the accelerated depreciation of these turbines, the revenue created for the Wind Company when they sell the electricity generated, the .02 per kilowatt hour kickback from N.Y.S.E.R.D.A., as best as I can tell, this Wind Company is in line to make over $25,000,000.00 per year off phase 1 and 2 of their program in our Town. Out of that they want to offer us 6/10ths of 1% of this revenue, or $160,000. L
I questioned Wayne on his understanding of the income stream for this Wind Company and folks, I am sad to tell you … this man has no clue! Remember, this is nothing personal. This man, as much as I like him as a person, is operating well outside of his league here. I challenge any Board member, either from the Town Board or the Planning Board, or any resident to ask Wayne his understanding of the income stream and how it breaks down in components of government subsidies, and what the true cost per kilowatt hour of this electricity really is. He cannot tell you! He is the self appointed leader of this parade and he is willfully void of understanding on the entire subject. This is nothing short of a corporate enrichment scam surpassing that of ENRON! It is not that he cannot see it, he does not want to!
Now I understand why all our effort to bring true facts to the surface about property value, the need to protect our Town from the liabilities these turbines bring with a well thought out plan and proper cash bonding, setbacks that do not devalue our properties nor restrict our future use of them, have all gone unnoticed by him. He has no interest in them. He is marching to the beat of a different drum as he leads his parade.
Wayne Hunt is committed to forcing these 400 ft. tall living abortions on our hills with insufficient safeguards and his mind is made up … the facts do not matter to him. He calls sound science and proven principles of good business practices including proper planning, “fools gold off the internet”. He will not debate me in public; he will not sit down in front of his constituents and defend his position. Wayne Hunt is an asset to the local hardware, but a liability to our Town in the position he is in. Wayne is the kind of man personally that I cannot help but like, but he does not belong in the position he is in as Councilman and he will never get my future vote for office. Cohocton ... we have a very serious problem with this man in office.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Who are these Cohocton Wind Watch people??? by John Bose
Question: Who are these Cohocton Wind Watch people???
Answer:*We are citizens, landowners, taxpayers, voters and neighbors of Cohocton
· We are people who have seen how a well-meaning town board, wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars because they believed a flawed financial plan that said the “Fast Ferry” was a good idea. They didn’t question the plan or who sponsored it.
· We are people who came here by choice not by birth. We love the area with all its’ natural beauty and quiet.
· We respect our neighbors rights to do what they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with our rights. Rights are not a function of longevity.
· We are for clean safe power. We do not believe wind turbines are either clean or safe. Unwanted noise is every bit a form of pollution as smoke from a coal burning power plant.
· We know wind turbines make noise, lots of noise. Why would a turbine company in Wisconsin offer to buy six parcels of land that were deemed to be uninhabitable after sound tests were performed. Some of us have heard these giants first hand; some have heard tapes of their noise. And yet others know that any time a wind company is willing to buy land because their turbines are too loud that they must be making some big time noise.
· Most of us think that the wind power industry is just a Government Welfare scheme. It’s another way for the Government to make us think they’re doing something to help our energy problem. If wind power were a good idea there wouldn’t need to be a mandate for the GRID to pay for it. If it were a good idea there wouldn’t need to be millions of dollars spent for grant money. The law makers would have us believe that more gun control laws would keep guns from the hands of the bad guys, this hasn’t worked so far has it? Throwing good taxpayer dollars into wind power won’t work either. In order for wind power to be a viable source of energy it must be constant and reliable, neither is true of wind power. Government welfare is never a good thing.
· We heard we would get free electricity, that wasn’t true. We were told turbines weren’t loud, that wasn’t true either. No oil or coal will be saved either. Worldwide thousands of windmills have yet to replace a single fossil fuel plant. We don’t like to be lied to.
John Bose
Answer:*We are citizens, landowners, taxpayers, voters and neighbors of Cohocton
· We are people who have seen how a well-meaning town board, wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars because they believed a flawed financial plan that said the “Fast Ferry” was a good idea. They didn’t question the plan or who sponsored it.
· We are people who came here by choice not by birth. We love the area with all its’ natural beauty and quiet.
· We respect our neighbors rights to do what they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with our rights. Rights are not a function of longevity.
· We are for clean safe power. We do not believe wind turbines are either clean or safe. Unwanted noise is every bit a form of pollution as smoke from a coal burning power plant.
· We know wind turbines make noise, lots of noise. Why would a turbine company in Wisconsin offer to buy six parcels of land that were deemed to be uninhabitable after sound tests were performed. Some of us have heard these giants first hand; some have heard tapes of their noise. And yet others know that any time a wind company is willing to buy land because their turbines are too loud that they must be making some big time noise.
