Thursday, November 30, 2006
Jeff Goldthwait 'Fifth Letter' to the Town Board - November 21, 2006
Date: November 21, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Silent Wind Turbine set to Stormblade the Market
Stormblade Turbine Ltd is a London business start up company and it has designed an ultra-efficient wind turbine which works by accelerating the wind onto the blades and is therefore more efficient at low as well as high wind speeds.
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Bob Strasburg letter to the Wayland/Cohocton School Board
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Monday, November 27, 2006
Windmills aren't the answer by Colby Cosh
EDMONTON - It's official: The glorious future of abundant free energy has been put on hold. In May, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) announced that the province's grid could not safely accommodate more than 900 megawatts of wind-power generation, a target that will be met late next year. Proposals for 3,000 more MW of production have been thrown into indefinite limbo at an estimated cost to producers of $6-billion; meanwhile, the province is already spending $1-billion to strengthen the transmission system so that even the 900-MW cap can be reached. In Ontario, meanwhile, the grid operator warned late last month that 5,000 MW -- about one-fifth of the province's current peak consumption -- is probably the absolute technological limit. (A total of 1,280 MW of wind capacity is already in operation or being built.)
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
http://www.knolltowindfarm.org.uk/economic.htm
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
SCIDA Cohocton PILOT figures - 11/17/06
STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Citizen groups still fighting NYRI by FRITZ MAYER
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER VALLEY— When the man who will become the next governor of New York State says a project is dead, people tend to take him at his word. Last week, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the proposed project to build a 190-mile power line through eight New York counties was dead because there was too much opposition to it.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Jeffrey Goldthwait letter to the Town of Cohocton
Date: October 23, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Ont. bill targets stray voltage from power lines as threat to human health by GREGORY BONNELL
TORONTO (CP) - Canada's dairy cows are acting as "canaries in coal mines" when it comes to detecting stray electricity in the ground that poses a significant threat to human health, experts said Thursday.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed by Don E. Sandford
To: Town Of Cohocton Town Board Members - November 16, 2006
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Judith Hall letter to the Town Board of Cohocton
November 16, 2006
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Thursday, November 16, 2006
SPECIAL MEETING of the Cohocton Planning Board
NOTICE to all that you need to attend this Special Meeting of the Cohocton Planning Board Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM. The location is at the CDC Grange Building on 71 Maples Ave, Cohocton, NY.
Attorney Todd Mathes will be present. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the site locations for Eight wind turbine on Phase I of the UPC Project, along Pine Hill.
CWW is challenging this meeting since the Town building inspector has determined that NO ACTION should be undertaken at this time on site locations, since the Windmill Local Law #2 has not been voted upon.
Attorney Todd Mathes will be present. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the site locations for Eight wind turbine on Phase I of the UPC Project, along Pine Hill.
CWW is challenging this meeting since the Town building inspector has determined that NO ACTION should be undertaken at this time on site locations, since the Windmill Local Law #2 has not been voted upon.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Final Version of Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2
Cohocton Town Board will vote on WLL #2 on Tuesday November 21, 2006. Be sure to attend this meeting.
WLL2111406.rtf
WLL2111406.rtf
Support Cohocton Wind Watch - raffle for a stay at the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast
Our elegant and upscale Victorian Villa a Finger Lakes Bed and Breakfast is located just off I-390 and only a few minutes from the charming village of Naples. Whether you are looking for a romantic getaway or the perfect place to spend your vacation you will be glad you chose the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast.
Contact a CWW member to support this raffle.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wind energy: A crash course in six paragraphs
Dear 60 Minutes:
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
New York State Unified Court System
WebCivil provides online access to information about cases in Civil Supreme Court in all 62 counties of New York State. You may search for cases by Index Number or the name of the Plaintiff or Defendant, look up cases by Attorney/Firm name, and view Calendars for each court.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
PDF file on the text of the law
entire_prop90.pdf
entire_prop90.pdf
Proposition 90: full text on eminent domain
Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Quotes on Wind
People who say 'You can't tell me what to do with my property' are in actuality signing away the control of their property to wind companies in signing these leases. — Barbara Boone, Md.
What the wind gives, line loss taketh away. — Carol A. Overland, Minn.
Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google 'Cefn Croes Photo Gallery', to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to 'save' annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet. — Christopher Booker, Telegraph, U.K.
A wind farm is an industrial installation of vast proportions, and, if erected on the loftiest ridges, its industrial flavor becomes the new focal point for all view-sheds within a 15-mile radius. — Dave Buhrman, W.Va.
