Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Final Version of Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2
Cohocton Town Board will vote on WLL #2 on Tuesday November 21, 2006. Be sure to attend this meeting.
WLL2111406.rtf
WLL2111406.rtf
Support Cohocton Wind Watch - raffle for a stay at the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast
Our elegant and upscale Victorian Villa a Finger Lakes Bed and Breakfast is located just off I-390 and only a few minutes from the charming village of Naples. Whether you are looking for a romantic getaway or the perfect place to spend your vacation you will be glad you chose the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast.
Contact a CWW member to support this raffle.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wind energy: A crash course in six paragraphs
Dear 60 Minutes:
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
New York State Unified Court System
WebCivil provides online access to information about cases in Civil Supreme Court in all 62 counties of New York State. You may search for cases by Index Number or the name of the Plaintiff or Defendant, look up cases by Attorney/Firm name, and view Calendars for each court.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
PDF file on the text of the law
entire_prop90.pdf
entire_prop90.pdf
Proposition 90: full text on eminent domain
Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Quotes on Wind
People who say 'You can't tell me what to do with my property' are in actuality signing away the control of their property to wind companies in signing these leases. — Barbara Boone, Md.
What the wind gives, line loss taketh away. — Carol A. Overland, Minn.
Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google 'Cefn Croes Photo Gallery', to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to 'save' annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet. — Christopher Booker, Telegraph, U.K.
A wind farm is an industrial installation of vast proportions, and, if erected on the loftiest ridges, its industrial flavor becomes the new focal point for all view-sheds within a 15-mile radius. — Dave Buhrman, W.Va.
Even if wind turbines were built in Hawaii, excess capacity would have to be built to handle peak loads in the event that the winds weren't blowing or the islands would experience brownouts or blackouts. The fact that the periods of highest demands would coincide with a drop-off in wind speed means wind turbines cannot be counted on the meet peak load demands in Hawaii. So electrical generating capacity would have to be built twice, first as wind turbines and second as backup peak capacity protection. — Don Newman, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims. — John Etherington, U.K.
If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops. — Merlin Tuttle, Director, Bat Conservation International
The cumulative impacts on bat populations from proposed and/or constructed wind farm developments, especially in the eastern United States, may lead to further population declines, placing multiple bat populations at serious risk of extinction. — Thomas Kunz, Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University
In the end, we remain convinced, the entire state [Va.] will see clearly that wind power ... is wrong for our mountains and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket huge profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies. When the smoke clears, there can be no other conclusion. Whether reason will triumph over the leverage of powerful special interests remains to be seen. — Editorial Staff, Roanoke Times
It is common sense, not the governor [of Vermont] alone, that is trying to shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt.
Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed. ... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without. ... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a 'free' source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary — wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources. — Fergus Smith, Vt.
Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions. — Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark
I don't believe it is in the state's interest to industrialize our ridge lines.
— Jim Douglas, Governor, Vt.
I wouldn't be against them [large wind turbines] if they actually worked.
— James Lovelock, U.K.
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We don't want to see them. We don't want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them. — Joan Kalso, Mich.
Wind turbines don't make good neighbors. — John Zimmerman (Northeast U.S. Representative, Enxco)
Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. — Jon Boone, Md.
One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem. — Jon Boone, Md.
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States. — Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more cons than pros in this debate. — Kristin Calkins Rowe, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 7, 2005
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy. — L. M. Schwartz
Consider this: We could be looking at 1,000 or more wind turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty on the high ridges of the Flint Hills, and they would contribute only about one-tenth of one percent of our current electricity use. That simply isn't worth the destruction of our unique Tallgrass Prairie land resource. — Larry Patton, Kan.
The subsidies for wind are a misuse of public money. The 'benefits' from industrial wind are a fantasy and an escape from our energy problems. For me, believing that industrial wind will solve our energy problems is a little like believing the Tooth Fairy will pay my heating bills this winter. — Linda Bly, Vt.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox [Vt.] may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of Renewable Energy For Profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a 'back yard.' They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. — Mark Walsh, Manchester (Vt.) Journal, Dec. 30, 2005
Promoters of the wind energy craze, absentee landowners, and a few locals hoping for a windfall are about to destroy the soul of the Flint Hills. — Michael Stubbs, Kan.
