An imagined dialogue on wind-farm strategy

Nancy Madsen's article "Cape Vincent to air turbine zoning plan" (Aug. 15) informs readers the town has appointed a committee to review a new draft wind law. The article listed conflicts of interest for each town officer related to contracts with the wind developer.

For a board that has a history of trying to ram through these wind projects any way they can, why are they suddenly trying to do things by the law? Perhaps the recent investigation of wind-company corruption slapped them into the realization that their questionable actions could actually jeopardize passing a wind law. So they talked to their wind-law lawyers who advised them to do everything right.

Perhaps their conversation went like this: "File your conflict disclosures, everything up front and legal. Dot your i's and cross your t's."

"OK, but how do we get this wind law through? We can't vote if two-thirds of the board has declared a conflict of interest."

"No problem, boys, appoint a committee. Now this committee must appear unbiased, although we know it's subtly stacked pro-wind. Appoint nonconflicted local officials to serve on the committee, and then throw in one pro-wind, and one anti-wind person for good balance. Don't ask for volunteers on this committee. The key is to appoint members to retain control of the process, but yet give the deceptive appearance that all community voices are represented. Once the committee has come up with a weak wind law, one that allows the wind developer almost unrestricted access to the town, and keeps the wind leaseholders happy, then the town board will vote to adopt the wind law."

"But how can we vote to pass our wind law if we have conflicts?"

"Don't worry, you claim you had nothing to do with the committee's recommendations. You have cleverly distanced yourself from the process. You are simply approving what the committee, who represents the community, told you to do. You have no fingerprints on this law."

"The public won't stand for this. They'll sue!"

"Let them sue, we think this is a position we can defend. By the time they get enough citizens to lawyer up and challenge us, we'll have the turbines up. At which point, the suit is basically meaningless. Why would they waste any more money on preventing something that has already happened?"

See Cape Vincent's new "wind farce"

Lorna Pundt

Cape Vincent