Even if wind turbines were built in Hawaii, excess capacity would have to be built to handle peak loads in the event that the winds weren't blowing or the islands would experience brownouts or blackouts. The fact that the periods of highest demands would coincide with a drop-off in wind speed means wind turbines cannot be counted on the meet peak load demands in Hawaii. So electrical generating capacity would have to be built twice, first as wind turbines and second as backup peak capacity protection. — Don Newman, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims. — John Etherington, U.K.
If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops. — Merlin Tuttle, Director, Bat Conservation International
The cumulative impacts on bat populations from proposed and/or constructed wind farm developments, especially in the eastern United States, may lead to further population declines, placing multiple bat populations at serious risk of extinction. — Thomas Kunz, Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University
In the end, we remain convinced, the entire state [Va.] will see clearly that wind power ... is wrong for our mountains and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket huge profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies. When the smoke clears, there can be no other conclusion. Whether reason will triumph over the leverage of powerful special interests remains to be seen. — Editorial Staff, Roanoke Times
It is common sense, not the governor [of Vermont] alone, that is trying to shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt.
Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed. ... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without. ... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a 'free' source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary — wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources. — Fergus Smith, Vt.
Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions. — Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark
I don't believe it is in the state's interest to industrialize our ridge lines.
— Jim Douglas, Governor, Vt.
I wouldn't be against them [large wind turbines] if they actually worked.
— James Lovelock, U.K.
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We don't want to see them. We don't want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them. — Joan Kalso, Mich.
Wind turbines don't make good neighbors. — John Zimmerman (Northeast U.S. Representative, Enxco)
Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. — Jon Boone, Md.
One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem. — Jon Boone, Md.
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States. — Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more cons than pros in this debate. — Kristin Calkins Rowe, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 7, 2005
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy. — L. M. Schwartz
Consider this: We could be looking at 1,000 or more wind turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty on the high ridges of the Flint Hills, and they would contribute only about one-tenth of one percent of our current electricity use. That simply isn't worth the destruction of our unique Tallgrass Prairie land resource. — Larry Patton, Kan.
The subsidies for wind are a misuse of public money. The 'benefits' from industrial wind are a fantasy and an escape from our energy problems. For me, believing that industrial wind will solve our energy problems is a little like believing the Tooth Fairy will pay my heating bills this winter. — Linda Bly, Vt.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox [Vt.] may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of Renewable Energy For Profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a 'back yard.' They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. — Mark Walsh, Manchester (Vt.) Journal, Dec. 30, 2005
Promoters of the wind energy craze, absentee landowners, and a few locals hoping for a windfall are about to destroy the soul of the Flint Hills. — Michael Stubbs, Kan.
Wind energy has again been shown up for what it is, an expensive way of saving a derisory amount of CO2. It is, frankly, a disgrace, that the wind turbine farce continues in the name of saving the planet. The [U.K.] government should intervene immediately and stop these projects — they are a waste of our resources. — Nina Thorpe
Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent. — Peter McGauran, Aust. Senate
Good winds coincide with neither the heating nor air-conditioning season. Wind is a willy-nilly source of electricity, and as such is not very useful. — Richard C. Hill, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005
This industry has always wrapped itself in the mantle of green power and has sought to use the environmental benefits of wind power as an excuse for not doing anything about the environmental harms it causes. — Rick Wiebe, Calif.
If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies; however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County (Kan.), in two weeks and a little bit of paperwork ... they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing. — Rose Bacon
People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing. I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company [FPL] came in, destroyed the top of the mountain, and left us with it. — Rose Marie Derk, Weymart, Pa.
For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to be produced on demand. The storage of electricity as a technology is still in its infancy. One of the major drawbacks to wind is its unpredictability as a power source and that it cannot be stored. — Russell Broadbent, Aust. House of Representatives
... [I]t will be the equivalent of a water company only supplying tap water when it's raining. — Saiful Islam, U.K.
The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images — of Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well ... But the windmills we are talking about today are not your grandmother's windmills. Each one is typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Stature of Liberty, taller than a football field is long. — Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senate
These people are not as much [wind] developers as they are salesmen. Their product sounds good — and green — in theory, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. — Shirley Nelson, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Dec. 12, 2005
The [U.K.] government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is 'worth sacrificing to save the planet' is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. — Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 24, 2003
These are not farms, one doesn't farm wind any more than one farms water in a hydroelectric dam or farms neutrons in an atomic plant. — Tom Lynch, N.Y.
