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
NYS Open Meeting Law, Public Officers Law, Article 7, Section §100, gives the following legislative declaration: “The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants.”
Reference: NYS Department of State Website at: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.htm
You are the servants of all Cohocton Residents and are elected to office, bound by duty, honor, and the law to serve the best interest of us, the residents.
*According to the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform, I quote: “All municipalities that adopt and amend zoning must do so in accordance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan”
*(see, Town Law sec. 272-a, 11-a below, copy attached).” Reference: the following statement found at: http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
**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.”
**Reference: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”.
Local Law #2 is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s Comprehensive Plan based on the following quotes from it:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”
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.”
Your attorneys told you that you did not do windmill law #1 right; now I have shown you that NYS says you are not doing windmill law #2 correct either because it violates Cohocton’s binding Comprehensive Plan which you are honor and legally bound to follow. If you continue in this blatant disregard of the law, you will answer for your action under oath.
You are the oath sworn servants of all Cohocton residents. There is a due process for you to follow. Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and Councilman Wayne Hunt, we demand that you stop this rogue activity of high jacking our Town and return to submission as our servants and follow the laws of New York State.
You have been duly served with this notice of violation.
Jeff Wise and Milton LesVesque, just because your Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and Councilman Wayne Hunt have chosen to disregard NYS law and due process, that does not mean you have to. I urge you to do what is right. Vote no on windmill Law #2 and I urge you to make an immediate resolution for a Moratorium on this wind turbine development.
Zigenfus and Hunt have abandoned public trust. We are desperately depending on you Jeff and Milt to do what you know is the right thing to do. Take this Town back from the high jacking of Zigenfus and Hunt and return it to the residents that voted you into office.
We are in America, not North Korea. Choose to follow the democratic principles that our forefather shed their blood to insure we could have. Override Zigenfus and Hunt; propose a resolution to revisit our Comprehensive Plan for updating “before” enacting new zoning in conflict with it. Milt and Jeff, separate yourselves from this dictatorial act of treason.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by Paul E. Gettys
October 24, 2006
29 Wayland Street
North Cohocton, NY 14808
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY
RE: Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 – October 24, 2006
Gentlemen:
I had planned on starting with comments on the proposed law itself, but due to the time constraints I will save these comments till last.
Instead I will make comments on the performance of the Board itself during the development of the Industrial Windmill project.
· About three or four years ago I stopped into Mr. Zigenfus’s office in Atlanta for a short discussion. I was curious what had happened in the Town in the past in regards to past businesses and the topic of the need to develop new enterprises came up. He indicated that he was in the process of developing a wind power project. I expressed my concern that we should be selective in what type of businesses the Town should be attempting to develop. I never heard anymore at the Town meetings so I assumed the project feel through.
Given what happened in Springwater when the project was made public in its infancy, I can understand why UPC wanted it to be developed in secret. I assume this is the reason why the leases read that the land owners were not to divulge any information about the project. I do not fault either UPC or the leaseholders as they were only trying to protect their interests. However, I feel you Councilmen had an obligation to divulge this information to the public, as you should be responsible to us not UPC. Not to do so indicates an arrogance that you felt you know better than we what is good for us and the Town.
Mr. Zigenfus posted an April 2, 2002 article in this issue of the Valley News. Certainly an article posted four and one-half years ago does not constitute keeping the Town’s citizens notified and up to date. I attended monthly Board meetings for more than a year before UPC made the project public, and I never heard a word about the project.
· Mr. Hunt has been a strong proponent of the UPC project, becoming an leader in YES and writing articles in the Valley News in support of the project and critizing those against the project. He indicated that he had this right as a citizen of the Town, which I certainly concur with. However, this behavior seems very inappropriate for a Councilman who should have an open mind. If you felt that your rights as a citizen overshadowed your responsibilities as a Councilman, you should have resigned.
· Mr. Dyckman ran for office during this period when the UPC project was being developed. Being he was a leaseholder, he should have known that he would not be able to participate in any debate or vote in regards to this project. As this project is certainly one if not the most important issue ever to face this Town, he should have withdrawn from the race or least informed the voters of his conflict of interest. By not doing so he has become a lame duck Councilman.
· Give the solid backing of the project by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt; we the citizens should have been able to look to Mr. Wise and Mr. LeVesque to question the project and the proposed laws. Instead you gentlemen have rubber stamped all proposals put forth by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt. These actions do not serve the Town well.
The initial Pilot program indicated that the Town would receive about $160,000 per year and the school district about $600,000.
· We have requested figures on the new program and have been told that this information is confidential. This leads me to believe that the Towns share will be even less than $160,000 and this information will not be divulged until after Local Law No. 2 is approved so as not to interfere with support for it passage.
· A number of people have questioned if the State will not simply reduce their payments to the school by a like amount so the school will be right back as if there were no project. As there have been no responses to these comments one can only assume that this is correct.
On October 11, 2006 Tom Golisano and Keith Pittman from Empire Wind Energy LLC made a presentation at the Cohocton School to those interested citizens of the Town who were willing to attend. Unfortunately only one of you Councilmen felt it was worth your time to attend. Their program indicated that they could develop a project which would bring the same amount of money into the Town with fewer and shorter towers or could develop a more extensive project which would bring more money into the Town. They even talked about eventual ownership by the Town. I spoke to Mr. Pittman at a meeting on October 19, 2006 and no one from the Town Board had called him to set up a presentation or even thank them for coming out to our Town. I can not think of any honorable reason why a six month moratorium should not be invoked and discussions initiated with Empire. The deal UPC is proposing can be obtained from any number of wind developers if Empire does not perform as advertised.
In my opinion there have been several violations of the sun shine law where all Town Board meetings are to be made Public.
· For the two plus years where the project was kept secret from the Public there were obviously meetings with both UPC and the Board itself.
· During the discussions of the subject law, the Town Planning Board had open discussions and votes on points of the proposed law. The Board had neither discussions nor votes on the individual points, which would lead one to believe that once again there were non-public meetings.
Mr. Hunt, when people were critizing his actions, indicated that he would not change and it was up to the public to express their dissatisfaction at the next election.
· I feel it is the responsibility of all voters to do so if they feel the Board has not properly fulfilled their obligations.
· It is my understanding that the Board has put a resolution on the November ballet that their term be increased from two to four years. Given their actions during the development of this project, I feel that their term of office should be shortened to one year or a mechanism be installed where they can be recalled. I am retired now, but when I was still working my boss did not reward me for an inferior performance.
I would now like to discuss a number of points within the proposed Law itself.
1. There is nothing within the Law which limits the number of towers that can be construction within the Town or even a minimum spacing.
2. The maximum allowable height was 500 feet both in Law No. 1 and Law No.2.
Why was this necessary when a 1.5 kw turbine was proposed? I believe the actual height was less than 400 feet. When it was increased to 2.0 kw the height was increased to 403 feet. Now at 2.5 kw the proposed height is 430 feet. Obviously UPC knew then that larger turbines would be proposed and given there is still 70 feet left, it can only be assumed that turbines larger than 2.5 kw will be used on future projects.
3. The maximum noise level at the property lines is set at 50 dba. There were discussions within the Planning Board to limit it to 35 dba at an existing house. This would have been in line with the DEC suggestion that the noise be restricted to no more than 6 dba above the ambient level. Unfortunately it was voted down by the Planning Board and not even considered by the Town Board.
4. The minimum set back to any dwelling is 1500 feet and the minimum set back to any property line is the height of the tower plus 100 feet or 530 feet for a 2.5 kw turbine. This means that the developer has taken away development rights from the adjacent landowner for the difference of 970 feet. This will amount to over 20 acres of land whose owners will have forfeited their development rights. It should be noted that General Electric who manufactures these units suggests that the minimum set back to a property line be over 800 ft.
5. There were discussions of developing a paragraph (assurance) which would protect the adjacent landowners who property values dropped as a result of this project. This was not done as it was felt by both Boards that it would be too difficult to write a requirement which could have been enforced. Cohocton Wind Watch volunteered to write this or pay for the expertise to do so. Neither Board accepted this offer. This will force the adjacent landowners to bring individual lawsuits. This was very generous of the Board to provide this protection for UPC. Too bad they are not as thoughtful of the Town of Cohocton Citizens.
6. A number of people expressed concern that their were no requirements within the law requiring the windmill developer to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from all lawsuits arising from this project. UPC volunteered to do so for the leaseholders. However, the Town Board did not include this. Already we have to pay for the cost of one lawsuit. There certainly will be more. This is certainly very generous of the Board to bear costs which should be UPC’s.
I believe the whole procedure in which these laws were developed was flawed. UPC provided a sample law which was used to develop Law No. 1 and paid for the Lawyers that wrote the modifications to develop Law No. 2. The Town hired neither technical nor legal expertise to assist in the development of these laws. Then we wonder why laws were developed which protect the windmill developer, but neither the Town nor its citizens.
In summary I believe the Town Board has done a great disservice to the Town in the development of this and future projects and the citizens of this Town will have to pay for their folly for years to come.
Very truly yours
Paul E. Gettys
29 Wayland Street
North Cohocton, NY 14808
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY
RE: Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 – October 24, 2006
Gentlemen:
I had planned on starting with comments on the proposed law itself, but due to the time constraints I will save these comments till last.
Instead I will make comments on the performance of the Board itself during the development of the Industrial Windmill project.
· About three or four years ago I stopped into Mr. Zigenfus’s office in Atlanta for a short discussion. I was curious what had happened in the Town in the past in regards to past businesses and the topic of the need to develop new enterprises came up. He indicated that he was in the process of developing a wind power project. I expressed my concern that we should be selective in what type of businesses the Town should be attempting to develop. I never heard anymore at the Town meetings so I assumed the project feel through.