Wind energy has again been shown up for what it is, an expensive way of saving a derisory amount of CO2. It is, frankly, a disgrace, that the wind turbine farce continues in the name of saving the planet. The [U.K.] government should intervene immediately and stop these projects — they are a waste of our resources. — Nina Thorpe
Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent. — Peter McGauran, Aust. Senate
Good winds coincide with neither the heating nor air-conditioning season. Wind is a willy-nilly source of electricity, and as such is not very useful. — Richard C. Hill, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005
This industry has always wrapped itself in the mantle of green power and has sought to use the environmental benefits of wind power as an excuse for not doing anything about the environmental harms it causes. — Rick Wiebe, Calif.
If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies; however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County (Kan.), in two weeks and a little bit of paperwork ... they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing. — Rose Bacon
People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing. I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company [FPL] came in, destroyed the top of the mountain, and left us with it. — Rose Marie Derk, Weymart, Pa.
For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to be produced on demand. The storage of electricity as a technology is still in its infancy. One of the major drawbacks to wind is its unpredictability as a power source and that it cannot be stored. — Russell Broadbent, Aust. House of Representatives
... [I]t will be the equivalent of a water company only supplying tap water when it's raining. — Saiful Islam, U.K.
The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images — of Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well ... But the windmills we are talking about today are not your grandmother's windmills. Each one is typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Stature of Liberty, taller than a football field is long. — Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senate
These people are not as much [wind] developers as they are salesmen. Their product sounds good — and green — in theory, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. — Shirley Nelson, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Dec. 12, 2005
The [U.K.] government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is 'worth sacrificing to save the planet' is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. — Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 24, 2003
These are not farms, one doesn't farm wind any more than one farms water in a hydroelectric dam or farms neutrons in an atomic plant. — Tom Lynch, N.Y.
The first glimpse of the [Weymart, Pa., Wind Farm] turbines from State Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie. — Tom Vanesky
The first question is, how much do giant electricity-generating windmills actually help fight global warming? When real evidence of their benefits in, say, Denmark, can be shown (which they have yet to be), then there will be a basis for weighing the pros and cons. As it is, it appears to be all con. Lots of sacrifice, no benefit. — "Rucio"
There should be a presumption against wind farms in the countryside where their scale, siting or cumulative effect would have a significant adverse impact on landscape quality and recreational enjoyment thereof. — Countryside Commission, U.K.
We finally urge the environmentally-conscious public and especially these who share our concern for the need to produce energy responsibly by non-polluting means, to recognise that wind turbines are industrial machines for which there should be no place in our finest landscapes. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
We refuse to accept that our coasts and uplands should be sacrificed in this way, either as a penance for past failure to safeguard the environment or as a token contribution towards reducing atmospheric pollution or addressing possible shortages of fossil fuels. We believe that the costs of such a policy to a civilised society far exceed the perceived benefits. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
The main success of Danish involvement in wind power would appear to be the foundation of an industry producing wind mills. — Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Association
With the exploitation of wind energy, a technology is being promoted that is completely insignificant for the power supply, the preservation of natural resources, and the protection of the climate. — Lothar Hoischen, Germany
The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. — Darmstadt (Germany) Manifesto
I don't believe that wind power would have a very big future, because, relative to the energy produced, it is far too cumbersome, on land as on the sea.
— Marcel Boiteux, Presdient Emeritus, Electricité de France
Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats. — John Pagels
Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.
— Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany
The larger the share of wind power in a particular grid, the more standby power will have to be available in that grid.
What the wind gives, line loss taketh away. — Carol A. Overland, Minn.
Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google 'Cefn Croes Photo Gallery', to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to 'save' annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet. — Christopher Booker, Telegraph, U.K.
A wind farm is an industrial installation of vast proportions, and, if erected on the loftiest ridges, its industrial flavor becomes the new focal point for all view-sheds within a 15-mile radius. — Dave Buhrman, W.Va.
Even if wind turbines were built in Hawaii, excess capacity would have to be built to handle peak loads in the event that the winds weren't blowing or the islands would experience brownouts or blackouts. The fact that the periods of highest demands would coincide with a drop-off in wind speed means wind turbines cannot be counted on the meet peak load demands in Hawaii. So electrical generating capacity would have to be built twice, first as wind turbines and second as backup peak capacity protection. — Don Newman, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims. — John Etherington, U.K.
