... during the low of July 27 ( see attached graphs from the national grid operator www.ree.es : national demand for electricity, and windpower production, in real time )
Spain's installed capacity : 10,000 MW+
Note : REE removed the installed capacity line from its graphs : too embarrasing, I suppose, as the public was comparing installed capacity and actual production.
With the late arrival this year of Spain's typical summer weather ( 42ยบ in Seville) , air conditioning is pushing demand upwards. But there is no wind, and near zero electricity produced by windfarms...
This indicates that, in Spain, 98% backup is needed ( and maybe more, as I haven't been monitoring the REE website - 186 MW may or may not be the record low ).
This is why Spain is currently building dozens of gas-fired CCGT plants, and Germany 26 coal-fired ones.
http://www.upi. com/Energy/ Analysis/ 2007/04/13/ analysis_ germany_plans_ 26_coal_plants/
Double investment for nothing. What a waste !
And when I say double... it's actually closer to quadruple, as windfarms cost a lot more than conventional energy ( hence the generous subventions ).
Mark
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Wind drives local politics: Candidates increase in Steuben towns with proposed wind farms Republican primaries slated for Hartsville, Howard, Cohocton
Steuben County towns featuring the biggest wind battles are also the towns that boast the larger numbers of candidates running for elected office in the fall.
According to information from the Steuben County Board of Elections, the towns of Hartsville, Cohocton and Howard all feature Republican primaries with at least one wind farm opponent throwing their hat in the ring. Primary day is from noon to 9 p.m. Sept. 18, while the general election will be Nov. 6.
One of the most vocal of the wind opponents in the area - Hartsville's Steve Dombert - is on both the Republican and Democrat lines for a two-year supervisor term. Dombert will face incumbent Republican Gene Garrison and Republican challenger Ken Porter for the Republican bid for supervisor.
As for a four-year term as town council member, incumbent Democrat Mattie Parini will face a challenge from Conservative Larry McCormick and Republican Michele HerrNeckar for her seat.
Meanwhile, Republican Clerk Kay Miles and Republican Highway Superintendent Thomas DeWall are both unopposed in their bids to return to office for another two years. Republican Benjamin Ray is unopposed for filling the remainder of a two-year term on the town council.
In the Town of Howard, there will be a Republican primary to fill two councilman seats, with incumbents Robert Palmer and William Hatch facing a challenge from Eric Hosmer, a wind opponent. Supervisor Don Evia, listed on the Republican and Conservative lines, is unopposed for a two-year term, while Clerk Loreen Karr also is unopposed in her bid to return for two more years.
The Town of Cohocton will have Republican primaries for the supervisor, clerk, justice, two councilman seats, highway superintendent and two assessor positions, spearheaded by an anti-wind development contingent there.
Incumbent Supervisor Jack Zigenfus is being challenged by Robert Strasburg II for a two-year term, incumbent Sandra Riley will face off against Blair Hall for a two-year clerk term, incumbent Justice Hal Graham will be opposed by Stoner Clark for a four-year position, while incumbent councilmen Milton LeVesque and Wayne Hunt are being challenged by Cesare Taccone and Steve Sick. The other Republican primaries include incumbent Thomas Simons against Charles Mohr for a two-year highway superintendent position, and incumbents Joanne Damboise and Mark Densmore - who also is listed on the Conservative line - facing off against Rebecca Conrad and Christina Brautigam for two four-year assessor slots.
(Click to read entire article)
According to information from the Steuben County Board of Elections, the towns of Hartsville, Cohocton and Howard all feature Republican primaries with at least one wind farm opponent throwing their hat in the ring. Primary day is from noon to 9 p.m. Sept. 18, while the general election will be Nov. 6.
One of the most vocal of the wind opponents in the area - Hartsville's Steve Dombert - is on both the Republican and Democrat lines for a two-year supervisor term. Dombert will face incumbent Republican Gene Garrison and Republican challenger Ken Porter for the Republican bid for supervisor.
As for a four-year term as town council member, incumbent Democrat Mattie Parini will face a challenge from Conservative Larry McCormick and Republican Michele HerrNeckar for her seat.
Meanwhile, Republican Clerk Kay Miles and Republican Highway Superintendent Thomas DeWall are both unopposed in their bids to return to office for another two years. Republican Benjamin Ray is unopposed for filling the remainder of a two-year term on the town council.
In the Town of Howard, there will be a Republican primary to fill two councilman seats, with incumbents Robert Palmer and William Hatch facing a challenge from Eric Hosmer, a wind opponent. Supervisor Don Evia, listed on the Republican and Conservative lines, is unopposed for a two-year term, while Clerk Loreen Karr also is unopposed in her bid to return for two more years.
The Town of Cohocton will have Republican primaries for the supervisor, clerk, justice, two councilman seats, highway superintendent and two assessor positions, spearheaded by an anti-wind development contingent there.
Incumbent Supervisor Jack Zigenfus is being challenged by Robert Strasburg II for a two-year term, incumbent Sandra Riley will face off against Blair Hall for a two-year clerk term, incumbent Justice Hal Graham will be opposed by Stoner Clark for a four-year position, while incumbent councilmen Milton LeVesque and Wayne Hunt are being challenged by Cesare Taccone and Steve Sick. The other Republican primaries include incumbent Thomas Simons against Charles Mohr for a two-year highway superintendent position, and incumbents Joanne Damboise and Mark Densmore - who also is listed on the Conservative line - facing off against Rebecca Conrad and Christina Brautigam for two four-year assessor slots.
(Click to read entire article)
Monday, July 30, 2007
Town of Castile Passes Law Banning Industrial Wind Turbines
Residents filled the Town of Castile Fire Hall Thursday evening, July 26, awaiting the Town Board's decision regarding Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). At the last regularly scheduled town board meeting, the Castile Planning Board submitted a very comprehensive 19-page law, which in effect, would prohibit industrial-sized wind turbines, while allowing personal home and farm models to 125' in height. The Town Board held a special meeting on July 19 to extend the moratorium for another 6 months until the Public Hearing could be held, a decision reached, and the law put on the books.
The meeting opened, as always, with the Pledge of Allegiance. A dozen people had signed up to speak in favor of the proposed law, with Supervisor Joe Gozelski announcing he had also received a couple of letters in support of the law.
Ruth Lavin, President of the Silver Lake Association, opened the comment period of the meeting by commending the Town Board for its' openness to debate, and willingness to listen to all citizens' concerns. She also commended the due diligence and dedication of the Planning Board in their thorough research which led up to the 19-page law.
Bob Payne, Mick Griffin, and Roy Schneggenburg, all lifetime Silver Lake residents for some 70+ years each, spoke of the beauty, peace and quiet that the area has always offered its' residents, and asked the Town Board to support the law as proposed.
Town of Castile resident, Gerald Sahrle II, said that it was up to the board to protect the grandeur of the Letchworth State Park area, and the welfare of all the children by passing the law. "My children would have had 410' tall turbines just 800' from their bedroom windows if these corporate bullies had gotten their way," he said.
Dave Conaway, another Town of Castile resident, said, "I've attended meetings in many towns across Western New York regarding the wind issue. I have witnessed other boards tell their citizens to 'sit down and shut up', or even ask them not to come to a meeting. Half of these other places don't even say The Pledge before their meetings. I'm glad to live where democracy still rules - in Castile!"
Kathy Schaefer, a Silver Lake resident, encouraged the Board to pass the law and went on to say, "Your professionalism and commitment to the people you represent is a testament to how town governments should be run! We want you to know the respect we have gained for the Town of Castile as a result of your conscientious efforts."
Robert Firestine, en economist who lives in the area, Mary Kay Barton, resident in the Town of Castile, and Pam Bliss, one of the founders of Citizens for Responsible Energy Development (CRED), all thanked the boards and encouraged them to pass the law. Each also addressed the looming threat of State intervention in Home Rule, if Article X is passed (legislation currently under consideration in New York State which would no longer allow decisions regarding placement of mammoth-footprinted wind installations to be made locally), which would strip our constitutional rights of the democratic process to rule ourselves in our hometowns. Each one encouraged all to remain wary of this looming threat and to stay involved by writing their State representatives.
Referring to her recent contacts and experience in the Democracy School, organized by attorneys from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (www.CELDF.org), Barton went on to say that Towns need to go even further to protect themselves from the encroaching threat of State and corporate aggressions which would over-ride local decision-making. She cited the fact that other communities who have put binding general laws on the books which do not allow huge corporations to declare "personhood" in pursuit of corporate gain in their towns, have been very effective at protecting their local governments' and citizens' Constitutional rights to rule themselves as they see fit.
