December 17, 2007
Steuben County IDA
7234 County Road 54 North
Bath, New York 14810
Mike Doyle Pleasant Valley Wine Company
8620 Pleasant Valley Road Hammondsport, NY 14840
George Connors 2905 Downing Road Big Flats, NY 14814
Rick Weakland 2036 Riff Road Corning, NY 14830
John Sirianni 10770 Hidden Meadow Trail Corning, NY 14830
Michael Nisbet 20 Bennett Street, Canisteo, NY 14823
Douglas Malone 11 Thorpe Avenue Hammondsport, NY 14840
Philip Roche, 5 Fox Lane East, tPainted Post, NY 14870
Steuben County IDA 7234 Route 54 North, Bath New York 14810
Steven J. Hancox Assistant Comptroller
Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development
110 State Street Albany, New York 12236
To the SCIDA Board and the Assistant Comptroller:
The attached letter contains comments directed toward the Board of SCIDA concerning the December 18 public hearing on the PILOT for Windfarm Prattsburgh (a UPC project). This is a project whose public benefit is seriously in question. Because inland wind turbines work at only ten percent of their rated capacity[1] and because this area has such a high incidence of icing incidents[2]it is doubtful whether the project will fulfill the intent of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), displace coal and supply the grid with substantial power. It is a private project, with private investors who stand to make a lot of money whether or not it fulfills the intent of the RPS, and it is being subsidized in many different ways by the taxpayers.
From its inception, there have been many irregularities with this project. When the Town of Prattsburgh made a resolution on December 16, 2003 not to oppose the SCIDA from rendering assistance to Ecogen and/or Windfarm Prattburgh LLC, two members of the Town Board at that time had close relatives who signed leases with the wind company. Neither of these men recused themselves from voting.
One signer of the accompanying letter refers to a land deal that the Town Supervisor of Prattsburgh arranged for UPC in his capacity as a real estate agent. This is not the first time we have heard this. This is a potential conflict of interest that should not be overlooked, because there should not even be the appearance of wrong doing on the part of a public official. On behalf of the Town Board, Supervisor McConnell has signed an agreement with the wind company which says, “…In connection with this resolution [to place electrical collection system cables and conduits underground] the Town shall allow the Company to locate such ECS within the Town’s highway right-of-way or otherwise convey to the Company all necessary property rights to do so. The Town shall cooperate with the Company to obtain any other land rights it deems necessary to place the ECS within the Town’s highway right-of-way.”[3]
It should be pointed out that this is a peculiar project in that the towers are not located on one piece of property owned by one person, but rather spread out over thousands of acres. In order to connect the towers to each other and to the substation, easements need to be obtained not only from participating landowners but from many landowners in the project area, including those who oppose the project. UPC initially intended to put the lines overground, but we believe it was unable to get the required 100 foot easements. So even if the town were not requiring UPC to place the ECS underground, UPC could not be using overground cables.
Supervisor McConnell, according to many reports and by his own admission, has personally been calling landowners and urging them to sign easements. There have been reports of landowners being cajoled, bullied and threatened to sign easements and waivers. In one instance a resident has been approached numerous times by the company and by project participants to sign a waiver allowing the wind company to place towers closer to her property line than is deemed safe even by the standards of SCIDA. She has been told that the landowner next door has wetlands, and the only place to put the towers is close to her property line (and to her barn and animals). She has repeatedly declined to sign the waiver – yet the towers still appear on the map of the project. How can that be if there are wetlands that preclude the safe building of 400 high towers?
The decision of the Town of Prattsburgh to support and help one wind company in acquiring rights for transmission lines could easy be construed as arbitrary and capricious. According to Harry Willis at the DOS, the courts have held that land use regulations in a town without a written plan document must nonetheless bear relation to an identifiable planning process. Prattsburgh needs to ensure equal treatment; changes in land use require a full SEQR, public hearing and most of all, a plan that is developed prior to giving its support to one particular type of company for one particular project.
The Town of Prattsburgh has repeatedly ignored vocal public opposition to this project.[4] Recreational and seasonal landowners make up forty percent of the town’s tax base. The Town has consistently ignored evidence that this source of town income will be eroded by the introduction of wind towers. The question must be raised as to why the Town is so eager for a project whose public benefit has never been proven.
As for “public approval,” the originator of this project was Global Winds Harvest which four years ago held an informational meeting in a local tavern and paid people with free drinks in exchange for which they were asked to fill out surveys giving their opinion of the project. More recently, in their application for NYSERDA money, Windfarm Prattsburgh quoted a local citizens group as being supportive of the project. We believe this group was started by someone on the Windfarm Prattsburgh payroll.
SCIDA has paid no attention to the overwhelming number of people who have attended meetings voicing their opposition to this project. As we put this letter together it is December 16, 2007 and Prattsburgh is in the middle of an ice storm. This area has more icing incidents than any other area in the country, including the Rocky Mountains and Vermont (information available upon request) – yet SCIDA has repeatedly overlooked the significance of this with respect to the safety and efficiency of placing 400 foot wind towers on the ridges. The SCIDA shows a blatant disregard not only for the safety of local residents, but for the taxpayers’ dollars that are involved in subsidizing a project for which the meteorological reports have not been shown and the true benefit never been seriously researched.
Ruth and Terry Matilsky
6724 Baker Road
Prattsburgh, New York 14873
No comments:
Post a Comment