Given what happened in Springwater when the project was made public in its infancy, I can understand why UPC wanted it to be developed in secret. I assume this is the reason why the leases read that the land owners were not to divulge any information about the project. I do not fault either UPC or the leaseholders as they were only trying to protect their interests. However, I feel you Councilmen had an obligation to divulge this information to the public, as you should be responsible to us not UPC. Not to do so indicates an arrogance that you felt you know better than we what is good for us and the Town.
Mr. Zigenfus posted an April 2, 2002 article in this issue of the Valley News. Certainly an article posted four and one-half years ago does not constitute keeping the Town’s citizens notified and up to date. I attended monthly Board meetings for more than a year before UPC made the project public, and I never heard a word about the project.
· Mr. Hunt has been a strong proponent of the UPC project, becoming an leader in YES and writing articles in the Valley News in support of the project and critizing those against the project. He indicated that he had this right as a citizen of the Town, which I certainly concur with. However, this behavior seems very inappropriate for a Councilman who should have an open mind. If you felt that your rights as a citizen overshadowed your responsibilities as a Councilman, you should have resigned.
· Mr. Dyckman ran for office during this period when the UPC project was being developed. Being he was a leaseholder, he should have known that he would not be able to participate in any debate or vote in regards to this project. As this project is certainly one if not the most important issue ever to face this Town, he should have withdrawn from the race or least informed the voters of his conflict of interest. By not doing so he has become a lame duck Councilman.
· Give the solid backing of the project by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt; we the citizens should have been able to look to Mr. Wise and Mr. LeVesque to question the project and the proposed laws. Instead you gentlemen have rubber stamped all proposals put forth by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt. These actions do not serve the Town well.
The initial Pilot program indicated that the Town would receive about $160,000 per year and the school district about $600,000.
· We have requested figures on the new program and have been told that this information is confidential. This leads me to believe that the Towns share will be even less than $160,000 and this information will not be divulged until after Local Law No. 2 is approved so as not to interfere with support for it passage.
· A number of people have questioned if the State will not simply reduce their payments to the school by a like amount so the school will be right back as if there were no project. As there have been no responses to these comments one can only assume that this is correct.
On October 11, 2006 Tom Golisano and Keith Pittman from Empire Wind Energy LLC made a presentation at the Cohocton School to those interested citizens of the Town who were willing to attend. Unfortunately only one of you Councilmen felt it was worth your time to attend. Their program indicated that they could develop a project which would bring the same amount of money into the Town with fewer and shorter towers or could develop a more extensive project which would bring more money into the Town. They even talked about eventual ownership by the Town. I spoke to Mr. Pittman at a meeting on October 19, 2006 and no one from the Town Board had called him to set up a presentation or even thank them for coming out to our Town. I can not think of any honorable reason why a six month moratorium should not be invoked and discussions initiated with Empire. The deal UPC is proposing can be obtained from any number of wind developers if Empire does not perform as advertised.
In my opinion there have been several violations of the sun shine law where all Town Board meetings are to be made Public.
· For the two plus years where the project was kept secret from the Public there were obviously meetings with both UPC and the Board itself.
· During the discussions of the subject law, the Town Planning Board had open discussions and votes on points of the proposed law. The Board had neither discussions nor votes on the individual points, which would lead one to believe that once again there were non-public meetings.
Mr. Hunt, when people were critizing his actions, indicated that he would not change and it was up to the public to express their dissatisfaction at the next election.
· I feel it is the responsibility of all voters to do so if they feel the Board has not properly fulfilled their obligations.
· It is my understanding that the Board has put a resolution on the November ballet that their term be increased from two to four years. Given their actions during the development of this project, I feel that their term of office should be shortened to one year or a mechanism be installed where they can be recalled. I am retired now, but when I was still working my boss did not reward me for an inferior performance.
I would now like to discuss a number of points within the proposed Law itself.
1. There is nothing within the Law which limits the number of towers that can be construction within the Town or even a minimum spacing.
2. The maximum allowable height was 500 feet both in Law No. 1 and Law No.2.
Why was this necessary when a 1.5 kw turbine was proposed? I believe the actual height was less than 400 feet. When it was increased to 2.0 kw the height was increased to 403 feet. Now at 2.5 kw the proposed height is 430 feet. Obviously UPC knew then that larger turbines would be proposed and given there is still 70 feet left, it can only be assumed that turbines larger than 2.5 kw will be used on future projects.
3. The maximum noise level at the property lines is set at 50 dba. There were discussions within the Planning Board to limit it to 35 dba at an existing house. This would have been in line with the DEC suggestion that the noise be restricted to no more than 6 dba above the ambient level. Unfortunately it was voted down by the Planning Board and not even considered by the Town Board.
4. The minimum set back to any dwelling is 1500 feet and the minimum set back to any property line is the height of the tower plus 100 feet or 530 feet for a 2.5 kw turbine. This means that the developer has taken away development rights from the adjacent landowner for the difference of 970 feet. This will amount to over 20 acres of land whose owners will have forfeited their development rights. It should be noted that General Electric who manufactures these units suggests that the minimum set back to a property line be over 800 ft.
5. There were discussions of developing a paragraph (assurance) which would protect the adjacent landowners who property values dropped as a result of this project. This was not done as it was felt by both Boards that it would be too difficult to write a requirement which could have been enforced. Cohocton Wind Watch volunteered to write this or pay for the expertise to do so. Neither Board accepted this offer. This will force the adjacent landowners to bring individual lawsuits. This was very generous of the Board to provide this protection for UPC. Too bad they are not as thoughtful of the Town of Cohocton Citizens.
6. A number of people expressed concern that their were no requirements within the law requiring the windmill developer to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from all lawsuits arising from this project. UPC volunteered to do so for the leaseholders. However, the Town Board did not include this. Already we have to pay for the cost of one lawsuit. There certainly will be more. This is certainly very generous of the Board to bear costs which should be UPC’s.
I believe the whole procedure in which these laws were developed was flawed. UPC provided a sample law which was used to develop Law No. 1 and paid for the Lawyers that wrote the modifications to develop Law No. 2. The Town hired neither technical nor legal expertise to assist in the development of these laws. Then we wonder why laws were developed which protect the windmill developer, but neither the Town nor its citizens.
In summary I believe the Town Board has done a great disservice to the Town in the development of this and future projects and the citizens of this Town will have to pay for their folly for years to come.
Very truly yours
Paul E. Gettys
Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by Don Sandford
Beginning this past spring with the industrial turbine discussion with the planning & town boards, its indifference and secrecy immediately stifled legitimate debate, deliberately creating and contributing to much of the bitter confrontation existing at the board meetings, when in truth you should have been welcoming and answering questions in a timely manner. But instead, no matter how legitimate, sincere the concerns, objections or suggestion had been, the outcome was always the same, comments and questions not being answered and certainly not a legitimate two way open and fair interaction from the local town government we expected and deserved.
As a result, there exists an uncertain future for people living daily near the proposed impact industrial turbine sites because of all the unanswered questions still pending relating to quality of life issues and property devaluation. A life time of emotional & monetary investment in their homes now means nothing if they clashed with the as now written local law #2 and in doing so you are thereby saying to the people to be most adversely effected, that they all are expendable for your vision of progress and will not be listened to or be an important part of your decision making process. With no credible public comment at open board hearings by the board members or UPC and only by Empire Wind Energy, your attempt to limit our participation and input was rightly challenged.
Local law #2 now proposed is concerned more with promoting UPC success and their bottom profit line and in doing so subjecting the town to a long term commitment of questionable risk and little monetary return. Again in stark contrast, the board provides absolutely no means of lawful recourse in the proposed local law #2 enactment for the many home owners who will be adversely impacted by the industrial turbine’s installation for any significant home or property monetary depreciation caused by industrial turbine placement.
The board’s decision that the “Property Protection Devaluation Bond” was too vague and would not to be considered part of Local Law #2 was weak and disgraceful and left little doubt that your allegiance was with UPC and not the effected homeowners you should be representing without question upfront. There were many other controversial industrial turbine issues that were not addressed in a competent, fair and open manner by the board for our protection and/or benefit and a moratorium is needed now more than ever to provide a complete, objective and independent review. You, the board members are responsible for creating and ultimately sustaining this sad chapter to the Town Cohocton.
As a result, there exists an uncertain future for people living daily near the proposed impact industrial turbine sites because of all the unanswered questions still pending relating to quality of life issues and property devaluation. A life time of emotional & monetary investment in their homes now means nothing if they clashed with the as now written local law #2 and in doing so you are thereby saying to the people to be most adversely effected, that they all are expendable for your vision of progress and will not be listened to or be an important part of your decision making process. With no credible public comment at open board hearings by the board members or UPC and only by Empire Wind Energy, your attempt to limit our participation and input was rightly challenged.
Local law #2 now proposed is concerned more with promoting UPC success and their bottom profit line and in doing so subjecting the town to a long term commitment of questionable risk and little monetary return. Again in stark contrast, the board provides absolutely no means of lawful recourse in the proposed local law #2 enactment for the many home owners who will be adversely impacted by the industrial turbine’s installation for any significant home or property monetary depreciation caused by industrial turbine placement.
The board’s decision that the “Property Protection Devaluation Bond” was too vague and would not to be considered part of Local Law #2 was weak and disgraceful and left little doubt that your allegiance was with UPC and not the effected homeowners you should be representing without question upfront. There were many other controversial industrial turbine issues that were not addressed in a competent, fair and open manner by the board for our protection and/or benefit and a moratorium is needed now more than ever to provide a complete, objective and independent review. You, the board members are responsible for creating and ultimately sustaining this sad chapter to the Town Cohocton.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Power and Money by WATSON V. CHILDS
In "Profit and Loss on the Perimeter" (October 2006), David Sommerstein seems to have been blown down by more than a little hot air from the perimeter of the whole truth.