After the comment period concluded, Supervisor Gozelski asked the board members if they had any comments. Councilman Steve Tarbell noted that he had kept a tally since the debate over the issue had began, which totaled 238 people that had contacted him who were against industrial wind turbines in the Town of Castile, and only 6 that had contacted him who were for industrial turbines in the Town of Castile. Councilman Tarbell said, "We have to listen to what the majority of our constituents are telling us."
Councilman Stan Klein questioned the crowd, "Is there anyone here who has an opposing viewpoint to what has been stated this evening? You don't have to say anything, just raise your hand." No one answered or raised their hand.
Councilman Tarbell then made the motion to pass the law banning industrial turbines in the Town of Castile. Councilwoman Linda Little seconded the motion, and all present (Councilman Sam Monteleone was absent) voted unanimously to pass the law.
The vote was followed by a standing ovation from the crowd for the Town Board. Supervisor Gozelski then said, "It is really the Planning Board who we should be thanking for all their dedication and hard work on this law." Gozelski then asked members of the Planning Board who were present to stand, and they were given a standing ovation by the crowd and the Town Board members. ~ mkb
The meeting opened, as always, with the Pledge of Allegiance. A dozen people had signed up to speak in favor of the proposed law, with Supervisor Joe Gozelski announcing he had also received a couple of letters in support of the law.
Ruth Lavin, President of the Silver Lake Association, opened the comment period of the meeting by commending the Town Board for its' openness to debate, and willingness to listen to all citizens' concerns. She also commended the due diligence and dedication of the Planning Board in their thorough research which led up to the 19-page law.
Bob Payne, Mick Griffin, and Roy Schneggenburg, all lifetime Silver Lake residents for some 70+ years each, spoke of the beauty, peace and quiet that the area has always offered its' residents, and asked the Town Board to support the law as proposed.
Town of Castile resident, Gerald Sahrle II, said that it was up to the board to protect the grandeur of the Letchworth State Park area, and the welfare of all the children by passing the law. "My children would have had 410' tall turbines just 800' from their bedroom windows if these corporate bullies had gotten their way," he said.
Dave Conaway, another Town of Castile resident, said, "I've attended meetings in many towns across Western New York regarding the wind issue. I have witnessed other boards tell their citizens to 'sit down and shut up', or even ask them not to come to a meeting. Half of these other places don't even say The Pledge before their meetings. I'm glad to live where democracy still rules - in Castile!"
Kathy Schaefer, a Silver Lake resident, encouraged the Board to pass the law and went on to say, "Your professionalism and commitment to the people you represent is a testament to how town governments should be run! We want you to know the respect we have gained for the Town of Castile as a result of your conscientious efforts."
Robert Firestine, en economist who lives in the area, Mary Kay Barton, resident in the Town of Castile, and Pam Bliss, one of the founders of Citizens for Responsible Energy Development (CRED), all thanked the boards and encouraged them to pass the law. Each also addressed the looming threat of State intervention in Home Rule, if Article X is passed (legislation currently under consideration in New York State which would no longer allow decisions regarding placement of mammoth-footprinted wind installations to be made locally), which would strip our constitutional rights of the democratic process to rule ourselves in our hometowns. Each one encouraged all to remain wary of this looming threat and to stay involved by writing their State representatives.
Referring to her recent contacts and experience in the Democracy School, organized by attorneys from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (www.CELDF.org), Barton went on to say that Towns need to go even further to protect themselves from the encroaching threat of State and corporate aggressions which would over-ride local decision-making. She cited the fact that other communities who have put binding general laws on the books which do not allow huge corporations to declare "personhood" in pursuit of corporate gain in their towns, have been very effective at protecting their local governments' and citizens' Constitutional rights to rule themselves as they see fit.
After the comment period concluded, Supervisor Gozelski asked the board members if they had any comments. Councilman Steve Tarbell noted that he had kept a tally since the debate over the issue had began, which totaled 238 people that had contacted him who were against industrial wind turbines in the Town of Castile, and only 6 that had contacted him who were for industrial turbines in the Town of Castile. Councilman Tarbell said, "We have to listen to what the majority of our constituents are telling us."
Councilman Stan Klein questioned the crowd, "Is there anyone here who has an opposing viewpoint to what has been stated this evening? You don't have to say anything, just raise your hand." No one answered or raised their hand.
Councilman Tarbell then made the motion to pass the law banning industrial turbines in the Town of Castile. Councilwoman Linda Little seconded the motion, and all present (Councilman Sam Monteleone was absent) voted unanimously to pass the law.
The vote was followed by a standing ovation from the crowd for the Town Board. Supervisor Gozelski then said, "It is really the Planning Board who we should be thanking for all their dedication and hard work on this law." Gozelski then asked members of the Planning Board who were present to stand, and they were given a standing ovation by the crowd and the Town Board members. ~ mkb
US Fish and WIldlife Service Denys DEIS for Clayton & Orleans Townships
July 13, 2007, The Town of Clayton Planning Board received an official letter from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service denying the approval for the 62 proposed wind turbines called Horse Creek Wind Farm in the townships of Clayton and Orleans. This 16 page document reprimanded and frankly quite strict with PPM Energy in their lack of the many ommissions and incomplete information pertaining to natural resources found or expected in the project areas.
We are elated but surprised at the outcome? No, as we believe it was in the plans of PPM Energy to subject us to a DGEIS (yes generic in nature). They have further game plans in motion. They have been in this game far longer than us and they know all the game rules more than we do, but we are trying desperately to be kept informed. PPM has put them and us through, unnecessarily, a great amount of work that should not be there in the first place. We should have been given a DEIS with specific detail not a DGEIS.
ECCO of Jefferson County is a newly formed group since April of citizens of Clayton, Orleans, and Brownville Townships. We are located along the St. Lawrence River,(home of the scenic 1000s resort), Wellsley Island and 11 miles inland to Gunns Corners, NY and we are located next to Ft. Drum, NY which is the home of one of the largest military bases in the US.
We must continue in our efforts to oppose proposed wind energy plant locating around homes until they are proven without a doubt to be safe for humans and wildlife. We need alliances to stand together and offer each other as many resources that we can. I have written to many agencies seeking their help and I get no where. It however shows that we have not gone far enough to reach the right people when I hear that someone like Carol E. Murphy,Executive Director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Inc., who is one of the prime agencies who gets quoted by the newsmedia across the country all the time in their stance on wind energy, says that she has received very "little responses" regarding a problem with noise from turbines. Maybe it is time to write to the right people. So send to her your documentations and your concerns. While at it copy these to Lt. Gov. Patterson's Task Force. They want to hear our concerns and do it now. (Look up NYS Lt. Gov. Patterson's Task Force and send a copy to each of the persons on the task force. Let them hear of our concerns. They will be making recommendations to our government for future development.I am sure other states will follow what this task force does, if they have not already propsed their own)
P.Miller Vice-Presdient
ECCO
We are elated but surprised at the outcome? No, as we believe it was in the plans of PPM Energy to subject us to a DGEIS (yes generic in nature). They have further game plans in motion. They have been in this game far longer than us and they know all the game rules more than we do, but we are trying desperately to be kept informed. PPM has put them and us through, unnecessarily, a great amount of work that should not be there in the first place. We should have been given a DEIS with specific detail not a DGEIS.
ECCO of Jefferson County is a newly formed group since April of citizens of Clayton, Orleans, and Brownville Townships. We are located along the St. Lawrence River,(home of the scenic 1000s resort), Wellsley Island and 11 miles inland to Gunns Corners, NY and we are located next to Ft. Drum, NY which is the home of one of the largest military bases in the US.
We must continue in our efforts to oppose proposed wind energy plant locating around homes until they are proven without a doubt to be safe for humans and wildlife. We need alliances to stand together and offer each other as many resources that we can. I have written to many agencies seeking their help and I get no where. It however shows that we have not gone far enough to reach the right people when I hear that someone like Carol E. Murphy,Executive Director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Inc., who is one of the prime agencies who gets quoted by the newsmedia across the country all the time in their stance on wind energy, says that she has received very "little responses" regarding a problem with noise from turbines. Maybe it is time to write to the right people. So send to her your documentations and your concerns. While at it copy these to Lt. Gov. Patterson's Task Force. They want to hear our concerns and do it now. (Look up NYS Lt. Gov. Patterson's Task Force and send a copy to each of the persons on the task force. Let them hear of our concerns. They will be making recommendations to our government for future development.I am sure other states will follow what this task force does, if they have not already propsed their own)
P.Miller Vice-Presdient
ECCO
Conservation Is More Effective Than Wind Energy
Pointing to the very small contribution of wind, National Wind Watch calls for conservation instead of industrialization of rural and wild landscapes
Press Release Contact: Eric Rosenbloom, East Hardwick, Vermont, President
David Roberson, Rowe, Massachusetts, Vice-President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rowe, Mass., July 30, 2007 -- The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that if the world's nations pursue carbon-reducing plans they are currently considering, then in 2030 there could be 18 times more electricity generated from the wind than there was in 2004.{1}
But because of continuing growth in demand, that would still represent less than five percent of the world's electricity production.{2}
In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy projects that wind's share of electricity production will be less than one percent in 2030.{3}
National Wind Watch (NWW), a coalition of groups and individuals providing information about industrial wind energy development, says that conservation could easily make up wind's small potential contribution.
