Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Jeff Goldthwait 'Fifth Letter' to the Town Board - November 21, 2006
Date: November 21, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Silent Wind Turbine set to Stormblade the Market
Stormblade Turbine Ltd is a London business start up company and it has designed an ultra-efficient wind turbine which works by accelerating the wind onto the blades and is therefore more efficient at low as well as high wind speeds.
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Bob Strasburg letter to the Wayland/Cohocton School Board
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Monday, November 27, 2006
Windmills aren't the answer by Colby Cosh
EDMONTON - It's official: The glorious future of abundant free energy has been put on hold. In May, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) announced that the province's grid could not safely accommodate more than 900 megawatts of wind-power generation, a target that will be met late next year. Proposals for 3,000 more MW of production have been thrown into indefinite limbo at an estimated cost to producers of $6-billion; meanwhile, the province is already spending $1-billion to strengthen the transmission system so that even the 900-MW cap can be reached. In Ontario, meanwhile, the grid operator warned late last month that 5,000 MW -- about one-fifth of the province's current peak consumption -- is probably the absolute technological limit. (A total of 1,280 MW of wind capacity is already in operation or being built.)
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
http://www.knolltowindfarm.org.uk/economic.htm
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
SCIDA Cohocton PILOT figures - 11/17/06
STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Citizen groups still fighting NYRI by FRITZ MAYER
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER VALLEY— When the man who will become the next governor of New York State says a project is dead, people tend to take him at his word. Last week, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the proposed project to build a 190-mile power line through eight New York counties was dead because there was too much opposition to it.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Jeffrey Goldthwait letter to the Town of Cohocton
Date: October 23, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Ont. bill targets stray voltage from power lines as threat to human health by GREGORY BONNELL
TORONTO (CP) - Canada's dairy cows are acting as "canaries in coal mines" when it comes to detecting stray electricity in the ground that poses a significant threat to human health, experts said Thursday.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed by Don E. Sandford
To: Town Of Cohocton Town Board Members - November 16, 2006
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Judith Hall letter to the Town Board of Cohocton
November 16, 2006
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)