New wind-energy power generation receives a federal production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt of power generated. When the credit expires (currently set for the end of 2007), production costs at sites like Maple Ridge will likely increase twenty-five to fifty percent. Even with the subsidy, production costs are still two to four times that of nuclear power. Future wind-energy production costs (of newer designs) will decrease some, but not much, unless tower height is raised to six hundred or even eight hundred feet to allow unit capacity to be increased, or some significant wind-turbine design breakthrough occurs.
The article implies that Maple Ridge and other proposed sites in combination would displace the pollution of a coal-fired or nuclear power plant (and generate as much power). Displacing the pollution is pretty easy considering the amount of toxic gases and radioactivity released, but generating the same amount of power is pure fantasy. Sites like Maple Ridge will almost certainly have an annual capacity factor well under thirty percent, while nuclear plants had an annual capacity factor of almost ninety percent in 2005 and are expected to do slightly better in 2006.
Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements are just another subsidy- and a kind of legal corporate extortion. All of the other taxpayers have to pay more than they would if the owners of Maple Ridge actually paid their full and fair share. Payment of "hush money" to the neighbors is an even more despicable practice that should be stopped. Imagine the screaming if one of the six operating nuclear plants in New York State started paying hush money to its neighbors.
Suitable locations on Tug Hill—as well as in and around the Adirondack Park, and on the shores of Lake Ontario—should be considered for development of wind-power generation, and the taxpayers and consumers of electric power in the region should be provided with complete information regarding the costs and subsidies.
WATSON V. CHILDS
WESTDALE, NY
New wind-energy power generation receives a federal production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt of power generated. When the credit expires (currently set for the end of 2007), production costs at sites like Maple Ridge will likely increase twenty-five to fifty percent. Even with the subsidy, production costs are still two to four times that of nuclear power. Future wind-energy production costs (of newer designs) will decrease some, but not much, unless tower height is raised to six hundred or even eight hundred feet to allow unit capacity to be increased, or some significant wind-turbine design breakthrough occurs.
The article implies that Maple Ridge and other proposed sites in combination would displace the pollution of a coal-fired or nuclear power plant (and generate as much power). Displacing the pollution is pretty easy considering the amount of toxic gases and radioactivity released, but generating the same amount of power is pure fantasy. Sites like Maple Ridge will almost certainly have an annual capacity factor well under thirty percent, while nuclear plants had an annual capacity factor of almost ninety percent in 2005 and are expected to do slightly better in 2006.
Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements are just another subsidy- and a kind of legal corporate extortion. All of the other taxpayers have to pay more than they would if the owners of Maple Ridge actually paid their full and fair share. Payment of "hush money" to the neighbors is an even more despicable practice that should be stopped. Imagine the screaming if one of the six operating nuclear plants in New York State started paying hush money to its neighbors.
Suitable locations on Tug Hill—as well as in and around the Adirondack Park, and on the shores of Lake Ontario—should be considered for development of wind-power generation, and the taxpayers and consumers of electric power in the region should be provided with complete information regarding the costs and subsidies.
WATSON V. CHILDS
WESTDALE, NY
Friday, October 20, 2006
CWW informational meeting presentation by Bonnie Palmiter
As a mother, wife, educator, and Cohocton Taxpayer, I am appalled at the record of conduct of the Town of Cohocton Boards and UPC. The pattern and behavior of secrecy is indefensible and disgraceful. This should not be tolerated by our government officials nor should they go to such lengths to conceal crucial information from the public they are serving.
Cohocton Wind Watch has filed freedom of information forms for the resulting conclusions of the Bagdon Environmental firm on the proposed UPC project. Bagdon is supposed to be working to protect the best interest of Cohocton and was hired by the Town Board. Their fees are being paid by UPC money, so their independence is in question. One has to ask, what is wrong with our society when there is so much dishonesty, why is it that as elected officials it is so easy for you to be dishonest with the people you were elected to represent. The response to our FOIL is that the Bagdon information is CONFIDENTIAL. Why would there be a need to conceal this public information from Cohocton voters and taxpayers. This is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, yet what do they care, as usual the law apparently does not apply to them.
Also FOILED were the money payments that SCIDA, will pay your Town, School District and County governments from the P.I.L.O.T. scheme that UPC proposes. The response from the Town Board is, “ the details and dollar amount payment from the PILOT program is CONFIDENTIAL;” again voters and taxpayers of Cohocton are on a need to know basis so that we do not question or speak out against our government officials. As residents and property owners don’t you think you have the right to know ALL the details of ANY program that allows for reduced taxation? SCIDA is not even an official government agency, there are no elected representatives in the agency, yet they are the ones that are financially setting up the PILOT program, and you as residents of Cohocton are not privy to this information. Don’t you believe that as taxpayers of Cohocton you deserve to KNOW the exact dollar amount that UPC would derive from a PILOT subsidy vs. the industrial tax assessment they should pay? Don’t you agree that James Sherron should have had an open session with the Town Board and the public about this crucial information on the PILOT program and not in a Special Closed Executive session? Doesn’t this make you wonder why such crucial information is being restricted from you the public?
I along with Cohocton Wind Watch oppose any developer receiving special tax treatment, any industrial wind developer should have to pay full industrial property tax rates on the value of their project, Why is it that the Town Board doesn’t seem to be making this happen? Why is it that as taxpayers you aren’t demanding this for yourselves? Many of you think that you haven’t got a choice; choice is what you make it, if you choose to sit back and think that you have no say, and that your say isn’t important you’re in fact mistaken. Our first amendment states that we have certain freedoms, use them, stand up and let the Town Board know, stand up and demand the Town Board and UPC to be open with all the information pertaining to this project. If the Town Board and UPC do not listen, join in a united front and revolt against your government, you can’t sit back and think a few can change it all, we are trying, but you as taxpayers also have to help inform yourself. The rights and wrongs of your local government, the morals and ethics of your Boards is questionable, do you want what is best for the WHOLE town or just a few. If you think it is fair for just a few to get this information, remember you’re the ones that have to wake up and look in the mirror every day, you are the ones that will have to tell your children and grandchildren that you failed them, when this UPC wind industry comes in and takes away all the valuable reasons why we live here in Cohocton. If you think that letting UPC in here that your children and grandchildren’s lives will be much better for it, don’t do anything and wait until Cohocton becomes a ghost town where Wind industry is the only thing your community and children have, not the beautiful place your ancestors left for you.
Do you realize the UPC project keeps growing in size, if your not aware of it people, the original lease agreements started off with 1.5 MW to a DEIS for 2.0 MW, and now it is up to 2.5MW at a height of 423 feet. Phase II would be increased from 34MW to 40 MW plus or minus, depending on what UPC comes up with next. It has been told that eight turbines will be eliminated from Phase I. Who are the leaseholders that are losing their “Windfall”? This has already been told before all the challenges to each and every site location before special use permits can be issued, what’s next.
What might have looked to be a ‘good deal” from UPC is now being exposed to be nothing but Fraud. It sure looks like the UPC land leaseholders are being taken for a ride. Your yearly lease payments are some of the lowest in New York State. Peeling back the layers on this secret onion of collusion will ultimately expose you to the loss of your own land, liability risks and continuous legal actions. Reread your agreements and examine in detail the clauses that expose your land to eminent domain and condemnation. “Right of First Refusal” means your children will not simply inherit your property, UPC may have other plans, what your grandfathers, and fathers passed down to you could likely be taken from you and you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves. As long as you retain title to the land that erects a “Monster Machine” for industrial use, you will be at Risk. Are you really willing to take that risk, for pennies? Those leases are not private, but are subject to New York State Law. It appears that the manner they were negotiated may very well have violated N.Y State real estate laws. Do you really believe that such leases will not be challenged? You may very well become a party to New York State investigations that focus upon UPC’s suspect business practices along with your own Town Board Members government actions.
While I still vigorously oppose any industrial turbines for our town, I have to say that Empire told this community much more as to what they could do for this whole town not just a handful. They stepped up to the plate and told all that Local Law 2 had too many holes in it to protect the community and taxpayers. Empire Wind Energy is concerned that the Town of Cohocton is in a rush to destroy themselves, and feels we should slow down.
I will listen and keep an open mind, an open mind to how the whole town can benefit, this is no way says that I am for Empire Wind, just that I will listen to what they have to offer the community as a whole. Information is a valuable tool, I am asking that you take this tool and use it, keep an open mind.
Leaseholders, I am asking you to open your minds as well and examine your options. Windmill Local Law 2 will be contested as the law is now written. You should educate yourselves to this Law; Wayne Hunt stated at the Empire public presentation on October 11th, that Wind Mill Law 2 is already decided, even before the public hearing to be held October 24th. This is an ethical violation and a public insult to every citizen of Cohocton.
If the Empire community based model is adopted, property tax rates can be reduced by more than 50% for ALL property owners. That means everyone in Cohocton could benefit from there financial payouts. Why does UPC need a ridiculous PILOT program to build their project and one that is kept confidential from the public?
Yes Wind Advocates, you now have a new option. Floating around is a sound bite- “a bird in the hand….” Check out what is left in your hand when the bird decides to fly away. Bird droppings won’t pay your property taxes. But full industrial tax assessments will cut your tax bill in half, doesn’t this sound better than what has been proposed from your employer UPC? Are you really for clean alternative energy or are you just married to the UPC project because a family or friend has a UPC lease?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN COHOCTON DESERVES BETTER, THE UPC DEAL FALL SHORT. SLOW THE PACE DOWN, GO MORATORIUM, LET’S DO IT RIGHT. THIS IS YOUR TOWN.
