We have not heard much lately regarding the proposed wind project in Highland Plantation.
We are very aware that, at some point in time, First Wind LLC likely will submit another application to the Land Use Regulation Commission with a few tweaks included for the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife.
There is also a very high probability that wind turbines are in the works for Lexington and Concord.
We have heard a lot in the news in recent weeks regarding the green energy options of wind and solar. Not all of the news has been favorable. The Solyndra scandal is a great example of how the alternative energies can go bust. The public is going to pick up the ticket for Solyndra. How many more poor government choices can we afford to pay for?
Wind power will bring higher electricity rates to an already burdened public. New power lines to carry the power south on the grid will be necessary, adding more to the cost, which will again be passed on to us consumers.
How many more added expenses can we afford to pay in this downward spiraling economy? The cost of food, gas, fuel oil, clothing has risen dramatically over the past few months. It makes it difficult to keep our heads above water.
Social Security has had no cost of living increases. Any additional expense makes it even harder for people on limited incomes to survive.
Linda Miller
Lexington Township
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Hopkinton Town Council holds off on wind law
The Hopkinton Town Council has tabled a law regulating wind energy facilities.
The council had intended to vote on the local law, which would establish parameters for wind energy in Hopkinton, after a public hearing Monday night. But after a last-minute lobby from wind energy opponents, the council deferred its vote until November.
During the two-hour hearing, several in attendance submitted testimony and information about wind power for the council’s consideration. When the time came to vote, some of those who submitted information criticized the council for not reading it before voting.
“You’re acting like you’re indifferent to the voice of the citizens by voting tonight,” said Lynda A. Bage, Hopkinton.
Read the entire article
The council had intended to vote on the local law, which would establish parameters for wind energy in Hopkinton, after a public hearing Monday night. But after a last-minute lobby from wind energy opponents, the council deferred its vote until November.
During the two-hour hearing, several in attendance submitted testimony and information about wind power for the council’s consideration. When the time came to vote, some of those who submitted information criticized the council for not reading it before voting.
“You’re acting like you’re indifferent to the voice of the citizens by voting tonight,” said Lynda A. Bage, Hopkinton.
Read the entire article
Lowell wind project fight continues in court and in woods
The highly disputed Lowell Wind Project is now under way.
Green Mountain Power began blasting near where protestors have camped out. Roughly 20 protestors camped out Tuesday on the mountain. The hike takes roughly one hour straight up from behind the Nelson's property.
The protestors are fighting Green Mountain Power's $156 million project planned to build 21 wind turbines-- each more than 400-feet tall. GMP officials say the turbines would power more than 24,000 homes.
The problem is a boundary dispute between GMP and Don and Shirley Nelson. They are unwilling to sell their property that is needed by GMP to blast on.
GMP says the project was supported by 75 percent of Lowell residents.
Protestors claim the town stands behind the Nelsons.
"We will build this wind project. We will most definitely build the wind project. What the issue is now is about safety. We need to clear a zone so that we can blast safely according to normal blasting procedures that are used hundreds of times a year across the state," said Dotty Schnure of GMP.
"Nobody is up there because they are required to be or even asked to be. So individuals are up there based on what they want to do. My folks have never posted their property against hunters and hikers," said Michael Nelson, the landowners' son.
Several protestors we met Tuesday declined to speak on camera and did want their names revealed due to the legal issue at hand. Don Nelson says there is no asking price or compromise aside from shutting the project down. He expects this will likely end in a lawsuit.
Green Mountain Power began blasting near where protestors have camped out. Roughly 20 protestors camped out Tuesday on the mountain. The hike takes roughly one hour straight up from behind the Nelson's property.
The protestors are fighting Green Mountain Power's $156 million project planned to build 21 wind turbines-- each more than 400-feet tall. GMP officials say the turbines would power more than 24,000 homes.
The problem is a boundary dispute between GMP and Don and Shirley Nelson. They are unwilling to sell their property that is needed by GMP to blast on.
GMP says the project was supported by 75 percent of Lowell residents.