· Most of us think that the wind power industry is just a Government Welfare scheme. It’s another way for the Government to make us think they’re doing something to help our energy problem. If wind power were a good idea there wouldn’t need to be a mandate for the GRID to pay for it. If it were a good idea there wouldn’t need to be millions of dollars spent for grant money. The law makers would have us believe that more gun control laws would keep guns from the hands of the bad guys, this hasn’t worked so far has it? Throwing good taxpayer dollars into wind power won’t work either. In order for wind power to be a viable source of energy it must be constant and reliable, neither is true of wind power. Government welfare is never a good thing.
· We heard we would get free electricity, that wasn’t true. We were told turbines weren’t loud, that wasn’t true either. No oil or coal will be saved either. Worldwide thousands of windmills have yet to replace a single fossil fuel plant. We don’t like to be lied to.
John Bose
Gary and Pat Struck Statement
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
CWW stands for Cohocton Wind Watch. But what does it really stand for? The CWW is a source of documented information for the good of all. We are a group of concerned citizens who have worked extremely hard, in a short period of time, to uncover critical information to protect everyone in this community, including the lease owners of these wind turbines.
It is obvious that we are opposed to the construction of wind turbines, but if they have to come, then they should be built properly and safely for all.
Those of us who are directly affected by the construction of wind turbines, are concerned first, for our own safety and the safety of others, second, depreciating land value, third, the view shed of this beautiful part of the country we call home. No doubt those of you living in the valleys and village will not be affected as drastically as those living on top of these hills next door to the turbines. However there will be an effect for all.
It is unfortunate that we are considered the bad guys, when all we're doing is uncovering important information and asking questions that no one seems to have answers to. Maybe wind energy is too new to have answers for. If that's the case then lets slow down until we can get better answers.
Gary and Pat Struck
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Harness Wind Power
07-05-2006%2010.rtf%3B20.rtf%3B39AM.rtf
Harnessing wind power
BY ELMER PLOETZ
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Frank Tatar has taken his inspiration from the old windmill in Wood-lawn, near the Ford Stamping Plant
Built for $1.6 million in 1984, the 120-foot turbine stood for about 4V4 years without ever generating a commercial kilowatt.
Tatar, an 88-year-old inventor of the American garage variety, figured there had to be a better way. And for the past 20 years, he has been pursuing it in his Blasdell shop.
"Propeller mills have so many moving parts, thaf s why they break down," Tatar says of the 300-foot-high turbines that are popping up around the state. "Ours is a wind panel. It's quite different".
Specifically, it is 'Vertical axis" wind power.
Tatar has built and patented a turbine behind his shop on the appropriately named Electric Avenue that looks like a silo, about 20 feet high and 40 feet in diameter.
Its key is a bank of neodymium iron boron magnets — the strongest kind of magnet in the world — that essentially lift the panels over the generating device the same way maglev (magnetic levitation) trains are lifted off railroad tracks to reduce resistence.
Then, it's a matter of letting the wind catch the panels — or wind sails — to rotate the device and generate electricity.
Tatar figures he has spent about $1.2 million on the project, money raised from selling his Windfall Fjiergy stocks and from his own savings. He ran a novelty production company out of the site for years before retiring.
The project is attractive in several areas. He says the towers could be anywhere from 100 to 200 feet high, reducing the impact on the landscape by propeller towers.
They operate on less wind than propeller turbines, he says, and could be used at industrial and commercial sites to provide on-site power without having the environmental impact of the taller "horizontal axis" projects.
One of his models is priced at $695,000, compared with about $1.5 million for most of the turbine towers today.
(read more from above link)
Harnessing wind power
BY ELMER PLOETZ
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Frank Tatar has taken his inspiration from the old windmill in Wood-lawn, near the Ford Stamping Plant
Built for $1.6 million in 1984, the 120-foot turbine stood for about 4V4 years without ever generating a commercial kilowatt.
Tatar, an 88-year-old inventor of the American garage variety, figured there had to be a better way. And for the past 20 years, he has been pursuing it in his Blasdell shop.
"Propeller mills have so many moving parts, thaf s why they break down," Tatar says of the 300-foot-high turbines that are popping up around the state. "Ours is a wind panel. It's quite different".
Specifically, it is 'Vertical axis" wind power.
Tatar has built and patented a turbine behind his shop on the appropriately named Electric Avenue that looks like a silo, about 20 feet high and 40 feet in diameter.
Its key is a bank of neodymium iron boron magnets — the strongest kind of magnet in the world — that essentially lift the panels over the generating device the same way maglev (magnetic levitation) trains are lifted off railroad tracks to reduce resistence.
Then, it's a matter of letting the wind catch the panels — or wind sails — to rotate the device and generate electricity.
Tatar figures he has spent about $1.2 million on the project, money raised from selling his Windfall Fjiergy stocks and from his own savings. He ran a novelty production company out of the site for years before retiring.
The project is attractive in several areas. He says the towers could be anywhere from 100 to 200 feet high, reducing the impact on the landscape by propeller towers.