Cohocton Wind Watch has filed freedom of information forms for the resulting conclusions of the Bagdon Environmental firm on the proposed UPC project. Bagdon is supposed to be working to protect the best interest of Cohocton and was hired by the Town Board. Their fees are being paid by UPC money, so their independence is in question. One has to ask, what is wrong with our society when there is so much dishonesty, why is it that as elected officials it is so easy for you to be dishonest with the people you were elected to represent. The response to our FOIL is that the Bagdon information is CONFIDENTIAL. Why would there be a need to conceal this public information from Cohocton voters and taxpayers. This is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, yet what do they care, as usual the law apparently does not apply to them.
Also FOILED were the money payments that SCIDA, will pay your Town, School District and County governments from the P.I.L.O.T. scheme that UPC proposes. The response from the Town Board is, “ the details and dollar amount payment from the PILOT program is CONFIDENTIAL;” again voters and taxpayers of Cohocton are on a need to know basis so that we do not question or speak out against our government officials. As residents and property owners don’t you think you have the right to know ALL the details of ANY program that allows for reduced taxation? SCIDA is not even an official government agency, there are no elected representatives in the agency, yet they are the ones that are financially setting up the PILOT program, and you as residents of Cohocton are not privy to this information. Don’t you believe that as taxpayers of Cohocton you deserve to KNOW the exact dollar amount that UPC would derive from a PILOT subsidy vs. the industrial tax assessment they should pay? Don’t you agree that James Sherron should have had an open session with the Town Board and the public about this crucial information on the PILOT program and not in a Special Closed Executive session? Doesn’t this make you wonder why such crucial information is being restricted from you the public?
I along with Cohocton Wind Watch oppose any developer receiving special tax treatment, any industrial wind developer should have to pay full industrial property tax rates on the value of their project, Why is it that the Town Board doesn’t seem to be making this happen? Why is it that as taxpayers you aren’t demanding this for yourselves? Many of you think that you haven’t got a choice; choice is what you make it, if you choose to sit back and think that you have no say, and that your say isn’t important you’re in fact mistaken. Our first amendment states that we have certain freedoms, use them, stand up and let the Town Board know, stand up and demand the Town Board and UPC to be open with all the information pertaining to this project. If the Town Board and UPC do not listen, join in a united front and revolt against your government, you can’t sit back and think a few can change it all, we are trying, but you as taxpayers also have to help inform yourself. The rights and wrongs of your local government, the morals and ethics of your Boards is questionable, do you want what is best for the WHOLE town or just a few. If you think it is fair for just a few to get this information, remember you’re the ones that have to wake up and look in the mirror every day, you are the ones that will have to tell your children and grandchildren that you failed them, when this UPC wind industry comes in and takes away all the valuable reasons why we live here in Cohocton. If you think that letting UPC in here that your children and grandchildren’s lives will be much better for it, don’t do anything and wait until Cohocton becomes a ghost town where Wind industry is the only thing your community and children have, not the beautiful place your ancestors left for you.
Do you realize the UPC project keeps growing in size, if your not aware of it people, the original lease agreements started off with 1.5 MW to a DEIS for 2.0 MW, and now it is up to 2.5MW at a height of 423 feet. Phase II would be increased from 34MW to 40 MW plus or minus, depending on what UPC comes up with next. It has been told that eight turbines will be eliminated from Phase I. Who are the leaseholders that are losing their “Windfall”? This has already been told before all the challenges to each and every site location before special use permits can be issued, what’s next.
What might have looked to be a ‘good deal” from UPC is now being exposed to be nothing but Fraud. It sure looks like the UPC land leaseholders are being taken for a ride. Your yearly lease payments are some of the lowest in New York State. Peeling back the layers on this secret onion of collusion will ultimately expose you to the loss of your own land, liability risks and continuous legal actions. Reread your agreements and examine in detail the clauses that expose your land to eminent domain and condemnation. “Right of First Refusal” means your children will not simply inherit your property, UPC may have other plans, what your grandfathers, and fathers passed down to you could likely be taken from you and you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves. As long as you retain title to the land that erects a “Monster Machine” for industrial use, you will be at Risk. Are you really willing to take that risk, for pennies? Those leases are not private, but are subject to New York State Law. It appears that the manner they were negotiated may very well have violated N.Y State real estate laws. Do you really believe that such leases will not be challenged? You may very well become a party to New York State investigations that focus upon UPC’s suspect business practices along with your own Town Board Members government actions.
While I still vigorously oppose any industrial turbines for our town, I have to say that Empire told this community much more as to what they could do for this whole town not just a handful. They stepped up to the plate and told all that Local Law 2 had too many holes in it to protect the community and taxpayers. Empire Wind Energy is concerned that the Town of Cohocton is in a rush to destroy themselves, and feels we should slow down.
I will listen and keep an open mind, an open mind to how the whole town can benefit, this is no way says that I am for Empire Wind, just that I will listen to what they have to offer the community as a whole. Information is a valuable tool, I am asking that you take this tool and use it, keep an open mind.
Leaseholders, I am asking you to open your minds as well and examine your options. Windmill Local Law 2 will be contested as the law is now written. You should educate yourselves to this Law; Wayne Hunt stated at the Empire public presentation on October 11th, that Wind Mill Law 2 is already decided, even before the public hearing to be held October 24th. This is an ethical violation and a public insult to every citizen of Cohocton.
If the Empire community based model is adopted, property tax rates can be reduced by more than 50% for ALL property owners. That means everyone in Cohocton could benefit from there financial payouts. Why does UPC need a ridiculous PILOT program to build their project and one that is kept confidential from the public?
Yes Wind Advocates, you now have a new option. Floating around is a sound bite- “a bird in the hand….” Check out what is left in your hand when the bird decides to fly away. Bird droppings won’t pay your property taxes. But full industrial tax assessments will cut your tax bill in half, doesn’t this sound better than what has been proposed from your employer UPC? Are you really for clean alternative energy or are you just married to the UPC project because a family or friend has a UPC lease?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN COHOCTON DESERVES BETTER, THE UPC DEAL FALL SHORT. SLOW THE PACE DOWN, GO MORATORIUM, LET’S DO IT RIGHT. THIS IS YOUR TOWN.
An open letter to the members of the Cohocton N Y, town board and other citizens in the proposed wind turbine area
I am a property owner and taxpayer on land in Cohocton but live outside of the Cohocton area. With the disadvantage of being removed from the wind turbine meetings I would like to have my comments heard. I have a few questions which every resident should ask themselves as well as the town planning board, and the wind turbine developers.
It is my understanding that the supplemental energy from the turbines is supposed to help maintain the grid (which we all know benefits NYC more than anyone). What if any the developers plans to implement 400 foot wind turbines on the skyscrapers of NYC (where the ocean winds blow constant) - and why are they not in place right now if the turbines are in fact the way of the future?
Would it not seem prudent for all area folks to consider just why Cohocton has become the chosen land for wind turbine development? I've lived in the area far too long to know that the area winds do not blow constantly - so what is the real reason? Can we say easy target?
Is it perhaps simply that the wind turbine developers have honed in on depressed rural areas who are desperate to take in any revenue at the expense of all of its residents - with the exception of those few who will benefit by leasing their property to the developers and are obviously for it (but who can blame them it's income!)?
Is there any one person in the Cohocton area who can honestly say that hilltops covered with 400 foot metallic windmills will enhance the presently pristine beauty of the scenic rolling hills? Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that - each wind turbine will (by law) have to have flashing night lights and what impact will that have on the night sky?
Shouldn't the town board be more focused on bringing in new industry which will really benefit the area by creating many jobs, not just a few temporary ones, and strive to regenerate what is at best an antiquated and non progressive town?
And what are the boards answers to the following excerpts taken from website: www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?id=2013
Quote: Meanwhile, the wind does not blow on demand and it generally cannot be economically stored. That's why wind farms have to be backed up by conventional power plants to ensure that electricity will be available when needed. That duplication of capacity not only diminishes the environmental benefits of wind, critics say, but it also increases the cost of wind power while adding an extra burden on the transmission system.
Icing and aerodynamic imbalance could have serious implications on the life of wind turbines, says a report titled Wind Power Production in Cold Climates, which is now circulating in Wisconsin where the public service commission was forced to relocate homeowners living close to utility-owned turbines because of noise.
Those conference papers, say that the life of such turbines could be reduced from 50-90 percent. Despite the risks, 400 wind turbines totaling 500 megawatts have been installed at hostile sites around the world, critics say. It's not just a theoretical hazard:
Three wind farms in the United Kingdom were reportedly closed in 2000 for safety reasons, all of which were tied to cold weather that resulted in metal fatigue in the turbine towers, they add.
Has everyone forgotten that things don't work so well in winter?? Has no one taken into account that winters are harsh and things freeze up? No one wants to remember any of our past ice storms but the reality is that there will be more in the future. To put it in perspective: Isn't there a reason for de-icing airplane wings in winter? It is a fact that any rotating blade will pick up ice under the right conditions. Are the proposed wind turbine blades going to be de-iced??
Obviously someone has done some research:
Ice detector and deicing system for wind turbines
Juhani MŠkinen
Labko Ice Detection Oy
Labkotie 1, FIN-36240 Kangasala
tel. +358 3 285 5111
telefax +358 3 285 5310
From my perspective:
It's not going to be a pretty picture for the future vistas of Cohocton valley residents when the wind turbines of today become obsolete - - which is inevitable as evidenced by all other progressive technology. Has the town board or wind turbine committee come up with a figure as to how much it will cost the taxpayers to have the wind turbines removed when that time comes or will they remain as a stagnant rusting reminder to others that the best hyped schemes are not all that they seem??