The first glimpse of the [Weymart, Pa., Wind Farm] turbines from State Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie. — Tom Vanesky
The first question is, how much do giant electricity-generating windmills actually help fight global warming? When real evidence of their benefits in, say, Denmark, can be shown (which they have yet to be), then there will be a basis for weighing the pros and cons. As it is, it appears to be all con. Lots of sacrifice, no benefit. — "Rucio"
There should be a presumption against wind farms in the countryside where their scale, siting or cumulative effect would have a significant adverse impact on landscape quality and recreational enjoyment thereof. — Countryside Commission, U.K.
We finally urge the environmentally-conscious public and especially these who share our concern for the need to produce energy responsibly by non-polluting means, to recognise that wind turbines are industrial machines for which there should be no place in our finest landscapes. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
We refuse to accept that our coasts and uplands should be sacrificed in this way, either as a penance for past failure to safeguard the environment or as a token contribution towards reducing atmospheric pollution or addressing possible shortages of fossil fuels. We believe that the costs of such a policy to a civilised society far exceed the perceived benefits. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
The main success of Danish involvement in wind power would appear to be the foundation of an industry producing wind mills. — Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Association
With the exploitation of wind energy, a technology is being promoted that is completely insignificant for the power supply, the preservation of natural resources, and the protection of the climate. — Lothar Hoischen, Germany
The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. — Darmstadt (Germany) Manifesto
I don't believe that wind power would have a very big future, because, relative to the energy produced, it is far too cumbersome, on land as on the sea.
— Marcel Boiteux, Presdient Emeritus, Electricité de France
Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats. — John Pagels
Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.
— Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany
The larger the share of wind power in a particular grid, the more standby power will have to be available in that grid.
What the wind gives, line loss taketh away. — Carol A. Overland, Minn.
Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google 'Cefn Croes Photo Gallery', to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to 'save' annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet. — Christopher Booker, Telegraph, U.K.
A wind farm is an industrial installation of vast proportions, and, if erected on the loftiest ridges, its industrial flavor becomes the new focal point for all view-sheds within a 15-mile radius. — Dave Buhrman, W.Va.
Even if wind turbines were built in Hawaii, excess capacity would have to be built to handle peak loads in the event that the winds weren't blowing or the islands would experience brownouts or blackouts. The fact that the periods of highest demands would coincide with a drop-off in wind speed means wind turbines cannot be counted on the meet peak load demands in Hawaii. So electrical generating capacity would have to be built twice, first as wind turbines and second as backup peak capacity protection. — Don Newman, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims. — John Etherington, U.K.
If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops. — Merlin Tuttle, Director, Bat Conservation International
The cumulative impacts on bat populations from proposed and/or constructed wind farm developments, especially in the eastern United States, may lead to further population declines, placing multiple bat populations at serious risk of extinction. — Thomas Kunz, Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University
In the end, we remain convinced, the entire state [Va.] will see clearly that wind power ... is wrong for our mountains and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket huge profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies. When the smoke clears, there can be no other conclusion. Whether reason will triumph over the leverage of powerful special interests remains to be seen. — Editorial Staff, Roanoke Times
It is common sense, not the governor [of Vermont] alone, that is trying to shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt.
Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed. ... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without. ... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a 'free' source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary — wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources. — Fergus Smith, Vt.
Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions. — Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark
I don't believe it is in the state's interest to industrialize our ridge lines.
— Jim Douglas, Governor, Vt.
I wouldn't be against them [large wind turbines] if they actually worked.
— James Lovelock, U.K.
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We don't want to see them. We don't want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them. — Joan Kalso, Mich.
Wind turbines don't make good neighbors. — John Zimmerman (Northeast U.S. Representative, Enxco)
Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. — Jon Boone, Md.
One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem. — Jon Boone, Md.
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States. — Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more cons than pros in this debate. — Kristin Calkins Rowe, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 7, 2005
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy. — L. M. Schwartz
Consider this: We could be looking at 1,000 or more wind turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty on the high ridges of the Flint Hills, and they would contribute only about one-tenth of one percent of our current electricity use. That simply isn't worth the destruction of our unique Tallgrass Prairie land resource. — Larry Patton, Kan.