Protestors claim the town stands behind the Nelsons.
"We will build this wind project. We will most definitely build the wind project. What the issue is now is about safety. We need to clear a zone so that we can blast safely according to normal blasting procedures that are used hundreds of times a year across the state," said Dotty Schnure of GMP.
"Nobody is up there because they are required to be or even asked to be. So individuals are up there based on what they want to do. My folks have never posted their property against hunters and hikers," said Michael Nelson, the landowners' son.
Several protestors we met Tuesday declined to speak on camera and did want their names revealed due to the legal issue at hand. Don Nelson says there is no asking price or compromise aside from shutting the project down. He expects this will likely end in a lawsuit.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wyoming supervisors oppose Power NY Act
The Wyoming County Board of Supervisors has approved a resolution opposing the Power NY Act.
The bill gives the state increased authority to site power plants and streamlines the siting process. It was signed into law two months ago.
Supervisors approved the resolution expressing “deep disappointment and concern” over the law during their Oct. 11 meeting.
“This is in opposition to the state of New York being the last approving agency to decide which green energy projects go where in New York state, particularly in the towns and counties,” said Chairman Douglas Berwanger.
The Power NY Act includes a section re-authorizing Article X of the state’s Public Service law. The original Article X had expired about a decade ago, allowing local governments to assume jurisdiction over power plant siting issues.
Albany now has the authority to site electricity-generating projects of 25 megawatts or more. Construction and operating certifications can also be issued more-quickly.
Large-scale commercial wind farms fall under the new rules.
Wyoming County’s resolution argues the Power NY Act puts the authority into the hands of a bureaucratic state board with only nominal input from affected communities.
It also maintains the new legislation is part of a disturbing trend removing powers from local jurisdictions and transferring them to a faceless bureaucracy with no jurisdiction.
The Power NY Act was approved overwhelmingly this past June. Tallies included 117-13 in the State Assembly and 59-3 in the State Senate.
But the law met resistance from some local legislators. Assemblyman Daniel Burling, R-Warsaw and State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Clarence were among those voting no.
“We needed to take a stand and let people know where we are as far as Article X is,” Berwanger said after the meeting. “We’ve got some enthusiastic supporters and detractors as far as any kind of energy development systems in the county.”
The bill gives the state increased authority to site power plants and streamlines the siting process. It was signed into law two months ago.
Supervisors approved the resolution expressing “deep disappointment and concern” over the law during their Oct. 11 meeting.
“This is in opposition to the state of New York being the last approving agency to decide which green energy projects go where in New York state, particularly in the towns and counties,” said Chairman Douglas Berwanger.
The Power NY Act includes a section re-authorizing Article X of the state’s Public Service law. The original Article X had expired about a decade ago, allowing local governments to assume jurisdiction over power plant siting issues.
Albany now has the authority to site electricity-generating projects of 25 megawatts or more. Construction and operating certifications can also be issued more-quickly.
Large-scale commercial wind farms fall under the new rules.
Wyoming County’s resolution argues the Power NY Act puts the authority into the hands of a bureaucratic state board with only nominal input from affected communities.
It also maintains the new legislation is part of a disturbing trend removing powers from local jurisdictions and transferring them to a faceless bureaucracy with no jurisdiction.
The Power NY Act was approved overwhelmingly this past June. Tallies included 117-13 in the State Assembly and 59-3 in the State Senate.
But the law met resistance from some local legislators. Assemblyman Daniel Burling, R-Warsaw and State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Clarence were among those voting no.
“We needed to take a stand and let people know where we are as far as Article X is,” Berwanger said after the meeting. “We’ve got some enthusiastic supporters and detractors as far as any kind of energy development systems in the county.”
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Cohocton Wind Watch Filing Lawsuit To Fight "Corporate Welfare"
Cohocton Wind Watch Filing Lawsuit To Fight "Corporate Welfare"
BUFFALO, NY - There’s a lawsuit in the New York Court of Appeals which seeks to end state and local government cash grants for businesses for economic development purposes. The case is being argued by Buffalo attorney Jim Ostrowski, who calls these sorts of grants crony-capitalism. "Basically, corporate welfare is the glue that holds the whole rotten system in New York together, so it's extremely important that we end it," Ostrowski told WLEA/WCKR News.