"It is obvious -- even in the IEA's very hopeful scenario -- that wind will never be an important part of electricity production," says NWW president Eric Rosenbloom, author of "A Problem With Wind Power".{4} "Wind does not now nor will it ever replace other sources to any significant degree," Rosenbloom says. He adds, "That is not to endorse any other source as problem free, it is simply facing the fact that wind is not a viable alternative."
Since wind's potential contribution is so small, modest conservation would avoid the adverse impacts of wind energy development, according to National Wind Watch.
Industrial-scale wind turbines are now typically well over 400 feet tall to the tip of their blades. They weigh anywhere from 150 to 350 tons. The blades sweep a vertical air space of 1.5 to 2 acres with tip speeds between 150 and 200 mph.{5} Each turbine requires acres of clearance and is secured in a buried platform of tons of steel-reinforced concrete.
Wind energy companies are targeting vulnerable rural communities and landscapes for their construction. Developers are building roads and wind power plants in wilderness areas, particularly on prominent ridge lines.
In May, the U.S. Congress was told about the increasing threat to birds and bats from unregulated wind energy development in migratory pathways and the degradation and fragmentation of habitat.{6} The results of a 5-month study of the new giant turbines on New York's Tug Hill plateau suggest that the annual toll for the complete facility is more than 16,000 birds and bats.{7}
Reports of health problems caused by noise from the machines are increasing. A team in Portugal investigating heart, lung, and nerve damage from industrial low-frequency noise has found that the conditions for causing "vibroacoustic disease" exist inside houses near large wind turbines.{8} Canadian News has reported families forced to leave their homes because of headaches, dizziness, irritability, and sheer lack of sleep.{9} A couple in England has publicized their experience of intrusive noise from turbines near their farm.{10} An English physician has interviewed residents around wind energy facilities and found serious noise problems to be commonplace.{11} In Maine, neighbors of the Mars Hill facility were shocked by the noise as soon as the first turbine was turned on.{12} Most of these people were initially supportive of the projects and believed the developers' assurances that they would not experience any problems.
"This is not green energy but a destructive boondoggle. It is even more intolerable that we as taxpayers are paying for it -- in so many ways", says NWW member Sue Sliwinski of New York.
Since the IEA shows that large-scale wind energy will not change anything for the better, and increasing evidence shows how much damage it does, National Wind Watch says that conserving even a small amount of electricity every year is obviously a better choice.
A little conservation can replace the perceived need to build giant wind turbines that do so much more harm than good.
Press Release Contact: Eric Rosenbloom, East Hardwick, Vermont, President
David Roberson, Rowe, Massachusetts, Vice-President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rowe, Mass., July 30, 2007 -- The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that if the world's nations pursue carbon-reducing plans they are currently considering, then in 2030 there could be 18 times more electricity generated from the wind than there was in 2004.{1}
But because of continuing growth in demand, that would still represent less than five percent of the world's electricity production.{2}
In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy projects that wind's share of electricity production will be less than one percent in 2030.{3}
National Wind Watch (NWW), a coalition of groups and individuals providing information about industrial wind energy development, says that conservation could easily make up wind's small potential contribution.
"It is obvious -- even in the IEA's very hopeful scenario -- that wind will never be an important part of electricity production," says NWW president Eric Rosenbloom, author of "A Problem With Wind Power".{4} "Wind does not now nor will it ever replace other sources to any significant degree," Rosenbloom says. He adds, "That is not to endorse any other source as problem free, it is simply facing the fact that wind is not a viable alternative."
Since wind's potential contribution is so small, modest conservation would avoid the adverse impacts of wind energy development, according to National Wind Watch.
Industrial-scale wind turbines are now typically well over 400 feet tall to the tip of their blades. They weigh anywhere from 150 to 350 tons. The blades sweep a vertical air space of 1.5 to 2 acres with tip speeds between 150 and 200 mph.{5} Each turbine requires acres of clearance and is secured in a buried platform of tons of steel-reinforced concrete.
Wind energy companies are targeting vulnerable rural communities and landscapes for their construction. Developers are building roads and wind power plants in wilderness areas, particularly on prominent ridge lines.
In May, the U.S. Congress was told about the increasing threat to birds and bats from unregulated wind energy development in migratory pathways and the degradation and fragmentation of habitat.{6} The results of a 5-month study of the new giant turbines on New York's Tug Hill plateau suggest that the annual toll for the complete facility is more than 16,000 birds and bats.{7}
Reports of health problems caused by noise from the machines are increasing. A team in Portugal investigating heart, lung, and nerve damage from industrial low-frequency noise has found that the conditions for causing "vibroacoustic disease" exist inside houses near large wind turbines.{8} Canadian News has reported families forced to leave their homes because of headaches, dizziness, irritability, and sheer lack of sleep.{9} A couple in England has publicized their experience of intrusive noise from turbines near their farm.{10} An English physician has interviewed residents around wind energy facilities and found serious noise problems to be commonplace.{11} In Maine, neighbors of the Mars Hill facility were shocked by the noise as soon as the first turbine was turned on.{12} Most of these people were initially supportive of the projects and believed the developers' assurances that they would not experience any problems.
"This is not green energy but a destructive boondoggle. It is even more intolerable that we as taxpayers are paying for it -- in so many ways", says NWW member Sue Sliwinski of New York.
Since the IEA shows that large-scale wind energy will not change anything for the better, and increasing evidence shows how much damage it does, National Wind Watch says that conserving even a small amount of electricity every year is obviously a better choice.
A little conservation can replace the perceived need to build giant wind turbines that do so much more harm than good.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Beware of easements easing out property rights by Doug Kniffen
Abuse of easement rights can be, in some ways, worse than eminent domain condemnations for private party benefit. With eminent domain, a local government takes away private property for public benefit, and compensates the property owner for the loss. Typically, governments do this when expanding public benefits, such as roads, that are paid for by public money.
This issue was in the national news not long ago. Some local governments started using eminent domain to benefit private interests. The argument was made that economic redevelopment may potentially generate more tax revenue, and that that alone was sufficient to condemn current use of private property.
Initially, disagreements over eminent domain resulted when a for-profit developer wanted to acquire an assemblage of small residential parcels. Some property owners were willing to sell, some were not, and some recognized that free market principles made their parcel more valuable than it would be without assemblage.
The developer convinced the local government to condemn the desired properties, not only forcing sale upon those not willing to sell, but also driving down the price of those rightfully asking more than their property would be worth without assemblage. Opposing arguments went through the courts and decisions favored private moneyed interests over individual property rights. There was considerable public outcry at these decisions.
(Click to read entire article)
This issue was in the national news not long ago. Some local governments started using eminent domain to benefit private interests. The argument was made that economic redevelopment may potentially generate more tax revenue, and that that alone was sufficient to condemn current use of private property.
Initially, disagreements over eminent domain resulted when a for-profit developer wanted to acquire an assemblage of small residential parcels. Some property owners were willing to sell, some were not, and some recognized that free market principles made their parcel more valuable than it would be without assemblage.
The developer convinced the local government to condemn the desired properties, not only forcing sale upon those not willing to sell, but also driving down the price of those rightfully asking more than their property would be worth without assemblage. Opposing arguments went through the courts and decisions favored private moneyed interests over individual property rights. There was considerable public outcry at these decisions.
(Click to read entire article)
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Farm group calls for cautious approach to wind farms; Warns of possible adverse effects on tourism, taxes
The Bruce County Federation of Agriculture is calling for measures to protect the county's tourism industry, farming operations and municipalities from the rapidly developing wind energy industry.
"Recent studies in other countries have shown that large wind generating areas and tourism are not compatible. It would be a shame to lose the gains we have made in tourism by not having planning in place to make sure our tourism industry stays vibrant," federation president Robert Emerson told Bruce County council's agriculture, tourism and planning committee on Thursday.