Thanks for listening,
Gloria Wilkins
Fajardo, PR. 00738
It is my understanding that the supplemental energy from the turbines is supposed to help maintain the grid (which we all know benefits NYC more than anyone). What if any the developers plans to implement 400 foot wind turbines on the skyscrapers of NYC (where the ocean winds blow constant) - and why are they not in place right now if the turbines are in fact the way of the future?
Would it not seem prudent for all area folks to consider just why Cohocton has become the chosen land for wind turbine development? I've lived in the area far too long to know that the area winds do not blow constantly - so what is the real reason? Can we say easy target?
Is it perhaps simply that the wind turbine developers have honed in on depressed rural areas who are desperate to take in any revenue at the expense of all of its residents - with the exception of those few who will benefit by leasing their property to the developers and are obviously for it (but who can blame them it's income!)?
Is there any one person in the Cohocton area who can honestly say that hilltops covered with 400 foot metallic windmills will enhance the presently pristine beauty of the scenic rolling hills? Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that - each wind turbine will (by law) have to have flashing night lights and what impact will that have on the night sky?
Shouldn't the town board be more focused on bringing in new industry which will really benefit the area by creating many jobs, not just a few temporary ones, and strive to regenerate what is at best an antiquated and non progressive town?
And what are the boards answers to the following excerpts taken from website: www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?id=2013
Quote: Meanwhile, the wind does not blow on demand and it generally cannot be economically stored. That's why wind farms have to be backed up by conventional power plants to ensure that electricity will be available when needed. That duplication of capacity not only diminishes the environmental benefits of wind, critics say, but it also increases the cost of wind power while adding an extra burden on the transmission system.
Icing and aerodynamic imbalance could have serious implications on the life of wind turbines, says a report titled Wind Power Production in Cold Climates, which is now circulating in Wisconsin where the public service commission was forced to relocate homeowners living close to utility-owned turbines because of noise.
Those conference papers, say that the life of such turbines could be reduced from 50-90 percent. Despite the risks, 400 wind turbines totaling 500 megawatts have been installed at hostile sites around the world, critics say. It's not just a theoretical hazard:
Three wind farms in the United Kingdom were reportedly closed in 2000 for safety reasons, all of which were tied to cold weather that resulted in metal fatigue in the turbine towers, they add.
Has everyone forgotten that things don't work so well in winter?? Has no one taken into account that winters are harsh and things freeze up? No one wants to remember any of our past ice storms but the reality is that there will be more in the future. To put it in perspective: Isn't there a reason for de-icing airplane wings in winter? It is a fact that any rotating blade will pick up ice under the right conditions. Are the proposed wind turbine blades going to be de-iced??
Obviously someone has done some research:
Ice detector and deicing system for wind turbines
Juhani MŠkinen
Labko Ice Detection Oy
Labkotie 1, FIN-36240 Kangasala
tel. +358 3 285 5111
telefax +358 3 285 5310
From my perspective:
It's not going to be a pretty picture for the future vistas of Cohocton valley residents when the wind turbines of today become obsolete - - which is inevitable as evidenced by all other progressive technology. Has the town board or wind turbine committee come up with a figure as to how much it will cost the taxpayers to have the wind turbines removed when that time comes or will they remain as a stagnant rusting reminder to others that the best hyped schemes are not all that they seem??
Thanks for listening,
Gloria Wilkins
Fajardo, PR. 00738
Shifting Winds BY JACK JONES - The Naples Record
NRShiftingwinds2.doc
Golisano, once opposed to wind farm, now in mind power business
The organizer of a local citizens group opposed to an industrial wind farm project on the Cohocton hilltops surrounding Naples said last week that an alternative plan being advanced by Victor billionaire B. Thomas Golisano would be more environmentally acceptable and financially attractive.
Golisano's startup Empire Wind Energy LLC "has expressed a willingness to put up towers that are more in line with what the community desires - towers that would be about 200 feet high instead of the 423-foot tall towers" proposed by a competing, out-of-state-based UPC Technologies wind power corporation, said Jim Hall, former owner of the Naples Hotel and organizer of the Cohocton Wind Watch group. "The sort of wind farms being proposed by Empire would not have the adverse effect on property values and on tourism around the Canandaigua Lake and Naples and Finger Lakes area that the UPC plan would cause."
If the UPC project now being considered by town officials goes through, Cohocton could find its hilltops lined with from 50 to more than 100 towers, each taller than Rochester's Xerox Building and with overhead power lines connecting the monoliths, said Hall.
In contrast to the town-favored UPC project, Hall said he and others in the community were favorably impressed by a presentation that Golisano and his business partner, Keith Pittman, gave on their alternative wind farming project last week at Cohocton Elementary School. An estimated 200 area residents attended the presentation, and some - citing Golisano's past criticism of electricity-generating wind turbine projects earlier proposed for Italy, Prattsburgh, Cohocton and other communities - said they were skeptical of his intent.
Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, who has supported wind turbine projects, did not return a reporter's phone calls.
Pittman said last week the plan that he and Golisano are advancing around the state is one that would also return more money to local property owners and town governments than those being touted by UPC and another wind farm group, Ecogen, in Prattsburgh, Italy and other locations.
Pittman said that after their presentation in Cohocton last week, he and Golisano "have received a tremendous outpouring of support from the community" and also received expressions of interest from some town board members who in the past have supported the UPC project.
James Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which has incurred the ire of wind turbine opponents by offering incentives to corporations for wind farm development, said he and other county officials also are open to doing business with Empire if they can prove their project superior to those advanced by out-of-state developers.
"We would support any project that would create jobs and support capital investment in our region," Sherron said. "As long as they're talking about renewable energy sources, we are very interested in supporting it."
Sherron said SCIDA is "working as the lead agency in the SEQR (environmental review) process for Prattsburgh and a number of other windmill projects," and offering assistance and incentives such as payments in lieu of taxes.
Although the Cohocton Wind Watch Group and others say that the sheltered Finger Lakes and Southern Tier regions of Upstate New York are not subject to consistent winds patterns powerful enough to generate electricity at levels that would make regional wind farms cost-effective, Sherron said studies have disproved that contention.
"It's pretty conclusive," that sufficient wind is available year-round to spin the giant rotor blades and generate electricity, said Sherron. "There are all sorts of maps showing that the region has sufficient wind resources, and they've placed (test) towers to measure them."
Although the Golisano project "sounds like a good idea," Sherron said, he would like "to see the mechanics of how it would work." And if the project proves feasible and superior to other proposals "We would support such an effort if it comes to fruition."
Pittman said Empire's approach is being better received than proposals by UPC and Ecogen, which have divided the residents of Italy, Prattsburgh and Cohocton into bitter pro-and anti-wind turbine camps. Unlike other wind power developers, Pittmann said "We are making an effort to design a project around what community stakeholders feel is important."
While the other companies have threatened lawsuits and approached town officials and property owners individually to line obtain leases and line up deals without o"overal! community approval, "Ours is more of a peer-partner approach," Pittman said. "We really want to be more of a partner, and we're kind-of leaving it up to the communities to tell us what they think would work best for them and what they want."
Pittman said that in addition to assuring that potentially disruptive wind turbines be sited and built in accordance with community concerns about safety, noise and visual pollution, the Empire project would return a whopping 10 times the economic payoff to area communities than that being offered by government-subsidized, out-of-town - and out-of-country - parent corporations behind other regional turbine projects.
Pittman charged that the main objective of many of those touting turbine projects involve cashing in on government subsidies being offered by state and federal legislators and officials stampeded by high oil and energy prices into pumping tax dollars into alternative energy projects - regardless whether those alternative sources have proven viable.
"What we've been seeing is that of the profits and dollars that stand to be generated, something like 95 percent of those benefits are ending up somewhere else - not in New York State and some not even in our country. Our feeling is that it would be best to capture as much of this benefit and profit as can be kept right in a local community," said Pittman, an engineer and former power plant operator who has served as a consultant on energy and power generation projects around the state.
Building projects that are approved by communities and return the lion's share of any profits to those communities that host the potentially disruptive turbines "just seems to us like a common sense approach," he said.
Although Empire "is not opposed to large wind farm projects if that's what a community wants ... There's just no reason to go large if it turns out you can get the same benefit by building something smaller," said Pittman. "A smaller project that produces a larger benefit and is less intrusive, less visually disruptive, more environmentally friendly - it's just a more efficient way to go. It's a better idea than what has been proposed for some of these communities."
Golisano was unavailable for comment last week, but Pittman said the billionaire Paychex founder and former wind farm critic decided to get involved in the new business venture as a means of "going beyond criticism and using his resources to provide a more constructive solution to a problem."
"It's true that Tom was anti-wind power and now he's in the wind power business... Rather than just criticizing, Tom said 'Maybe I can do something,' and he started doing his homework that led him to the realization that it would be a tremendous opportunity for New York State to have these projects done in this fashion."
Before the emergence of the Empire alternative, "Communities didn't have a whole lot of options," said Pittman. "All the developers had the same message: We will come in and make a fortune for ourselves and leave you with something that may or may not turn out to be significant."
Pittman said Empire has been invited to present its alternative wind power proposals for residents and officials in the town of Italy, and hopes for a chance to meet with the Prattsburgh community.
"There are those in these communities who say 'It's all set, we've got a wind power developer down here and we don't need your help thank you very much,'" he acknowledged.
In Cohocton, "We've invited town officials to sit down at the table with us and try to work out' some kind of arrangement, and we're hopeful that will happen. I think it helped that we took the time to go down there and dispel a lot of the myths and rumors regarding Tom's being perceived as anti-wind power in some circles."