If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops. — Merlin Tuttle, Director, Bat Conservation International
The cumulative impacts on bat populations from proposed and/or constructed wind farm developments, especially in the eastern United States, may lead to further population declines, placing multiple bat populations at serious risk of extinction. — Thomas Kunz, Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University
In the end, we remain convinced, the entire state [Va.] will see clearly that wind power ... is wrong for our mountains and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket huge profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies. When the smoke clears, there can be no other conclusion. Whether reason will triumph over the leverage of powerful special interests remains to be seen. — Editorial Staff, Roanoke Times
It is common sense, not the governor [of Vermont] alone, that is trying to shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt.
Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed. ... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without. ... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a 'free' source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary — wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources. — Fergus Smith, Vt.
Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions. — Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark
I don't believe it is in the state's interest to industrialize our ridge lines.
— Jim Douglas, Governor, Vt.
I wouldn't be against them [large wind turbines] if they actually worked.
— James Lovelock, U.K.
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We don't want to see them. We don't want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them. — Joan Kalso, Mich.
Wind turbines don't make good neighbors. — John Zimmerman (Northeast U.S. Representative, Enxco)
Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. — Jon Boone, Md.
One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem. — Jon Boone, Md.
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States. — Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more cons than pros in this debate. — Kristin Calkins Rowe, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 7, 2005
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy. — L. M. Schwartz
Consider this: We could be looking at 1,000 or more wind turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty on the high ridges of the Flint Hills, and they would contribute only about one-tenth of one percent of our current electricity use. That simply isn't worth the destruction of our unique Tallgrass Prairie land resource. — Larry Patton, Kan.
The subsidies for wind are a misuse of public money. The 'benefits' from industrial wind are a fantasy and an escape from our energy problems. For me, believing that industrial wind will solve our energy problems is a little like believing the Tooth Fairy will pay my heating bills this winter. — Linda Bly, Vt.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox [Vt.] may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of Renewable Energy For Profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a 'back yard.' They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. — Mark Walsh, Manchester (Vt.) Journal, Dec. 30, 2005
Promoters of the wind energy craze, absentee landowners, and a few locals hoping for a windfall are about to destroy the soul of the Flint Hills. — Michael Stubbs, Kan.
Wind energy has again been shown up for what it is, an expensive way of saving a derisory amount of CO2. It is, frankly, a disgrace, that the wind turbine farce continues in the name of saving the planet. The [U.K.] government should intervene immediately and stop these projects — they are a waste of our resources. — Nina Thorpe
Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent. — Peter McGauran, Aust. Senate
Good winds coincide with neither the heating nor air-conditioning season. Wind is a willy-nilly source of electricity, and as such is not very useful. — Richard C. Hill, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005
This industry has always wrapped itself in the mantle of green power and has sought to use the environmental benefits of wind power as an excuse for not doing anything about the environmental harms it causes. — Rick Wiebe, Calif.
If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies; however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County (Kan.), in two weeks and a little bit of paperwork ... they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing. — Rose Bacon
People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing. I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company [FPL] came in, destroyed the top of the mountain, and left us with it. — Rose Marie Derk, Weymart, Pa.
For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to be produced on demand. The storage of electricity as a technology is still in its infancy. One of the major drawbacks to wind is its unpredictability as a power source and that it cannot be stored. — Russell Broadbent, Aust. House of Representatives
... [I]t will be the equivalent of a water company only supplying tap water when it's raining. — Saiful Islam, U.K.
The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images — of Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well ... But the windmills we are talking about today are not your grandmother's windmills. Each one is typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Stature of Liberty, taller than a football field is long. — Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senate
These people are not as much [wind] developers as they are salesmen. Their product sounds good — and green — in theory, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. — Shirley Nelson, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Dec. 12, 2005
The [U.K.] government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is 'worth sacrificing to save the planet' is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. — Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 24, 2003
These are not farms, one doesn't farm wind any more than one farms water in a hydroelectric dam or farms neutrons in an atomic plant. — Tom Lynch, N.Y.