The committee was looking at wind energy policy as part of the county's five-year review of its official plan and because of concerns raised by residents and the industry over the lack of adequate regulations.
Committee members later approved 15 recommendation that chair Charlie Bagnato described as a beginning of more policies to regulate wind energy development.
The recommendations include one calling on developers to provide clearer information about shadow flicker and noise and a provision for a complaint protocol, so members of the public can make their concerns known to the developer and the county.
(Click to read entire article)
"Recent studies in other countries have shown that large wind generating areas and tourism are not compatible. It would be a shame to lose the gains we have made in tourism by not having planning in place to make sure our tourism industry stays vibrant," federation president Robert Emerson told Bruce County council's agriculture, tourism and planning committee on Thursday.
The committee was looking at wind energy policy as part of the county's five-year review of its official plan and because of concerns raised by residents and the industry over the lack of adequate regulations.
Committee members later approved 15 recommendation that chair Charlie Bagnato described as a beginning of more policies to regulate wind energy development.
The recommendations include one calling on developers to provide clearer information about shadow flicker and noise and a provision for a complaint protocol, so members of the public can make their concerns known to the developer and the county.
(Click to read entire article)
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Devil IS in the Details by Judith Hall
It has recently been brought to my attention from a legal source that Board members, and consultants and attorneys providing expertise to those boards can be sued if it is found they were negligent in the granting of Special Use Permits. Part of the case law cites specifically the need to due proper diligence and following the SEQR process correctly.
“A town and its principals have an obligation to abide by the law and act responsibly in considering the application for special use permits. If the town or its principals act negligently in granting such a permit, they could be sued by persons who may have been injured or suffered damage to their property as a result of the act.”
A town has a lawful and substantial interest in the safety of its citizens. It also has a liability exposure from the granting of special use permits on private land. To those in Cohocton where we know the Local Windmill Laws are still under litigation tread carefully before you issue any more permits for which we know the process has been flawed.
Judith Hall
“A town and its principals have an obligation to abide by the law and act responsibly in considering the application for special use permits. If the town or its principals act negligently in granting such a permit, they could be sued by persons who may have been injured or suffered damage to their property as a result of the act.”
A town has a lawful and substantial interest in the safety of its citizens. It also has a liability exposure from the granting of special use permits on private land. To those in Cohocton where we know the Local Windmill Laws are still under litigation tread carefully before you issue any more permits for which we know the process has been flawed.
Judith Hall
Schumer wary of utility sale by Daniel Wallace
(July 27, 2007) — Sen. Charles Schumer won't support Iberdrola's proposed takeover of Energy East until the Spanish utility company puts a few promises in writing.
"This merger requires the sign-off from both federal and state regulators. ... I want more specifics from Iberdrola to ensure that monthly utility bills will remain low and service quality remains high for Rochester-area residents," Schumer said Thursday.
Low-cost energy, redevelopment of the Russell Station and job retention are other issues of concern to New York's senior Democratic senator.
"We're putting them on notice we're not going to let what happened with National Grid happen here," said Schumer, who met Thursday with Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galรกn, Iberdrola's chairman and chief executive, and Wes von Schack, chairman and CEO of Energy East Corp.
Under National Grid, a Great Britain utility company that took over Niagara Mohawk four years ago, central New York and Capital Region customers frequently have experienced "soaring" energy rates, power outages and blackouts, according to Schumer.
Though Iberdrola is in a different class, with an A-credit rating for reliability, Schumer said he doesn't want to see New Yorkers go through another "shoddy" foreign takeover.
The Spanish utility giant is offering $4.5 billion cash for Energy East, which is Rochester Gas and Electric's parent company.
Iberdrola serves 24 million customers in eight different markets. Energy East would be its only U.S. presence.
DJWALLAC@DemocratandChronicle.com
"This merger requires the sign-off from both federal and state regulators. ... I want more specifics from Iberdrola to ensure that monthly utility bills will remain low and service quality remains high for Rochester-area residents," Schumer said Thursday.
Low-cost energy, redevelopment of the Russell Station and job retention are other issues of concern to New York's senior Democratic senator.
"We're putting them on notice we're not going to let what happened with National Grid happen here," said Schumer, who met Thursday with Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galรกn, Iberdrola's chairman and chief executive, and Wes von Schack, chairman and CEO of Energy East Corp.
Under National Grid, a Great Britain utility company that took over Niagara Mohawk four years ago, central New York and Capital Region customers frequently have experienced "soaring" energy rates, power outages and blackouts, according to Schumer.
Though Iberdrola is in a different class, with an A-credit rating for reliability, Schumer said he doesn't want to see New Yorkers go through another "shoddy" foreign takeover.
The Spanish utility giant is offering $4.5 billion cash for Energy East, which is Rochester Gas and Electric's parent company.
Iberdrola serves 24 million customers in eight different markets. Energy East would be its only U.S. presence.
DJWALLAC@DemocratandChronicle.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Robert C. Strasburg II Challenge to Debate
COHOCTON VOTERS
THIS IS THE SIXTH PUBLIC CHALLENGE FOR A PUBLIC DEBATE THAT I HAVE OFFERED WITH NO TAKERS FROM COHOCTON TOWN SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS, ANY UPC LEASEHOLDER, ANY YES WIND MEMBER, AND ANY PRO UPC COHOCTON GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TO DEBATE ME. I ASK AGAIN, PLEASE DEBATE ME BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH OF THIS YEAR ON THE SUBJECT OF:
IS INDUSTRIAL WIND POWER “AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED” THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR COHOCTON?
I HAVE REPEATEDLY MADE THE ABOVE CHALLENGE AND THEY WILL NOT ANSWER ME. THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE FACT THAT THEIR CURRENT AGENDA WILL NOT STAND PUBLIC SCRUTINY… YOUR SCRUTINY. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE. CHANGE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANYONE. THERE IS GREAT CONTRAST BETWEEN MY OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT FOR COHOCTON AND THAT OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCES IN OUR OPINIONS IS NOT PERSONAL ATTACK.
MY NAME IS ROBERT C. STRASBURG II. I HAVE BEEN A 19 YEAR RESIDENT IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON AND I AM RUNNING IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 AND I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THE LOGIC BEHIND THEIR REFUSAL TO DEBATE ME IN PUBLIC IS SIMPLE. AS LONG AS THEY CAN SIT BEHIND THEIR TABLES IN A BOARD MEETING, THEY CAN CONTROL THE DIALOG. CONTROLLING DIALOG WITH NO BACK AND FORTH INTERACTION ASSURES THAT THEIR AGENDA IS ALWAYS PUT FORTH IN A POSITIVE WAY WITHOUT EXPOSING THE OTHER SIDES OF THE ISSUES. NEWSPAPERS WILL TAKE ANY PRINT. THEY PRINT ONLY THEIR SIDE OF THEIR AGENDA AND WILL NOT COME OUT IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE ARENA WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WILL PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING SOUND GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL COHOCTON RESIDENTS, THEIR AGENDA WILL BE EXPOSED IN FULL, AS IT IS, AND IT WILL BE OVER IF THEY DO.
IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT I AM OPPOSED TO ALL WIND PROJECTS IN COHOCTON AND THAT IS WHY I AM RUNNING FOR SUPERVISOR. IF YOU HAVE FOLLOWED MY POSTINGS ON THE INTERNET AND THIS PAPER, YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I AM OPPOSED TO WIND IN COHOCTON “AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED” BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE WE AS RESIDENTS ARE NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED. IN MY OPINION, THE PROJECT, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS A LIABILITY TO OUR TOWN AND NOT AN ASSET. IT IS BEING SOLD BY THIS ADMINISTRATION AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT WILL OFFER GREAT TAX SAVINGS TO OUR TOWN RESIDENTS.
FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF TUG HILL (THE HOME OF THE LARGEST WIND FARM IN NEW YORK STATE) JUST EXPERIENCED A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OF THE WIND FARMS OPERATION. A SELECT FEW LANDOWNERS MAKE A LOT OF MONEY AND THE REST OF THE TOWN NOW SUFFERS FOR IT! FACT: POLITICIANS FROM OTHER TOWNS HAVE RAILROADED THESE WIND FARMS IN AND THEN RESIGNED
THEIR POSTS IN THE GOVERNMENT AND WENT TO WORK FOR THE WIND FARM!