Golisano, once opposed to wind farm, now in mind power business
The organizer of a local citizens group opposed to an industrial wind farm project on the Cohocton hilltops surrounding Naples said last week that an alternative plan being advanced by Victor billionaire B. Thomas Golisano would be more environmentally acceptable and financially attractive.
Golisano's startup Empire Wind Energy LLC "has expressed a willingness to put up towers that are more in line with what the community desires - towers that would be about 200 feet high instead of the 423-foot tall towers" proposed by a competing, out-of-state-based UPC Technologies wind power corporation, said Jim Hall, former owner of the Naples Hotel and organizer of the Cohocton Wind Watch group. "The sort of wind farms being proposed by Empire would not have the adverse effect on property values and on tourism around the Canandaigua Lake and Naples and Finger Lakes area that the UPC plan would cause."
If the UPC project now being considered by town officials goes through, Cohocton could find its hilltops lined with from 50 to more than 100 towers, each taller than Rochester's Xerox Building and with overhead power lines connecting the monoliths, said Hall.
In contrast to the town-favored UPC project, Hall said he and others in the community were favorably impressed by a presentation that Golisano and his business partner, Keith Pittman, gave on their alternative wind farming project last week at Cohocton Elementary School. An estimated 200 area residents attended the presentation, and some - citing Golisano's past criticism of electricity-generating wind turbine projects earlier proposed for Italy, Prattsburgh, Cohocton and other communities - said they were skeptical of his intent.
Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, who has supported wind turbine projects, did not return a reporter's phone calls.
Pittman said last week the plan that he and Golisano are advancing around the state is one that would also return more money to local property owners and town governments than those being touted by UPC and another wind farm group, Ecogen, in Prattsburgh, Italy and other locations.
Pittman said that after their presentation in Cohocton last week, he and Golisano "have received a tremendous outpouring of support from the community" and also received expressions of interest from some town board members who in the past have supported the UPC project.
James Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which has incurred the ire of wind turbine opponents by offering incentives to corporations for wind farm development, said he and other county officials also are open to doing business with Empire if they can prove their project superior to those advanced by out-of-state developers.
"We would support any project that would create jobs and support capital investment in our region," Sherron said. "As long as they're talking about renewable energy sources, we are very interested in supporting it."
Sherron said SCIDA is "working as the lead agency in the SEQR (environmental review) process for Prattsburgh and a number of other windmill projects," and offering assistance and incentives such as payments in lieu of taxes.
Although the Cohocton Wind Watch Group and others say that the sheltered Finger Lakes and Southern Tier regions of Upstate New York are not subject to consistent winds patterns powerful enough to generate electricity at levels that would make regional wind farms cost-effective, Sherron said studies have disproved that contention.
"It's pretty conclusive," that sufficient wind is available year-round to spin the giant rotor blades and generate electricity, said Sherron. "There are all sorts of maps showing that the region has sufficient wind resources, and they've placed (test) towers to measure them."
Although the Golisano project "sounds like a good idea," Sherron said, he would like "to see the mechanics of how it would work." And if the project proves feasible and superior to other proposals "We would support such an effort if it comes to fruition."
Pittman said Empire's approach is being better received than proposals by UPC and Ecogen, which have divided the residents of Italy, Prattsburgh and Cohocton into bitter pro-and anti-wind turbine camps. Unlike other wind power developers, Pittmann said "We are making an effort to design a project around what community stakeholders feel is important."
While the other companies have threatened lawsuits and approached town officials and property owners individually to line obtain leases and line up deals without o"overal! community approval, "Ours is more of a peer-partner approach," Pittman said. "We really want to be more of a partner, and we're kind-of leaving it up to the communities to tell us what they think would work best for them and what they want."
Pittman said that in addition to assuring that potentially disruptive wind turbines be sited and built in accordance with community concerns about safety, noise and visual pollution, the Empire project would return a whopping 10 times the economic payoff to area communities than that being offered by government-subsidized, out-of-town - and out-of-country - parent corporations behind other regional turbine projects.
Pittman charged that the main objective of many of those touting turbine projects involve cashing in on government subsidies being offered by state and federal legislators and officials stampeded by high oil and energy prices into pumping tax dollars into alternative energy projects - regardless whether those alternative sources have proven viable.
"What we've been seeing is that of the profits and dollars that stand to be generated, something like 95 percent of those benefits are ending up somewhere else - not in New York State and some not even in our country. Our feeling is that it would be best to capture as much of this benefit and profit as can be kept right in a local community," said Pittman, an engineer and former power plant operator who has served as a consultant on energy and power generation projects around the state.
Building projects that are approved by communities and return the lion's share of any profits to those communities that host the potentially disruptive turbines "just seems to us like a common sense approach," he said.
Although Empire "is not opposed to large wind farm projects if that's what a community wants ... There's just no reason to go large if it turns out you can get the same benefit by building something smaller," said Pittman. "A smaller project that produces a larger benefit and is less intrusive, less visually disruptive, more environmentally friendly - it's just a more efficient way to go. It's a better idea than what has been proposed for some of these communities."
Golisano was unavailable for comment last week, but Pittman said the billionaire Paychex founder and former wind farm critic decided to get involved in the new business venture as a means of "going beyond criticism and using his resources to provide a more constructive solution to a problem."
"It's true that Tom was anti-wind power and now he's in the wind power business... Rather than just criticizing, Tom said 'Maybe I can do something,' and he started doing his homework that led him to the realization that it would be a tremendous opportunity for New York State to have these projects done in this fashion."
Before the emergence of the Empire alternative, "Communities didn't have a whole lot of options," said Pittman. "All the developers had the same message: We will come in and make a fortune for ourselves and leave you with something that may or may not turn out to be significant."
Pittman said Empire has been invited to present its alternative wind power proposals for residents and officials in the town of Italy, and hopes for a chance to meet with the Prattsburgh community.
"There are those in these communities who say 'It's all set, we've got a wind power developer down here and we don't need your help thank you very much,'" he acknowledged.
In Cohocton, "We've invited town officials to sit down at the table with us and try to work out' some kind of arrangement, and we're hopeful that will happen. I think it helped that we took the time to go down there and dispel a lot of the myths and rumors regarding Tom's being perceived as anti-wind power in some circles."
CWW response to Jeff Miller inquiry - reporter from the Genesee County Express
10/20/06
Genesee Country Express
Mr. Miller,
From the outset the Cohocton Wind Watch web site has listed our purpose and mission statement.
Citizens, Residents and Neighbors concerned about ill conceived wind turbine projects in the Town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York.
Cohocton Wind Watch is a community citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life in Cohocton, NY and in surrounding townships. Neighbors committed to public service in order to achieve a reasonable vision for a Finger Lakes region worthy of future generations.
As you will read above the operative phrase is ill-conceived wind turbine projects. Many CWW members define industrial 400’ + size units as unsuited for Cohocton and our Finger Lakes Region. This has been and still is the consistent position of Cohocton Wind Watch.
The facts are that UPC has submitted a DEIS for their Cohocton Phrase I and has proposed an additional Phrase II project. As you are aware the original UPC lease agreements were based upon 1.5 MW turbines. The latest status for both UPC projects are now up to 2.5 MW and the total capacity for generation has increased from 84 and 34 to 90 and 40 + or - MW's.
Cohocton Wind Watch emphatically opposes the UPC proposal.
As you are also aware, Empire State Wind Energy has announced publicly that any proposed project that they might develop can consist of smaller sized turbines both in height, MW’s and numbers. Also Empire has indicated that their site locations could be developed within an industrial zone and would pay full industrial rate property tax.
Since Empire has not yet submitted a site specific public plan, it would be imprudent and counterproductive to simply oppose a non proposed project. When specific details are presented for an Empire project, Cohocton Wind Watch will analyze the merits of that project. CWW will base its judgment on any future developer proposal based upon the same public safety standards and environmental considerations that have been used in opposing the UPC projects.
Cohocton Wind Watch is not motivated by the promise of a developer’s money offer. However, the promise of UPC payments to leaseholders is the primary drive for support of their program from landholders and YES advocates. The fact that the SCIDA PILOT amount to be paid by UPC to municipality governments is not being released, indicates that such payments will be much lower than full industrial tax rates. Feedback from the general Cohocton public has overwhelming demonstrated their preference for any developer to pay property tax rates based upon the entire assessed value of the project.
Since the Cohocton Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing on Windmill Local Law #2, CWW is gearing up to challenge this over friendly to the developer legislation. Cohocton Wind Watch favors a moratorium on the passage of any industrial wind turbine zoning that is inconsistent with the Cohocton Comprehensive Plan.
CWW is not supporting, endorsing or opposing an Empire proposal because one is not yet publicly presented. Several of the announced intentions from Empire are a distinct improvement from the UPC method. No doubt all Cohocton property owners would benefit from a reduced tax rate if a developer would pay their full share on an industrial project vs. a PILOT amount. The correct question is not why CWW is opposing Empire’s non disclosed project, but why are the Town of Cohocton and YES advocates not demanding that UPC pay full industrial tax rates on their ever expanding industrial project?
Cohocton Wind Watch would be the first to rejoice if no project was developed in Cohocton, Prattsburgh and in any NYS location where the consistent wind velocity has not been empirically substantiated. However, CWW does not legislate local laws and the prospects that some or many wind developments may come to our township is plausible.
Based upon the prospects that industrial wind turbines may be approved, it is natural that affective individuals will seek to diminish the negative and adverse consequences to their own circumstance. Conceptually the outline presented from Empire may appeal to distressed property owners who understand the severe impact of the UPC project. It might even be possible that UPC could revise their “ill conceived wind turbine projects” to confirm with the protective modifications that Empire has announced. Protective site locations, insuring real health, safety, property and public road setbacks, size and number of units have always been the core issues. WLL #2 ignore all these risks.