We asked Hornell Industrial Development Agency Director Jim Griffin what he thought about grants for businesses being referred to as crony capitalism. "We're in competition with 49 other states," Griffin said. The IDA Director added that New York needs programs that are competive with the other states, such as the Empire Zone Program.
One of the petitioners in the lawsuit is Steuben County’s watchdog group, Cohocton Wind Watch.
BUFFALO, NY - There’s a lawsuit in the New York Court of Appeals which seeks to end state and local government cash grants for businesses for economic development purposes. The case is being argued by Buffalo attorney Jim Ostrowski, who calls these sorts of grants crony-capitalism. "Basically, corporate welfare is the glue that holds the whole rotten system in New York together, so it's extremely important that we end it," Ostrowski told WLEA/WCKR News.
We asked Hornell Industrial Development Agency Director Jim Griffin what he thought about grants for businesses being referred to as crony capitalism. "We're in competition with 49 other states," Griffin said. The IDA Director added that New York needs programs that are competive with the other states, such as the Empire Zone Program.
One of the petitioners in the lawsuit is Steuben County’s watchdog group, Cohocton Wind Watch.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Vermont utility warns protesters about cost of delays
MONTPELIER — The Green Mountain Power utility said Wednesday it's ready to hold a couple financially responsible for the costs of delays in construction of a major wind power project if protesters camped on their land within a blasting safety zone don't get out of the way.
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility was cleared Wednesday to resume work on the Kingdom Community Wind project on Lowell Mountain after changes had been made to construction procedures to protect stormwater. Construction of the road to the top of the mountain is expected to resume Thursday.
But the effort to build the 21-turbine project was further clouded Wednesday after the owners of a farm that adjoins the Lowell wind project rejected an offer to sell their property to GMP.
Schnure said GMP had offered to pay Don and Shirley Nelson $1.25 million for the 600-acre farm in Lowell, a small town in the northern part of the state. She said the Nelsons rejected the offer and raised their asking price by $1 million.
Meanwhile, the utility threatened to hold the Nelsons responsible for the costs of any delays caused by project opponents camping on their land within the range of debris that could be spread by blasting needed to build the road.
Schnure said that if the protesters were to leave their campsites for 15 minutes several times a day they would be out of the range.
"If they delay us, there are costs involved," she said. "Our customers should not have to pay those costs when it's very simple for them to move. We have told them that if they do not have their people move we will ask the court to hold them responsible for the costs of the delay. That could very quickly run into a million dollars or more."
The Nelsons did not return a telephone call from The Associated Press seeking comment Wednesday.
But a friend of the Nelsons, Annette Smith, an outspoken critic of large-scale wind projects, called GMP's actions, "extortion."
"Why are they threatening some already victimized downtrodden people?" she said. "Now what's happening is Green Mountain Power has put a gun to their heads."
GMP's $156 million wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and could meet the annual electrical needs of more than 20,000 households — about 50,000 residents. It has drawn vigorous opposition from some neighbors and environmentalists, whose concerns include its effects on wildlife, noise from the turbines and marring unspoiled mountain vistas.
Last month the Nelsons invited campers opposed to the Lowell wind project to pitch tents 100 feet from their property line and well within the safety zone surrounding where some of the blasting will occur.
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility was cleared Wednesday to resume work on the Kingdom Community Wind project on Lowell Mountain after changes had been made to construction procedures to protect stormwater. Construction of the road to the top of the mountain is expected to resume Thursday.
But the effort to build the 21-turbine project was further clouded Wednesday after the owners of a farm that adjoins the Lowell wind project rejected an offer to sell their property to GMP.
Schnure said GMP had offered to pay Don and Shirley Nelson $1.25 million for the 600-acre farm in Lowell, a small town in the northern part of the state. She said the Nelsons rejected the offer and raised their asking price by $1 million.