THE MAJORITY OF PRO-WIND ADS BEING POSTED IN THE VALLEY NEWS ARE FROM PEOPLE IN LINE TO RECEIVE A CHECK FROM LEASING THEIR PROPERTY TO UPC, ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN SURVEYING LAND FOR A FEE FOR UPC, ARE CURRENTLY FAMILY MEMBERS OF LEASEHOLDERS, ARE CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND/OR ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF UPC. THESE ARE THE THINGS HIDDEN BEHIND THE PRINT YOU SEE. THIS IS WHY NONE OF THEM WILL COME OUT AND DEBATE ME!
THE TEST TO SEE IF YOU ARE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH IS TO DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, ESPECIALLY SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS, MEET ME IN PUBLIC DEBATE BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 18TH REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. IF HE WILL NOT MEET MY CHALLENGE FOR A DEBATE IN PUBLIC, IN FRONT OF YOU AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS TO YOU, THEN I ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR ME AND MY FELLOW REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES IN THAT SEPTEMBER 18TH PRIMARY. I INVITE ALL VOTERS, NO MATTER YOUR PARTY, TO VOTE FOR MY FELLOW REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES (PLEASE WATCH FOR OUR COMING ADS WITH THEIR NAMES) AND MYSELF IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER AND I PLEDGE TO YOU AN OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT THAT WILL IMMEDIATELY OPEN CHANNELS WITH ALL TOWNSPEOPLE AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU.
I INVITE YOU TO JOIN ME BY VOTING FOR ME, ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES, DUSTING OFF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS TOWN THAT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1970 (37 YEARS!) AND GO TO WORK UPDATING IT TO BUILD A FUTURE FOR THIS TOWN BY PROPER PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND ACTION.
THE REASON THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN MY OPINION, IS THE FACT THAT THE LAW DEMANDS THAT THAT PROCESS OF UPDATING BE OPEN TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF COHOCTON. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE LAST THING THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION WANTS IS THE PUBLIC INVOLVED. INVOLVEMENT MEANS BACK AND FORTH DIALOG AND ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THIS FROM THIS GOVERNMENT.
THE TOWN OF COHOCTON IS STRUGGLING FROM THE EFFECTS OF NEGLECT. IN MY OPINION, THIS NEGLECT IS WILLFUL BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. POLITICS AS USUAL HAS PRODUCED AN ADMINISTRATION CONCERNED ONLY WITH A SELECT FEW, WHILE THE REST OF THE MAJORITY WATCHES OUR CHILDREN GROW UP AND LEAVE THIS TOWN FOR AREAS OF GREATER OPPORTUNITY. WHY IS THERE NOT MORE OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR THE MAJORITY? THE VERY SIMPLE REASON IT IS NOT HERE FOR THE MAJORITY, IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRUDENTLY PLANNED FOR IN THE PAST FOR THE MAJORITY. WHAT IS BEING PLANNED FOR NOW IS THAT THE SAME SELECT FEW WILL REAP HUGE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, WHILE THE REST BEARS THE BURDEN OF THEIR PROSPERITY.
YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT, ALONG WITH OTHERS CAN PUT THIS TOWN IN THE LEADERSHIP HANDS OF PEOPLE COMMITTED TO SERVING COHOCTON AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.
NOW I WILL PREDICT THE RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE FROM JACK ZIGENFUS AND HIS ADMINISTRATION AND THOSE IN LINE TO RECEIVE A CHECK FROM UPC. I PREDICT IT WILL BE, NOT TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU IN PUBLIC, BUT INSTEAD, WILL BE THAT OF SILENCE, NO RESPONSE AT ALL, OR PERSONAL ATTACK. ATTACK ON ME, REFORM COHOCTON AND AGAIN… ONLY THEIR ONE-SIDED PORTRAYAL OF ISSUES. THERE IS NOT ONE OF THEM WITH THE COURAGE TO FACE ME (REALLY THEY DO NOT WANT TO FACE YOU) IN PUBLIC WITH ANSWERS TO THE HARD QUESTIONS THEY ARE AVOIDING.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT COHOCTON, LOOK DEEP INTO THIS ISSUE AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE, DO NOT BE FOOLED BY ONE SIDED PRINT! THERE IS NO SPIN IN THIS ARTICLE. I AM WILLING TO STAND IN FRONT OF YOU, IN PUBLIC, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTION ASKED OF ME. IS SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS WILLING TO DO THIS?
Robert C. Strasburg II 585-384-9318 www.reformcohocton.org
Sweep clean past failures!
A bright future demands new leadership.
THIS IS THE SIXTH PUBLIC CHALLENGE FOR A PUBLIC DEBATE THAT I HAVE OFFERED WITH NO TAKERS FROM COHOCTON TOWN SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS, ANY UPC LEASEHOLDER, ANY YES WIND MEMBER, AND ANY PRO UPC COHOCTON GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TO DEBATE ME. I ASK AGAIN, PLEASE DEBATE ME BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH OF THIS YEAR ON THE SUBJECT OF:
IS INDUSTRIAL WIND POWER “AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED” THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR COHOCTON?
I HAVE REPEATEDLY MADE THE ABOVE CHALLENGE AND THEY WILL NOT ANSWER ME. THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE FACT THAT THEIR CURRENT AGENDA WILL NOT STAND PUBLIC SCRUTINY… YOUR SCRUTINY. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE. CHANGE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANYONE. THERE IS GREAT CONTRAST BETWEEN MY OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT FOR COHOCTON AND THAT OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCES IN OUR OPINIONS IS NOT PERSONAL ATTACK.
MY NAME IS ROBERT C. STRASBURG II. I HAVE BEEN A 19 YEAR RESIDENT IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON AND I AM RUNNING IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 AND I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THE LOGIC BEHIND THEIR REFUSAL TO DEBATE ME IN PUBLIC IS SIMPLE. AS LONG AS THEY CAN SIT BEHIND THEIR TABLES IN A BOARD MEETING, THEY CAN CONTROL THE DIALOG. CONTROLLING DIALOG WITH NO BACK AND FORTH INTERACTION ASSURES THAT THEIR AGENDA IS ALWAYS PUT FORTH IN A POSITIVE WAY WITHOUT EXPOSING THE OTHER SIDES OF THE ISSUES. NEWSPAPERS WILL TAKE ANY PRINT. THEY PRINT ONLY THEIR SIDE OF THEIR AGENDA AND WILL NOT COME OUT IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE ARENA WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WILL PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING SOUND GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL COHOCTON RESIDENTS, THEIR AGENDA WILL BE EXPOSED IN FULL, AS IT IS, AND IT WILL BE OVER IF THEY DO.
IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT I AM OPPOSED TO ALL WIND PROJECTS IN COHOCTON AND THAT IS WHY I AM RUNNING FOR SUPERVISOR. IF YOU HAVE FOLLOWED MY POSTINGS ON THE INTERNET AND THIS PAPER, YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I AM OPPOSED TO WIND IN COHOCTON “AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED” BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE WE AS RESIDENTS ARE NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED. IN MY OPINION, THE PROJECT, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS A LIABILITY TO OUR TOWN AND NOT AN ASSET. IT IS BEING SOLD BY THIS ADMINISTRATION AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT WILL OFFER GREAT TAX SAVINGS TO OUR TOWN RESIDENTS.
FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF TUG HILL (THE HOME OF THE LARGEST WIND FARM IN NEW YORK STATE) JUST EXPERIENCED A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OF THE WIND FARMS OPERATION. A SELECT FEW LANDOWNERS MAKE A LOT OF MONEY AND THE REST OF THE TOWN NOW SUFFERS FOR IT! FACT: POLITICIANS FROM OTHER TOWNS HAVE RAILROADED THESE WIND FARMS IN AND THEN RESIGNED
THEIR POSTS IN THE GOVERNMENT AND WENT TO WORK FOR THE WIND FARM!
THE MAJORITY OF PRO-WIND ADS BEING POSTED IN THE VALLEY NEWS ARE FROM PEOPLE IN LINE TO RECEIVE A CHECK FROM LEASING THEIR PROPERTY TO UPC, ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN SURVEYING LAND FOR A FEE FOR UPC, ARE CURRENTLY FAMILY MEMBERS OF LEASEHOLDERS, ARE CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND/OR ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF UPC. THESE ARE THE THINGS HIDDEN BEHIND THE PRINT YOU SEE. THIS IS WHY NONE OF THEM WILL COME OUT AND DEBATE ME!