Mr. Miller you are missing the opportunity to cover the major news significance in the Cohocton wind saga. If Empire proposed the same destructive industrial turbine project that UPC has already submitted, CWW would use every means to oppose that development. You are basing your questions on an assumption that is not proven and may well be false. The essential issue is why are you not asking UPC and YES (especially if YES champions the “so called” clean alternative energy generation), the reasons they are not endorsing the community based concepts that Empire has publicized and why doesn’t UPC revise their projects to include and accept meaningful public safety modifications?
Cohocton Wind Watch has remained consistent, credible and correct. Maybe now is the time to do some serious investigative reporting into the conflict of interests, collusion and corruption that exists among officials of the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developers.
Also read - Take Time and Compare by Gary & Pat Struck
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2006/10/take-time-and-compare.html
You are authorized to publish this response in the Genesee County Express ONLY if you print the entire letter, as written.
CWW
Genesee Country Express
Mr. Miller,
From the outset the Cohocton Wind Watch web site has listed our purpose and mission statement.
Citizens, Residents and Neighbors concerned about ill conceived wind turbine projects in the Town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York.
Cohocton Wind Watch is a community citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life in Cohocton, NY and in surrounding townships. Neighbors committed to public service in order to achieve a reasonable vision for a Finger Lakes region worthy of future generations.
As you will read above the operative phrase is ill-conceived wind turbine projects. Many CWW members define industrial 400’ + size units as unsuited for Cohocton and our Finger Lakes Region. This has been and still is the consistent position of Cohocton Wind Watch.
The facts are that UPC has submitted a DEIS for their Cohocton Phrase I and has proposed an additional Phrase II project. As you are aware the original UPC lease agreements were based upon 1.5 MW turbines. The latest status for both UPC projects are now up to 2.5 MW and the total capacity for generation has increased from 84 and 34 to 90 and 40 + or - MW's.
Cohocton Wind Watch emphatically opposes the UPC proposal.
As you are also aware, Empire State Wind Energy has announced publicly that any proposed project that they might develop can consist of smaller sized turbines both in height, MW’s and numbers. Also Empire has indicated that their site locations could be developed within an industrial zone and would pay full industrial rate property tax.
Since Empire has not yet submitted a site specific public plan, it would be imprudent and counterproductive to simply oppose a non proposed project. When specific details are presented for an Empire project, Cohocton Wind Watch will analyze the merits of that project. CWW will base its judgment on any future developer proposal based upon the same public safety standards and environmental considerations that have been used in opposing the UPC projects.
Cohocton Wind Watch is not motivated by the promise of a developer’s money offer. However, the promise of UPC payments to leaseholders is the primary drive for support of their program from landholders and YES advocates. The fact that the SCIDA PILOT amount to be paid by UPC to municipality governments is not being released, indicates that such payments will be much lower than full industrial tax rates. Feedback from the general Cohocton public has overwhelming demonstrated their preference for any developer to pay property tax rates based upon the entire assessed value of the project.
Since the Cohocton Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing on Windmill Local Law #2, CWW is gearing up to challenge this over friendly to the developer legislation. Cohocton Wind Watch favors a moratorium on the passage of any industrial wind turbine zoning that is inconsistent with the Cohocton Comprehensive Plan.
CWW is not supporting, endorsing or opposing an Empire proposal because one is not yet publicly presented. Several of the announced intentions from Empire are a distinct improvement from the UPC method. No doubt all Cohocton property owners would benefit from a reduced tax rate if a developer would pay their full share on an industrial project vs. a PILOT amount. The correct question is not why CWW is opposing Empire’s non disclosed project, but why are the Town of Cohocton and YES advocates not demanding that UPC pay full industrial tax rates on their ever expanding industrial project?
Cohocton Wind Watch would be the first to rejoice if no project was developed in Cohocton, Prattsburgh and in any NYS location where the consistent wind velocity has not been empirically substantiated. However, CWW does not legislate local laws and the prospects that some or many wind developments may come to our township is plausible.
Based upon the prospects that industrial wind turbines may be approved, it is natural that affective individuals will seek to diminish the negative and adverse consequences to their own circumstance. Conceptually the outline presented from Empire may appeal to distressed property owners who understand the severe impact of the UPC project. It might even be possible that UPC could revise their “ill conceived wind turbine projects” to confirm with the protective modifications that Empire has announced. Protective site locations, insuring real health, safety, property and public road setbacks, size and number of units have always been the core issues. WLL #2 ignore all these risks.
Mr. Miller you are missing the opportunity to cover the major news significance in the Cohocton wind saga. If Empire proposed the same destructive industrial turbine project that UPC has already submitted, CWW would use every means to oppose that development. You are basing your questions on an assumption that is not proven and may well be false. The essential issue is why are you not asking UPC and YES (especially if YES champions the “so called” clean alternative energy generation), the reasons they are not endorsing the community based concepts that Empire has publicized and why doesn’t UPC revise their projects to include and accept meaningful public safety modifications?
Cohocton Wind Watch has remained consistent, credible and correct. Maybe now is the time to do some serious investigative reporting into the conflict of interests, collusion and corruption that exists among officials of the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developers.
Also read - Take Time and Compare by Gary & Pat Struck
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2006/10/take-time-and-compare.html
You are authorized to publish this response in the Genesee County Express ONLY if you print the entire letter, as written.
CWW
Jeff Miller email to CWW
Hey guys,
I've been having this nagging question haunt me for some time. I haven't found a way of asking it, so I thought that since writing is my strong point, I would write the question. Here goes: It's difficult to tell what¹s going on here.
The members of Cohocton Wind Watch say that they do not support wind development within the town of Cohocton. It began several months ago at town and planning board meetings when CWW members began accusing the town board of railroading and poor planning of local laws in regards to the wind tower project.
CWW has also declared that wind towers are dangerous and a nuisance to the community.
Suddenly, along came Empire State Wind Energy with a proposal to offer more money. Cohocton Wind Watch is not opposing them. Empire State Wind Energy is telling the town board that they can have whatever scale project they want. CWW is not upset.
Empire State Wind has the potential for the same tower height as UPC. CWW is not upset.
Keith Pitman and Tom Golisano have both stated that they will not come into a town without the townspeople's approval. CWW is not telling them Get out. We don't want wind power development in Cohocton. My simple question is why? I don't get it. Are towers dangerous or not? Do you want to see towers spread throughout the hills of Cohocton or not? Empire State Wind Energy has been welcomed by CWW. Why? They offer a wind turbine project that has the potential of equaling UPC. Why be angry at one and not the other? I don't get it.
Jeff Miller
Genesee Country Express
I've been having this nagging question haunt me for some time. I haven't found a way of asking it, so I thought that since writing is my strong point, I would write the question. Here goes: It's difficult to tell what¹s going on here.
The members of Cohocton Wind Watch say that they do not support wind development within the town of Cohocton. It began several months ago at town and planning board meetings when CWW members began accusing the town board of railroading and poor planning of local laws in regards to the wind tower project.
CWW has also declared that wind towers are dangerous and a nuisance to the community.
Suddenly, along came Empire State Wind Energy with a proposal to offer more money. Cohocton Wind Watch is not opposing them. Empire State Wind Energy is telling the town board that they can have whatever scale project they want. CWW is not upset.
Empire State Wind has the potential for the same tower height as UPC. CWW is not upset.
Keith Pitman and Tom Golisano have both stated that they will not come into a town without the townspeople's approval. CWW is not telling them Get out. We don't want wind power development in Cohocton. My simple question is why? I don't get it. Are towers dangerous or not? Do you want to see towers spread throughout the hills of Cohocton or not? Empire State Wind Energy has been welcomed by CWW. Why? They offer a wind turbine project that has the potential of equaling UPC. Why be angry at one and not the other? I don't get it.
Jeff Miller
Genesee Country Express
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wind power isn't reliable enough to satisfy electricity needs
California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning.
The record-breaking demand for electricity this summer taxed California's razor-thin, peak-load electrical generating capacity. Power failures were narrowly averted when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state agencies to reduce electricity consumption by 25 percent and many large industries and businesses agreed to voluntarily shut down.
If there is a benefit to emerge from California's escape from rolling blackouts, it is the growing recognition that we need to bring back the only source of energy that can provide large amounts of reliable electricity without polluting the air or contributing to global warming: nuclear power.
But before that happens, we will have to start embarrassing politicians who succeeded in shutting down California's Rancho Seco and San Onofre 1 nuclear power plants. Those two plants, which were closed prematurely more than a decade ago, had a combined generating capacity of 1,350 megawatts. If they were still operating, there would not have been an electricity emergency. Instead of nuclear energy, because of the political correctness of many politicians, the state has been relying more heavily on "renewable" energy sources, especially wind energy.
California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning. By comparison, the average capacity factor (plant actual operating time at full power vs. scheduled operating time) of nuclear power plants last year was 90 percent.
Wind energy has many virtues. It's clean. And the fuel is free. But no matter how you slice it, our complex society of millions of households, offices and businesses cannot rely heavily on wind farms to provide the electricity they need to keep air conditioners and factories running or, especially, their computers operating. They require virtually 100 percent reliability.
The Achilles' heel of wind power is its intermittence. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't. And on the hottest days, when air conditioning is most important, it usually doesn't. This fundamental flaw limits both wind energy's capacity value and its impact on reducing airborne emissions. If California, with all of its wind turbines, can't depend on wind energy, what state can?
Despite a massive investment in wind turbines — abetted by generous federal subsidies and mandates in 21 states that require a certain percentage of electricity to be provided by renewables — wind energy contributes only marginally to our nation's energy supplies. About 1 percent of all electricity in the United States comes from wind.