The subsidies for wind are a misuse of public money. The 'benefits' from industrial wind are a fantasy and an escape from our energy problems. For me, believing that industrial wind will solve our energy problems is a little like believing the Tooth Fairy will pay my heating bills this winter. — Linda Bly, Vt.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox [Vt.] may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of Renewable Energy For Profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a 'back yard.' They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. — Mark Walsh, Manchester (Vt.) Journal, Dec. 30, 2005
Promoters of the wind energy craze, absentee landowners, and a few locals hoping for a windfall are about to destroy the soul of the Flint Hills. — Michael Stubbs, Kan.
Wind energy has again been shown up for what it is, an expensive way of saving a derisory amount of CO2. It is, frankly, a disgrace, that the wind turbine farce continues in the name of saving the planet. The [U.K.] government should intervene immediately and stop these projects — they are a waste of our resources. — Nina Thorpe
Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent. — Peter McGauran, Aust. Senate
Good winds coincide with neither the heating nor air-conditioning season. Wind is a willy-nilly source of electricity, and as such is not very useful. — Richard C. Hill, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005
This industry has always wrapped itself in the mantle of green power and has sought to use the environmental benefits of wind power as an excuse for not doing anything about the environmental harms it causes. — Rick Wiebe, Calif.
If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies; however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County (Kan.), in two weeks and a little bit of paperwork ... they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing. — Rose Bacon
People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing. I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company [FPL] came in, destroyed the top of the mountain, and left us with it. — Rose Marie Derk, Weymart, Pa.
For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to be produced on demand. The storage of electricity as a technology is still in its infancy. One of the major drawbacks to wind is its unpredictability as a power source and that it cannot be stored. — Russell Broadbent, Aust. House of Representatives
... [I]t will be the equivalent of a water company only supplying tap water when it's raining. — Saiful Islam, U.K.
The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images — of Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well ... But the windmills we are talking about today are not your grandmother's windmills. Each one is typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Stature of Liberty, taller than a football field is long. — Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senate
These people are not as much [wind] developers as they are salesmen. Their product sounds good — and green — in theory, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. — Shirley Nelson, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Dec. 12, 2005
The [U.K.] government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is 'worth sacrificing to save the planet' is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. — Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 24, 2003
These are not farms, one doesn't farm wind any more than one farms water in a hydroelectric dam or farms neutrons in an atomic plant. — Tom Lynch, N.Y.
The first glimpse of the [Weymart, Pa., Wind Farm] turbines from State Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie. — Tom Vanesky
The first question is, how much do giant electricity-generating windmills actually help fight global warming? When real evidence of their benefits in, say, Denmark, can be shown (which they have yet to be), then there will be a basis for weighing the pros and cons. As it is, it appears to be all con. Lots of sacrifice, no benefit. — "Rucio"
There should be a presumption against wind farms in the countryside where their scale, siting or cumulative effect would have a significant adverse impact on landscape quality and recreational enjoyment thereof. — Countryside Commission, U.K.
We finally urge the environmentally-conscious public and especially these who share our concern for the need to produce energy responsibly by non-polluting means, to recognise that wind turbines are industrial machines for which there should be no place in our finest landscapes. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
We refuse to accept that our coasts and uplands should be sacrificed in this way, either as a penance for past failure to safeguard the environment or as a token contribution towards reducing atmospheric pollution or addressing possible shortages of fossil fuels. We believe that the costs of such a policy to a civilised society far exceed the perceived benefits. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
The main success of Danish involvement in wind power would appear to be the foundation of an industry producing wind mills. — Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Association
With the exploitation of wind energy, a technology is being promoted that is completely insignificant for the power supply, the preservation of natural resources, and the protection of the climate. — Lothar Hoischen, Germany
The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. — Darmstadt (Germany) Manifesto
I don't believe that wind power would have a very big future, because, relative to the energy produced, it is far too cumbersome, on land as on the sea.
— Marcel Boiteux, Presdient Emeritus, Electricité de France
Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats. — John Pagels
Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.
— Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany
The larger the share of wind power in a particular grid, the more standby power will have to be available in that grid.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Read all the Windmill Local Laws by Town
Local Laws include the following towns.
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Thursday, November 02, 2006
James and Shannon Lince letter on the Dyckman Tower - Public Hearing Cohocton Planning Board
James and Shannon Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
Cohocton Planning Board Public Hearing on the Dyckman Test Tower TONIGHT
Remember that the Public Hearing starts at 6:30 PM, Thursday, November 2, 2006 at the Atlanta Court Office.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES? by Robert Strasburg
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES?
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
Paul Gettys November 1, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus
November 1, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)