THE TEST TO SEE IF YOU ARE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH IS TO DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, ESPECIALLY SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS, MEET ME IN PUBLIC DEBATE BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 18TH REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. IF HE WILL NOT MEET MY CHALLENGE FOR A DEBATE IN PUBLIC, IN FRONT OF YOU AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS TO YOU, THEN I ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR ME AND MY FELLOW REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES IN THAT SEPTEMBER 18TH PRIMARY. I INVITE ALL VOTERS, NO MATTER YOUR PARTY, TO VOTE FOR MY FELLOW REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES (PLEASE WATCH FOR OUR COMING ADS WITH THEIR NAMES) AND MYSELF IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER AND I PLEDGE TO YOU AN OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT THAT WILL IMMEDIATELY OPEN CHANNELS WITH ALL TOWNSPEOPLE AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU.
I INVITE YOU TO JOIN ME BY VOTING FOR ME, ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES, DUSTING OFF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS TOWN THAT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1970 (37 YEARS!) AND GO TO WORK UPDATING IT TO BUILD A FUTURE FOR THIS TOWN BY PROPER PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND ACTION.
THE REASON THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN MY OPINION, IS THE FACT THAT THE LAW DEMANDS THAT THAT PROCESS OF UPDATING BE OPEN TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF COHOCTON. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE LAST THING THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION WANTS IS THE PUBLIC INVOLVED. INVOLVEMENT MEANS BACK AND FORTH DIALOG AND ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THIS FROM THIS GOVERNMENT.
THE TOWN OF COHOCTON IS STRUGGLING FROM THE EFFECTS OF NEGLECT. IN MY OPINION, THIS NEGLECT IS WILLFUL BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. POLITICS AS USUAL HAS PRODUCED AN ADMINISTRATION CONCERNED ONLY WITH A SELECT FEW, WHILE THE REST OF THE MAJORITY WATCHES OUR CHILDREN GROW UP AND LEAVE THIS TOWN FOR AREAS OF GREATER OPPORTUNITY. WHY IS THERE NOT MORE OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR THE MAJORITY? THE VERY SIMPLE REASON IT IS NOT HERE FOR THE MAJORITY, IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRUDENTLY PLANNED FOR IN THE PAST FOR THE MAJORITY. WHAT IS BEING PLANNED FOR NOW IS THAT THE SAME SELECT FEW WILL REAP HUGE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, WHILE THE REST BEARS THE BURDEN OF THEIR PROSPERITY.
YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT, ALONG WITH OTHERS CAN PUT THIS TOWN IN THE LEADERSHIP HANDS OF PEOPLE COMMITTED TO SERVING COHOCTON AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.
NOW I WILL PREDICT THE RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE FROM JACK ZIGENFUS AND HIS ADMINISTRATION AND THOSE IN LINE TO RECEIVE A CHECK FROM UPC. I PREDICT IT WILL BE, NOT TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU IN PUBLIC, BUT INSTEAD, WILL BE THAT OF SILENCE, NO RESPONSE AT ALL, OR PERSONAL ATTACK. ATTACK ON ME, REFORM COHOCTON AND AGAIN… ONLY THEIR ONE-SIDED PORTRAYAL OF ISSUES. THERE IS NOT ONE OF THEM WITH THE COURAGE TO FACE ME (REALLY THEY DO NOT WANT TO FACE YOU) IN PUBLIC WITH ANSWERS TO THE HARD QUESTIONS THEY ARE AVOIDING.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT COHOCTON, LOOK DEEP INTO THIS ISSUE AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE, DO NOT BE FOOLED BY ONE SIDED PRINT! THERE IS NO SPIN IN THIS ARTICLE. I AM WILLING TO STAND IN FRONT OF YOU, IN PUBLIC, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTION ASKED OF ME. IS SUPERVISOR JACK ZIGENFUS WILLING TO DO THIS?
Robert C. Strasburg II 585-384-9318 www.reformcohocton.org
A bright future demands new leadership.
Second lawsuit filed against Town of Howard: Town's wind law being challenged by residents again by ROB MONTANA
The Town of Howard is headed back to court.
Art Giacalone, a Buffalo-based lawyer representing a group of Howard residents, informed members of the media via e-mail that his clients have filed a second lawsuit against the town in regard to its wind energy law. The case will be handled again by Judge Joseph Valentino, and the first appearance is slated for 2 p.m. Sept. 6 in Rochester.
The Article 78 proceeding was filed on behalf of the Howard residents - Eric and Kyle Hosmer, Gerald Hedman, Richard Mariotto, James Lindsay, and William and Nikki Harkenrider - against the Howard town and planning boards, EverPower Global, Howard Wind LLC and Councilman Bill Hatch.
The suit calls for the annulment and setting aside of the town's Local Law No. 1 of 2007, the town's code of ethics law; Local Law No. 2 of 2007, the town's planning board law; and Local Law No. 3 of 2007, the amended wind energy facilities law. It also requests the negative declaration - under the State Environmental Quality Review Act - for the adoption of the wind energy facilities law be annulled and set aside.
The lawsuit also asks that Hatch be removed from his position as town board member, alleging he had been “engaging in fraudulent conduct, violating the letter and spirit of General Municipal Law Article 18 (Conflicts of Interest of Municipal Officers and Employees), and breaching his fiduciary duty to the residents of the Town of Howard.”
Giacalone, as well as his clients, declined to comment on the record concerning the pending lawsuit. Giacalone, however, did not that Valentino had not yet ruled on the town's motion to dismiss “as moot” the surviving claims from the first lawsuit. He said that means two suits are now pending against the town.
Tom Reed, Howard's town attorney, could not be reached for comment by press time.
The new suit is taking on a trio of laws approved by the town board in March, despite numerous complaints from the nearly 100 people that attended the public hearings on the then-proposed laws. After dealing with public comments for around two hours, the board approved all three local laws unanimously.
The wind law amendments changed the way permits will be approved, taking the power from the town board and giving it to the planning board, which Reed said was done as a result of the first lawsuit against the town that alleged conflict of interest by board members that had ties to a proposed wind farm in Howard.
Giacalone had comments on the town's code of ethics, saying it would not help anyone, and does not let the residents know what the standards are.
“This code of ethics should be letting the town board members know what is right and what is not right,” he said. “Your code of ethics does not do that.
“What's the purpose of this law?” he said. “If it's just to check it off, then you're doing the public a disservice.”
The planning board local law provided for the appointment of up to four alternates to the planning board, to be appointed by the town board. The alternates would serve if a regular member is “unable to participate in matters before the Town Planning Board because of a conflict of interest, illness or other absence.” Alternates would be appointed for one-year terms.
Giacalone had issues with it, saying the planning board law would just help the town board avoid having to make difficult decisions. He said it was a “cozy way” for the town to remove the conflict impression of the decision-making process.
“You're passing on a very important power,” Giacalone said. “It's a very inadequate way to deal with it.”
Art Giacalone, a Buffalo-based lawyer representing a group of Howard residents, informed members of the media via e-mail that his clients have filed a second lawsuit against the town in regard to its wind energy law. The case will be handled again by Judge Joseph Valentino, and the first appearance is slated for 2 p.m. Sept. 6 in Rochester.
The Article 78 proceeding was filed on behalf of the Howard residents - Eric and Kyle Hosmer, Gerald Hedman, Richard Mariotto, James Lindsay, and William and Nikki Harkenrider - against the Howard town and planning boards, EverPower Global, Howard Wind LLC and Councilman Bill Hatch.
The suit calls for the annulment and setting aside of the town's Local Law No. 1 of 2007, the town's code of ethics law; Local Law No. 2 of 2007, the town's planning board law; and Local Law No. 3 of 2007, the amended wind energy facilities law. It also requests the negative declaration - under the State Environmental Quality Review Act - for the adoption of the wind energy facilities law be annulled and set aside.
The lawsuit also asks that Hatch be removed from his position as town board member, alleging he had been “engaging in fraudulent conduct, violating the letter and spirit of General Municipal Law Article 18 (Conflicts of Interest of Municipal Officers and Employees), and breaching his fiduciary duty to the residents of the Town of Howard.”
Giacalone, as well as his clients, declined to comment on the record concerning the pending lawsuit. Giacalone, however, did not that Valentino had not yet ruled on the town's motion to dismiss “as moot” the surviving claims from the first lawsuit. He said that means two suits are now pending against the town.
Tom Reed, Howard's town attorney, could not be reached for comment by press time.
The new suit is taking on a trio of laws approved by the town board in March, despite numerous complaints from the nearly 100 people that attended the public hearings on the then-proposed laws. After dealing with public comments for around two hours, the board approved all three local laws unanimously.
The wind law amendments changed the way permits will be approved, taking the power from the town board and giving it to the planning board, which Reed said was done as a result of the first lawsuit against the town that alleged conflict of interest by board members that had ties to a proposed wind farm in Howard.