Wind energy is far more expensive and less reliable than its promoters claim. That's why opposition to new wind projects is growing — not just in California but in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Michigan, Kansas and New Jersey. Producing large amounts of wind energy is relatively costly, in part because it requires a vast amount of land and back-up power from fossil fuels on days when the wind is not blowing. Another problem is that wind turbines blight the view of landscapes and seashores. The latest models are twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty.
There is a role for wind energy in the United States. It can provide clean power when the wind is blowing and reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we have to burn. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that it can be counted on for the massive amounts of around-the-clock reliable power that makes our economy work. For that, we need energy technologies such as nuclear power and possibly clean coal that are proven sources of the industrial-size power that we require for our cities and factories. And in a heavily populated, industrial state like New Jersey, that need is particularly clear. We must act forcefully to head off a California-type crisis — and not just be blown by the wind.
James McGovern, Ocean Township, has been a consultant to government and industry on energy issues.
The record-breaking demand for electricity this summer taxed California's razor-thin, peak-load electrical generating capacity. Power failures were narrowly averted when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state agencies to reduce electricity consumption by 25 percent and many large industries and businesses agreed to voluntarily shut down.
If there is a benefit to emerge from California's escape from rolling blackouts, it is the growing recognition that we need to bring back the only source of energy that can provide large amounts of reliable electricity without polluting the air or contributing to global warming: nuclear power.
But before that happens, we will have to start embarrassing politicians who succeeded in shutting down California's Rancho Seco and San Onofre 1 nuclear power plants. Those two plants, which were closed prematurely more than a decade ago, had a combined generating capacity of 1,350 megawatts. If they were still operating, there would not have been an electricity emergency. Instead of nuclear energy, because of the political correctness of many politicians, the state has been relying more heavily on "renewable" energy sources, especially wind energy.
California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning. By comparison, the average capacity factor (plant actual operating time at full power vs. scheduled operating time) of nuclear power plants last year was 90 percent.
Wind energy has many virtues. It's clean. And the fuel is free. But no matter how you slice it, our complex society of millions of households, offices and businesses cannot rely heavily on wind farms to provide the electricity they need to keep air conditioners and factories running or, especially, their computers operating. They require virtually 100 percent reliability.
The Achilles' heel of wind power is its intermittence. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't. And on the hottest days, when air conditioning is most important, it usually doesn't. This fundamental flaw limits both wind energy's capacity value and its impact on reducing airborne emissions. If California, with all of its wind turbines, can't depend on wind energy, what state can?
Despite a massive investment in wind turbines — abetted by generous federal subsidies and mandates in 21 states that require a certain percentage of electricity to be provided by renewables — wind energy contributes only marginally to our nation's energy supplies. About 1 percent of all electricity in the United States comes from wind.
Wind energy is far more expensive and less reliable than its promoters claim. That's why opposition to new wind projects is growing — not just in California but in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Michigan, Kansas and New Jersey. Producing large amounts of wind energy is relatively costly, in part because it requires a vast amount of land and back-up power from fossil fuels on days when the wind is not blowing. Another problem is that wind turbines blight the view of landscapes and seashores. The latest models are twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty.
There is a role for wind energy in the United States. It can provide clean power when the wind is blowing and reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we have to burn. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that it can be counted on for the massive amounts of around-the-clock reliable power that makes our economy work. For that, we need energy technologies such as nuclear power and possibly clean coal that are proven sources of the industrial-size power that we require for our cities and factories. And in a heavily populated, industrial state like New Jersey, that need is particularly clear. We must act forcefully to head off a California-type crisis — and not just be blown by the wind.
James McGovern, Ocean Township, has been a consultant to government and industry on energy issues.
Legislature Provides for Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) Requests by E-Mail
Effective August 14, 2006 (Chapter 182 of the laws of 2006) the Public Officers Law, which governs FOIL requests, has been amended at section 89 (3) by adding (b) “All entities shall, provided such entity has reasonable means available, accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail, using forms, to the extent practicable, consistent with the form or forms developed by the committee on open government pursuant to subdivision one of this section and provided that the written requests do not seek a response in some other form.” Section 89(1) has also been amended to require development of forms for e-mail requests.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A few suggestions for a Brandon letter to non-residents by Jim Price
The town board of Brandon has recently passed a 6-month moratorium to stop the rush to develop Brandon into an industrial turbine factory town with the construction of 67 massive 400-feet high wind turbines towering above our mountain ridges.
Many of the residents of Brandon are very concerned that the health and safety of our families, our property market values, and our peaceful lifestyle are being seriously threatened. The effects of prolonged exposure to low frequency noise and infrasound are grim: cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and renal pathology and systems are called vibro-acoustic disease.
According to recent medical research, blade shadow flicker and the strobing reflection of sunlight can cause seizures, headaches, migraines, loss of balance, nausea, sleeplessness, stress, anxiety, depression, and disorientation to those living a mile or more from the turbines' cacophony.
The Department of Trade and Industry and others have warned that the turbines carry the risk of electrocution, that centrifugal force can throw shards of ice (and even the blades themselves) up to 1600 feet, and that the turbines each contain 200 gallons of combustible fluids which when ignited from lightning, or over-heating, and carried by high winds can inflame hundred of acres of virgin surrounding forest lands.
The massive 100 tons of slicing blades and the nacelle's internal oil-bathed gears, generators, computers, pumps, and motors, sit perched on top of a 250-foot high pylon that continually swivels, shakes, and vibrates as it rotates into the wind. Blinding strobe lights flash day and night and are visible for 40 miles.
The cacophony of noises and lights scare away virtually all wild life such as deer, moose, elk, rabbits, turkey, black bears--all except the wild dogs and wolves that feed on the abundant bird kill lying at the turbine bases. Thousands of hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, bats, ducks, geese, songbirds, swans, and cranes are destroyed by these cuisinarts-in-the-air. In addition the massive 130-foot long rotating blades chop and reflect radar beams, microwaves, and cell phone and TV transmissions.
Industrial wind factories destroy serene mountain vistas and the market values of nearby properties for recreation, hunting, camping, hiking, snowmobile riding, and any future development. Real estate sales people know that once prospects realize that a property is in the vicinity of wind turbines, the potential buyer won't even look at it.
Landowners that have leased their land to the wind turbine promoters are reduced to being little more than caretakers for the wind factories' massive machines and their privileges and rights stop where their neighbor's rights start. Non-leasing property owners have a bundle of rights which include the right of quiet enjoyment from an encroachment or unauthorized trespass of loud noise, bright lights, flying shards of ice, interference with TV and cell phone reception, strobe flicker, and all the other hurtful health and safety issues.
"But we now have a situation where speculators are staking claim to some of our most scenic areas and erecting these monstrosities that produce little energy and are made possible only by a tax credit."--Rep. Alan Mollohan, US Congressman.
"At a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power...Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers' moneyto destroy the American landscape... Wholesale destruction of the American landscape is not an incidental concern."--Senator Lamar Alexander in an address to Congress, 13 May 2005.
Many of the residents of Brandon are very concerned that the health and safety of our families, our property market values, and our peaceful lifestyle are being seriously threatened. The effects of prolonged exposure to low frequency noise and infrasound are grim: cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and renal pathology and systems are called vibro-acoustic disease.
According to recent medical research, blade shadow flicker and the strobing reflection of sunlight can cause seizures, headaches, migraines, loss of balance, nausea, sleeplessness, stress, anxiety, depression, and disorientation to those living a mile or more from the turbines' cacophony.
The Department of Trade and Industry and others have warned that the turbines carry the risk of electrocution, that centrifugal force can throw shards of ice (and even the blades themselves) up to 1600 feet, and that the turbines each contain 200 gallons of combustible fluids which when ignited from lightning, or over-heating, and carried by high winds can inflame hundred of acres of virgin surrounding forest lands.
The massive 100 tons of slicing blades and the nacelle's internal oil-bathed gears, generators, computers, pumps, and motors, sit perched on top of a 250-foot high pylon that continually swivels, shakes, and vibrates as it rotates into the wind. Blinding strobe lights flash day and night and are visible for 40 miles.
The cacophony of noises and lights scare away virtually all wild life such as deer, moose, elk, rabbits, turkey, black bears--all except the wild dogs and wolves that feed on the abundant bird kill lying at the turbine bases. Thousands of hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, bats, ducks, geese, songbirds, swans, and cranes are destroyed by these cuisinarts-in-the-air. In addition the massive 130-foot long rotating blades chop and reflect radar beams, microwaves, and cell phone and TV transmissions.
Industrial wind factories destroy serene mountain vistas and the market values of nearby properties for recreation, hunting, camping, hiking, snowmobile riding, and any future development. Real estate sales people know that once prospects realize that a property is in the vicinity of wind turbines, the potential buyer won't even look at it.
Landowners that have leased their land to the wind turbine promoters are reduced to being little more than caretakers for the wind factories' massive machines and their privileges and rights stop where their neighbor's rights start. Non-leasing property owners have a bundle of rights which include the right of quiet enjoyment from an encroachment or unauthorized trespass of loud noise, bright lights, flying shards of ice, interference with TV and cell phone reception, strobe flicker, and all the other hurtful health and safety issues.
"But we now have a situation where speculators are staking claim to some of our most scenic areas and erecting these monstrosities that produce little energy and are made possible only by a tax credit."--Rep. Alan Mollohan, US Congressman.
"At a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power...Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers' moneyto destroy the American landscape... Wholesale destruction of the American landscape is not an incidental concern."--Senator Lamar Alexander in an address to Congress, 13 May 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)