They operate on less wind than propeller turbines, he says, and could be used at industrial and commercial sites to provide on-site power without having the environmental impact of the taller "horizontal axis" projects.
One of his models is priced at $695,000, compared with about $1.5 million for most of the turbine towers today.
(read more from above link)
WAYLAND PASSES LAW REGULATING WIND ENERGY TAX EXEMPTION by Michelle King/staff writer
Wayland- With wind farm companies proposing plans nearby, the Town of Wayland is thinking ahead.
On June 19, the town board had a public hearing and passed Local Law No. 1 on the issue of tax exemption for wind companies.
“The local law is giving us the authority to be a part of the exemption status when a company comes into town, and they apply for an exemption in relation to wind farms and energy,” town Clerk Beverly L. Robinson, said. “By passing it, it entitles us to take part in deciding whatever exemption they may be entitled to because if you don’t pass it you don’t have a say, and the local school district will. It allows the township a say into how much of an exemption a town can get.”
Traditionally, what happens is a wind turbine company will inform the municipality they would like to do business in the town. After that, they may request a break in taxes, Robinson explained.
Local Law No. 1 has already been filed with the state Secretary of State in Albany.
“Their main goal was to enhance the town and protect them at the same time,” Robinson said. “To not discourage people with alternative energy, but at the same token we have to watch out for the people in the town.”
In addition, Local Law No. 2 regarding wind farm development is in the works. According to the draft, it will include specifics on creating a six-month moratorium if a wind farm company proposes a plan. A public hearing for the second law will be at 7 p.m. July 17 at the town hall.
The law presently outlines a rationale for the moratorium. For example, section two states: “The activity affected by this moratorium is to temporarily prohibit the project review, issuance of permits or construction of any wind powered electricity generating facilities within the Town of Wayland.”
Robinson said the town is trying to be proactive on the issue.
“We are trying to get all the ducks in a row,” she said. “In case a company does come, they will have everything in place for protection of the town and yet will be welcoming a new enterprise at the same time.”
Although no companies have recently presented a wind energy farm for the town, Robinson said several years ago one did just that. The initiation and surrounding townships, such as Cohocton, has prompted the board to pass the local laws, she added.
Another highlighted reason for Local Law No. 2 is environmental and health concerns of wind energy.
Under section three, the mission statement reads: “This moratorium is necessary to preserve and protect the health and safety and welfare of residents of the Town of Wayland, and to enable town officials to comprehensively address the issues involved with the development of residential, commercial and industry wind powered electricity generating facilities.
If development of this type of facility were allowed to proceed during the duration of this moratorium, irreversible damage to the health and safety of residents, adverse environmental impacts, and/or development not in consonance with the town’s comprehensive plan may occur, it continues.
On June 19, the town board had a public hearing and passed Local Law No. 1 on the issue of tax exemption for wind companies.
“The local law is giving us the authority to be a part of the exemption status when a company comes into town, and they apply for an exemption in relation to wind farms and energy,” town Clerk Beverly L. Robinson, said. “By passing it, it entitles us to take part in deciding whatever exemption they may be entitled to because if you don’t pass it you don’t have a say, and the local school district will. It allows the township a say into how much of an exemption a town can get.”
Traditionally, what happens is a wind turbine company will inform the municipality they would like to do business in the town. After that, they may request a break in taxes, Robinson explained.
Local Law No. 1 has already been filed with the state Secretary of State in Albany.
“Their main goal was to enhance the town and protect them at the same time,” Robinson said. “To not discourage people with alternative energy, but at the same token we have to watch out for the people in the town.”
In addition, Local Law No. 2 regarding wind farm development is in the works. According to the draft, it will include specifics on creating a six-month moratorium if a wind farm company proposes a plan. A public hearing for the second law will be at 7 p.m. July 17 at the town hall.
The law presently outlines a rationale for the moratorium. For example, section two states: “The activity affected by this moratorium is to temporarily prohibit the project review, issuance of permits or construction of any wind powered electricity generating facilities within the Town of Wayland.”
Robinson said the town is trying to be proactive on the issue.
“We are trying to get all the ducks in a row,” she said. “In case a company does come, they will have everything in place for protection of the town and yet will be welcoming a new enterprise at the same time.”
Although no companies have recently presented a wind energy farm for the town, Robinson said several years ago one did just that. The initiation and surrounding townships, such as Cohocton, has prompted the board to pass the local laws, she added.
Another highlighted reason for Local Law No. 2 is environmental and health concerns of wind energy.
Under section three, the mission statement reads: “This moratorium is necessary to preserve and protect the health and safety and welfare of residents of the Town of Wayland, and to enable town officials to comprehensively address the issues involved with the development of residential, commercial and industry wind powered electricity generating facilities.
If development of this type of facility were allowed to proceed during the duration of this moratorium, irreversible damage to the health and safety of residents, adverse environmental impacts, and/or development not in consonance with the town’s comprehensive plan may occur, it continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)