Giacalone had comments on the town's code of ethics, saying it would not help anyone, and does not let the residents know what the standards are.
“This code of ethics should be letting the town board members know what is right and what is not right,” he said. “Your code of ethics does not do that.
“What's the purpose of this law?” he said. “If it's just to check it off, then you're doing the public a disservice.”
The planning board local law provided for the appointment of up to four alternates to the planning board, to be appointed by the town board. The alternates would serve if a regular member is “unable to participate in matters before the Town Planning Board because of a conflict of interest, illness or other absence.” Alternates would be appointed for one-year terms.
Giacalone had issues with it, saying the planning board law would just help the town board avoid having to make difficult decisions. He said it was a “cozy way” for the town to remove the conflict impression of the decision-making process.
“You're passing on a very important power,” Giacalone said. “It's a very inadequate way to deal with it.”
Monday, July 23, 2007
Jordanville Wind Project In Court
Members of Advocates for Stark have begun Article 78 proceedings with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Onondaga against the Town of Warren Town Board, Town of Stark Town Board, Jordanville Wind, LLC, Inc., and Community Energy, Inc. The Warren Town Board is the lead agency under New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) for a project proposed by Community Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish multinational corporation Iberdrola, which would result in 68 wind turbines spread over 6,000 acres in the towns of Warren and Stark.
The SEQR process provides a way for state and local agencies to look closely at the possible environmental impacts of a proposed action. As lead agency, the Town of Warren Town Board was responsible for ensuring that a thorough and complete environmental review was conducted regarding the Jordanville Wind Power Project. The Article 78 lawsuit รฏ¿½ created by the New York legislature in 1937 รฏ¿½ challenges action, or inaction, by agencies and officers of state and local government and sometimes, as in this case, private corporations.
The Article 78 was filed on Friday, July 20 by Grant & Lyons LLP on behalf of 13 petitioners รฏ¿½ Sue Brander, Louise Doubleday, Edward and Dorayne Peplinski, Elena Perekrestov, Carrie Greenland Reichenbach, Stephen Reichenbach, Hamilton D. South II, Karen South, Diane Marie Thomas, Nicole M. Zaikoff, Yuri Zaikoff, and Leon Zgirski.
Chief among the causes of action as outlined in their Article 78 is that the petitioners believe the Warren Town Board issued findings on the Jordanville Wind Power Project without taking the required "hard look,"
and that the SEQR process here improperly deferred development of full investigation of the project impacts and plans to mitigate them.
"There are a number of unknown impacts that have not been adequately identified and mitigated by the Warren Town Board. They have taken the approach that many of these open issues can be studied later or mitigated after a problem actually occurs, which is contrary to how the process should work," said Sue Brander, Advocates for Stark spokesperson. She cited impact on birds and bats, TV reception, water resources, noise, and real estate values in the area, none of which, according to Advocates for Stark, have been fully investigated.
"During a State Environmental Quality Review, all significant environmental impacts are to be identified, studied, and thought through before the project is approved, not after," explained Brander. "We have concerns about pollution or diversion of drinking water and water supplies for livestock. Despite requests for a well survey for over a year, this developer has yet to conduct a survey of area wells."
"We are very concerned about noise impacts," Brander continued. "We believe the developer's noise analysis is seriously flawed. There has been no credible study of impacts to real estate values, despite the fact that at least one homeowner lost several offers when the potential buyers learned of the turbines."
According to cultural landscape preservation experts, the Jordanville Wind Power Project will have major adverse visual effects on Otsego Lake, the Glimmerglass Historic District, and other neighboring historic areas and scenic resources, including the Route 20 Scenic Byway.
Therefore, the concerns of Advocates for Stark are shared by both Advocates for Springfield and Otsego 2000, two community-based environmental organizations that have taken an active interest in the proceedings since plans for the wind farm were first introduced two years ago.
According to Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr., president of Otsego 2000, his group supports the Article 78 and "is very concerned that the extraordinary scale of the project is much too large for the entire region. With 68 turbines each almost 400 feet tall striding for seven miles along the rim separating the Mohawk Valley from the Otsego Lake Watershed, this will be by far the largest development in the entire region, an industrial intrusion on a major scale in a land sacred for its spiritual, historic, and natural significance, nationally and internationally.
"The impact will be felt not only in Stark and Warren but in many adjoining communities, all of whom have a stake in the outcome. This is a transformational project that should be very carefully considered and evaluated before going forward," Cooper added.
Advocates for Springfield is supporting the petition as well. According to Harry Levine, president, "Project impacts will be most severe in the host communities of Stark and Warren, yet the consequences of this project are much broader in scope. As neighbors, we believe that the lead agency has failed to take a hard look at the regional impacts of the project. Night lighting, real estate values, visual disruptions affecting the Route 20 Scenic Byway and the Glimmerglass Historic District, and the eligible Waggoner Patent Historic District are foremost in our minds."
The Article 78 also contends that the determinations and approvals for the project failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Law, the Open Meetings Law, Public Officers Law and even the town's own wind energy laws.
"The project was the subject of a series of illegal steps to prevent the public from its constitutional right to petition government รฏ¿½ the result here is that the town boards committed a gross violation of due process," the document reads.
In the final cause of action, the Article 78 states that Councilman Tom Puskarenko, a member of the Town of Stark Town Board, entered into a contract to lease his land for the project yet continued to participate in meeting deliberations and sit with the board when the project was on the agenda, which constitutes a conflict of interest.
(SEQRA) for a project proposed by Community Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish multinational corporation Iberdrola, which would result in 68 wind turbines spread over 6,000 acres in the towns of Warren and Stark.
The SEQR process provides a way for state and local agencies to look closely at the possible environmental impacts of a proposed action. As lead agency, the Town of Warren Town Board was responsible for ensuring that a thorough and complete environmental review was conducted regarding the Jordanville Wind Power Project. The Article 78 lawsuit รฏ¿½ created by the New York legislature in 1937 รฏ¿½ challenges action, or inaction, by agencies and officers of state and local government and sometimes, as in this case, private corporations.
The Article 78 was filed on Friday, July 20 by Grant & Lyons LLP on behalf of 13 petitioners รฏ¿½ Sue Brander, Louise Doubleday, Edward and Dorayne Peplinski, Elena Perekrestov, Carrie Greenland Reichenbach, Stephen Reichenbach, Hamilton D. South II, Karen South, Diane Marie Thomas, Nicole M. Zaikoff, Yuri Zaikoff, and Leon Zgirski.
Chief among the causes of action as outlined in their Article 78 is that the petitioners believe the Warren Town Board issued findings on the Jordanville Wind Power Project without taking the required "hard look,"
and that the SEQR process here improperly deferred development of full investigation of the project impacts and plans to mitigate them.
"There are a number of unknown impacts that have not been adequately identified and mitigated by the Warren Town Board. They have taken the approach that many of these open issues can be studied later or mitigated after a problem actually occurs, which is contrary to how the process should work," said Sue Brander, Advocates for Stark spokesperson. She cited impact on birds and bats, TV reception, water resources, noise, and real estate values in the area, none of which, according to Advocates for Stark, have been fully investigated.
"During a State Environmental Quality Review, all significant environmental impacts are to be identified, studied, and thought through before the project is approved, not after," explained Brander. "We have concerns about pollution or diversion of drinking water and water supplies for livestock. Despite requests for a well survey for over a year, this developer has yet to conduct a survey of area wells."
"We are very concerned about noise impacts," Brander continued. "We believe the developer's noise analysis is seriously flawed. There has been no credible study of impacts to real estate values, despite the fact that at least one homeowner lost several offers when the potential buyers learned of the turbines."
According to cultural landscape preservation experts, the Jordanville Wind Power Project will have major adverse visual effects on Otsego Lake, the Glimmerglass Historic District, and other neighboring historic areas and scenic resources, including the Route 20 Scenic Byway.
Therefore, the concerns of Advocates for Stark are shared by both Advocates for Springfield and Otsego 2000, two community-based environmental organizations that have taken an active interest in the proceedings since plans for the wind farm were first introduced two years ago.
According to Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr., president of Otsego 2000, his group supports the Article 78 and "is very concerned that the extraordinary scale of the project is much too large for the entire region. With 68 turbines each almost 400 feet tall striding for seven miles along the rim separating the Mohawk Valley from the Otsego Lake Watershed, this will be by far the largest development in the entire region, an industrial intrusion on a major scale in a land sacred for its spiritual, historic, and natural significance, nationally and internationally.
