Advocates Supports Article 78 Petition Opposing Wind Project

ADVOCATES FOR SPRINGFIELD
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468

Update #39

July 19, 2007

Advocates Supports Article 78 Petition Opposing Wind Project Jordanville Wind Project Approved Advocates for Springfield will be supporting the Article 78 petition filed today on behalf of individual citizens of the Towns of Stark and Warren.

The Warren Town Board has issued its Findings under SEQRA and determined that the negative impacts of the Jordanville Wind project have been properly and adequately addressed. The Warren Board and the Stark Board both approved issuance of Special Use Permits under their local wind ordinances, giving further approval for the project to proceed.

We have two main complaints about these actions:

1) The environmental review was not well done. Many issues were never addressed. And others were addressed only by offering to conduct tests and evaluations after the project is completed. The Lead Agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project. As only one example, under SEQRA, the Lead Agency must look at alternatives such as other locations, downsizing, phasing development, or use of smaller turbines. In the Jordanville analysis, the applicant has stated that none of these options is economically viable. But the Lead Agency never asked for evidence about the project economics. Further, the original plan was for 75 turbines and that plan was described as the minimum size needed for economic viability. Since then, the project has been reduced to 68 turbines with the same claim as to economic viability. The Findings recommend a further reduction of 2 turbines with once again the same result that this is now the minimum for economic viability. So the assertion about minimum size was not true and yet the Lead Agency still has not requested financial information.

2) There were many procedural errors committed in the approval process. These errors are important because of the taint of conflicts of interest (one town board member is getting a turbine on his land and he participated in the board's deliberations), the failure to properly notify the public of meetings, and (most importantly) the conducting in closed sessions of the entire review of the Special Use Permits.

Our only recourse is to support the filing of an Article 78 petition to force the two towns and the developer to go back to square one and conduct a reasonable SEQRA review without the process errors that taint the current review.

Otsego 2000 has voted to endorse this petition as has Advocates for Stark. There are about 10 private landowners who will be the actual petitioners with standing (that is, they will be personally damaged by the approval). Our participation is important to demonstrate that the proposed project impacts extend to the surrounding communities.

We expect the petition to be filed by the time you receive this Update.

Home Rule and Regional Impacts

New York is a home rule state, meaning that local governance is a valued concept. We support this concept and have been active proponents of local decisions for local issues.

In the case of the Jordanville Wind project, we are crossing the line into two neighboring towns to ask that they consider the impact of this project on us. And since, at least in our opinion, they have failed to adequately consider these impacts, we are asking the court to insist that our view point be taken into consideration. We are not attempting to undermine the concept of home rule; we remain strong supporters of that concept. But when an action in one town has a clear and dramatic impact on the lives of people living in another town, it is incumbent upon the first town to consider the effect on the second town.

It is interesting to note that New York State is now debating whether to take wind turbine project siting decisions away from local decision-makers. The legislature is discussing revisions to Article 10 (concerning the siting of utility plants) so that local voices would have no say in where such plants are located. We disagree with this direction and hope that our legislators will see the wisdom of keeping home rule decision-making for such projects.

Financial Support Required

Many of you have generously contributed funds to help defray the costs that we have and will incur. We are grateful for your support.

Voluntary contributions in any amount will help us protect our area against a very large project that will create damage or potential damage along many lines. We had hoped to resolve our most critical issues through negotiations and compromises while the project review was taking place, but now must rely upon the judicial system. This is an expensive undertaking. Please continue to send your donations to Advocates for Springfield at the address at the top of this Update.

If you are receiving a copy of this Update in the mail, please remember to send us your current e-mail address so we can save postage and handling costs. Send your e-mail address and/or comments to barry.levine@patmedia.net.