The first glimpse of the [Weymart, Pa., Wind Farm] turbines from State Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie. — Tom Vanesky
The first question is, how much do giant electricity-generating windmills actually help fight global warming? When real evidence of their benefits in, say, Denmark, can be shown (which they have yet to be), then there will be a basis for weighing the pros and cons. As it is, it appears to be all con. Lots of sacrifice, no benefit. — "Rucio"
There should be a presumption against wind farms in the countryside where their scale, siting or cumulative effect would have a significant adverse impact on landscape quality and recreational enjoyment thereof. — Countryside Commission, U.K.
We finally urge the environmentally-conscious public and especially these who share our concern for the need to produce energy responsibly by non-polluting means, to recognise that wind turbines are industrial machines for which there should be no place in our finest landscapes. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
We refuse to accept that our coasts and uplands should be sacrificed in this way, either as a penance for past failure to safeguard the environment or as a token contribution towards reducing atmospheric pollution or addressing possible shortages of fossil fuels. We believe that the costs of such a policy to a civilised society far exceed the perceived benefits. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
The main success of Danish involvement in wind power would appear to be the foundation of an industry producing wind mills. — Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Association
With the exploitation of wind energy, a technology is being promoted that is completely insignificant for the power supply, the preservation of natural resources, and the protection of the climate. — Lothar Hoischen, Germany
The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. — Darmstadt (Germany) Manifesto
I don't believe that wind power would have a very big future, because, relative to the energy produced, it is far too cumbersome, on land as on the sea.
— Marcel Boiteux, Presdient Emeritus, Electricité de France
Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats. — John Pagels
Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.
— Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany
The larger the share of wind power in a particular grid, the more standby power will have to be available in that grid.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Read all the Windmill Local Laws by Town
Local Laws include the following towns.
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Thursday, November 02, 2006
James and Shannon Lince letter on the Dyckman Tower - Public Hearing Cohocton Planning Board
James and Shannon Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
Cohocton Planning Board Public Hearing on the Dyckman Test Tower TONIGHT
Remember that the Public Hearing starts at 6:30 PM, Thursday, November 2, 2006 at the Atlanta Court Office.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES? by Robert Strasburg
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES?
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
Paul Gettys November 1, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus
November 1, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Paul Gettys October 31, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus
October 31, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
Local Law No. 1 reads “Individual wind turbine towers shall be located with relation to property lines so that the level of noise produced during wind turbine operation shall not exceed 50 dba, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that…………….
This would mean that the total noise level, background plus wind turbine would not exceed 50 dba.
Local Law No. 2 reads “Windmill only noise levels at non-project lines shall not exceed 50.0 dB(A), except as set forth herein.” Unfortunately no one picked up this change prior to the hearing. The formula depicted on page 17 gives no relief.
Attached please find a chart depicting the total allowable noise level depending on the background noise and comparable noise levels plus a chart entitled “Typical Noise Levels”.
As can be seen by these two charts this change in the law will have a very drastic affect on those living near the windmills. It is likely that when the wind is blowing people will be forced to stay inside with the windows closed. This hardly seem fair to these landowners.
Please consider changing the law back to where it reads the total noise will not exceed 50dba, not the turbine only noise.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
TYPICAL%20NOISE%20LEVELS1.htm
LOCAL%20LAW%20NO.%202%20CHART.xls
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
Local Law No. 1 reads “Individual wind turbine towers shall be located with relation to property lines so that the level of noise produced during wind turbine operation shall not exceed 50 dba, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that…………….
This would mean that the total noise level, background plus wind turbine would not exceed 50 dba.
Local Law No. 2 reads “Windmill only noise levels at non-project lines shall not exceed 50.0 dB(A), except as set forth herein.” Unfortunately no one picked up this change prior to the hearing. The formula depicted on page 17 gives no relief.
Attached please find a chart depicting the total allowable noise level depending on the background noise and comparable noise levels plus a chart entitled “Typical Noise Levels”.
As can be seen by these two charts this change in the law will have a very drastic affect on those living near the windmills. It is likely that when the wind is blowing people will be forced to stay inside with the windows closed. This hardly seem fair to these landowners.
Please consider changing the law back to where it reads the total noise will not exceed 50dba, not the turbine only noise.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
TYPICAL%20NOISE%20LEVELS1.htm
LOCAL%20LAW%20NO.%202%20CHART.xls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)