"The impact will be felt not only in Stark and Warren but in many adjoining communities, all of whom have a stake in the outcome. This is a transformational project that should be very carefully considered and evaluated before going forward," Cooper added.
Advocates for Springfield is supporting the petition as well. According to Harry Levine, president, "Project impacts will be most severe in the host communities of Stark and Warren, yet the consequences of this project are much broader in scope. As neighbors, we believe that the lead agency has failed to take a hard look at the regional impacts of the project. Night lighting, real estate values, visual disruptions affecting the Route 20 Scenic Byway and the Glimmerglass Historic District, and the eligible Waggoner Patent Historic District are foremost in our minds."
The Article 78 also contends that the determinations and approvals for the project failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Law, the Open Meetings Law, Public Officers Law and even the town's own wind energy laws.
"The project was the subject of a series of illegal steps to prevent the public from its constitutional right to petition government รฏ¿½ the result here is that the town boards committed a gross violation of due process," the document reads.
In the final cause of action, the Article 78 states that Councilman Tom Puskarenko, a member of the Town of Stark Town Board, entered into a contract to lease his land for the project yet continued to participate in meeting deliberations and sit with the board when the project was on the agenda, which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Justice Department Investigating NY Energy Markets
New York's wholesale energy market is being investigated for possible antitrust violations, according to a recent news report. A Newsday story indicates that a subject of the investigation may be possible withholding of capacity from the market, to drive prices up. This revelation has raised further questions regarding the proposed merger of National Grid and Keyspan, which controls significant amounts of generation capacity in the New York City markets.
Wholesale prices for electricity are under FERC jurisdiction. In a recent case at FERC, some market participants and the New York PSC claimed that due to withholding of capacity from the market, prices were inflated by as much as $157 million in 2006. See Did Electricity Market Manipulation Cost New York Consumers $157 Million in the Summer of 2006? That case involved no claim for refunds of unreasonable charges, which were passed through to retail customers by New York CIty area utilities, principally Con Edison. Instead, the parties sought to revise flawed rules of the NYISO to limit the amount of future overcharges. A proposal to that effect was rejected by FERC.
It is unclear whether there is an antitrust remedy that would protect consumers. Indeed, the structure of the private utility markets allowed by FERC to set rates seem to allow sellers to withhold electricity from the market through various techniques and bidding strategies. Sellers accused of price manipulation may invoke FERC's approval of the NYISO market rules that allow price manipulation through withholding tactics and gaming that does not involve overt conspiracy.
The situation illustrates a major weakness of FERC's market rate system. FERC allows wholesale prices to be set in secret auctions; inflated new prices can be charged without the possibility of public scrutiny and regulatory review, and unreasonable charges are passed through to retail consumers, with no refund remedy. The lack of transparency, elimination of regulatory review and elimination of refund remedies, in the view of some utility consumer advocates, including PULP, violates the Federal Power Act. Cases in the D.C. Circuit Court and in the U.S. Supreme Court are now raising the issue whether FERC exceeded its powers in allowing unfiled unreasonable rates and rate changes.
Wholesale prices for electricity are under FERC jurisdiction. In a recent case at FERC, some market participants and the New York PSC claimed that due to withholding of capacity from the market, prices were inflated by as much as $157 million in 2006. See Did Electricity Market Manipulation Cost New York Consumers $157 Million in the Summer of 2006? That case involved no claim for refunds of unreasonable charges, which were passed through to retail customers by New York CIty area utilities, principally Con Edison. Instead, the parties sought to revise flawed rules of the NYISO to limit the amount of future overcharges. A proposal to that effect was rejected by FERC.
It is unclear whether there is an antitrust remedy that would protect consumers. Indeed, the structure of the private utility markets allowed by FERC to set rates seem to allow sellers to withhold electricity from the market through various techniques and bidding strategies. Sellers accused of price manipulation may invoke FERC's approval of the NYISO market rules that allow price manipulation through withholding tactics and gaming that does not involve overt conspiracy.
The situation illustrates a major weakness of FERC's market rate system. FERC allows wholesale prices to be set in secret auctions; inflated new prices can be charged without the possibility of public scrutiny and regulatory review, and unreasonable charges are passed through to retail consumers, with no refund remedy. The lack of transparency, elimination of regulatory review and elimination of refund remedies, in the view of some utility consumer advocates, including PULP, violates the Federal Power Act. Cases in the D.C. Circuit Court and in the U.S. Supreme Court are now raising the issue whether FERC exceeded its powers in allowing unfiled unreasonable rates and rate changes.
Is wind energy compatible with agriculture? by J.P. Michaud
This is a compelling question given the proliferation of wind farms. The wind might be free, but harvesting it comes at a hefty price, in terms of the technology required, and the large areas of agricultural land required to site turbines.
The net value of wind energy to society is a controversial and technical issue, but farmers might be concerned whether the land can remain a farm in the conventional sense, as most wind developers claim.
I recently took a guided tour of the Spearville Wind Park just east of Dodge City, Kansas. You can't help but be impressed by a rotor assembly of three 14,000-pound blades that begins to move by itself at a wind speed of 8 miles per hour, even if energy generation doesn't peak until 31 mph. I also noticed that the fields around the turbines had wheat growing up to 10 feet away from the towers. The farmer mentioned that some minor adjustments to crop management were required, especially for pivot irrigation, but the bulk of land was still in production.
Farmers should be conscious that wind energy plants are a form of heavy industry. Apart from the turbines, wide access roads are required, many trenches will be dug to accommodate power lines, and eminent domain may be exercised to place power lines across neighboring properties that refuse to sell easements. There will also be substantial damage to the land during the construction phase, largely due to soil compaction and erosion, even if most of it can be returned to agricultural production.
Nevertheless, it is my opinion that wind energy projects could be profitably sited on farms in a socially acceptable way provided a number of criteria are met.
The land should be already disturbed by tillage, as recommended by the governor's energy task force. Undisturbed rangeland and native prairie should not be developed for wind farms because of the large area of ground that suffers disturbance during construction. Natural soil profiles and plant ecology cannot be restored following such disturbance and native plants and animals will be negatively impacted.
The land should not be adjacent to residential development. Numerous studies are identifying significant health risks for people living near wind turbines. Large wind turbines are visually intrusive, being visible from 18 miles away, and if they mar the views of adjacent residents who are not receiving income from them, they will become a source of local contention because of concerns about reduced property values and diminished scenic outlook.
The process of negotiating with a wind energy developer should be a democratic, open, and public process for the entire community whereby all local citizens have a fair opportunity to voice concerns, ask questions, and provide input to the county planning commission. Otherwise, the development may be resented by local residents who feel their rights are being ignored while others are being permitted to profit at their expense.
Finally, a thorough, independent environmental impact assessment should be undertaken by qualified professionals commissioned by the government, not the developer, to produce estimates of potential impacts on surface water runoff, wells, birds, game animals, endangered species, and overall ecological health of the area.
The Spearville project in Kansas meets most of these criteria. Already disturbed land was used, and it was generally accepted that this was a unique opportunity to revitalize a small town of 900 people and obtain funding to help keep the local school open. The project was also suitably sited to the north of town where, for the majority of residents, sunrises and sunsets would not be marred by whirling blades.
The Spearville project can be contrasted rather starkly to the 200 megawatt facility currently proposed for 11,000 acres just west of Hays, Kansas, that appears to meet few, if any, of the above criteria.
Hays, Kansas, is a growing community of more than 20,000 with a state university and an agricultural research center. More than half of the area proposed for development is undisturbed rangeland that has never been tilled and is known to contain breeding habitat for prairie chickens. No independent environmental impact assessment was ever commissioned.
The planning process took place largely behind closed doors over a period of several years, with little snippets of information leaked here and there to a largely uninformed public, until a notification of a special use permit application caught local residents completely by surprise.
The Hays site was selected very close to the western edge of town, where sunsets would forever flicker through spinning blades, largely because of the interests of particular landowners and the proximity of an existing substation.
Unfortunately, the site encompasses secluded residential developments that highly value their rural privacy in close proximity to town.
To these more than 100 families, the development represents a forcible industrialization that threatens to destroy their rural quality of life.
Under these conditions, farmers seeking to embrace wind energy can expect to pay a heavy price in terms of public opposition that has the potential to adversely affect their relations with the larger agricultural community.
Farmers who remain serious about agriculture should view wind energy development with caution. It is not farming, it is industrial energy generation with many of the attendant externalities of heavy industry.
Such development might be compatible with agriculture when appropriately sited, but it should not divide communities, otherwise agricultural interests may suffer adverse social and economic consequences, even if cows are willing to graze up to the base of wind turbines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)