Meanwhile, the utility threatened to hold the Nelsons responsible for the costs of any delays caused by project opponents camping on their land within the range of debris that could be spread by blasting needed to build the road.
Schnure said that if the protesters were to leave their campsites for 15 minutes several times a day they would be out of the range.
"If they delay us, there are costs involved," she said. "Our customers should not have to pay those costs when it's very simple for them to move. We have told them that if they do not have their people move we will ask the court to hold them responsible for the costs of the delay. That could very quickly run into a million dollars or more."
The Nelsons did not return a telephone call from The Associated Press seeking comment Wednesday.
But a friend of the Nelsons, Annette Smith, an outspoken critic of large-scale wind projects, called GMP's actions, "extortion."
"Why are they threatening some already victimized downtrodden people?" she said. "Now what's happening is Green Mountain Power has put a gun to their heads."
GMP's $156 million wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and could meet the annual electrical needs of more than 20,000 households — about 50,000 residents. It has drawn vigorous opposition from some neighbors and environmentalists, whose concerns include its effects on wildlife, noise from the turbines and marring unspoiled mountain vistas.
Last month the Nelsons invited campers opposed to the Lowell wind project to pitch tents 100 feet from their property line and well within the safety zone surrounding where some of the blasting will occur.
Court hears arguments in suit challenging state subsidies for business
ALBANY -- In a case that unites liberal and conservative causes, the state's highest court today will hear arguments over a lawsuit seeking to end the state's direct cash subsidies to corporations as part of Albany's economic development programs.
The case, brought by Lockport financial planner Lee Bordeleau and 40 others in an anti-tax group, challenges the underpinnings of what critics say is a longstanding -- and illegal -- corporate welfare system at the Capitol.
Besides an afternoon appearance before the Court of Appeals, a rally sponsored by the Tea Party Coalition is being held at noon outside the Capitol.
"We want to end these cash grants," said Buffalo lawyer James Ostrowski, who is representing the plaintiffs who, if successful, could turn on its head the state's funding of everything from Fortune 100 companies to small startups.
"All the money we save if we win this lawsuit we want to turn into an immediate tax cut," Ostrowski said.
The group says Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is continuing the corporate subsidy program done by generations of governors. They are zeroing in on his recent deal with IBM, Intel and others in which $500 million will be steered through the state university as part of a nanotechnology package based in the Albany area.
Ostrowski said such subsidies -- whether indirectly made through the state university or direct, such as the $600 million to a chip manufacturing facility near Saratoga Springs -- all violate the state constitution.
The lawsuit specifically targets everything from direct cash appropriations the state has made in recent years to IBM, apple and grape growers, Delphi Harrison, the Hyatt Regency Buffalo, a Rochester soccer stadium and others. Even the now-scuttled cash Albany was trying to use to lure Bass Pro Shops to Buffalo was in the earliest court papers when the case was filed three years ago.
The lawsuit was tossed from State Supreme Court. But a mid-level appeals court last year rejected legal arguments by lawyers for Cuomo -- when he served as attorney general representing the state in the case -- and unanimously said the suit could go forward.
"Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge," the Appellate Division's Third Department warned last year.
The state has said the grants are legal and necessary for the "public purpose of promoting economic development." A state lawyer last year said the lawsuit could spawn "months or years of uncertainty and the potential for a multitude of additional disputes" over state spending.
Ostrowski said the case has attracted the interest of conservatives from the Tea Party and liberals from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The state's constitution -- in Article VII, Section 8 -- states that "the money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking." Critics say besides directly violating the ban in annual budget appropriations, the state has used public benefit corporations, authorities and other off-budget ways to steer money to companies.
That Cuomo's nanotechnology announcement sent money to the state university and not directly to IBM and Intel shows the state is nervous about the lawsuit, Ostrowski said. "They're afraid they're going to lose the lawsuit and they're already restructuring their corporate welfare."
The case, brought by Lockport financial planner Lee Bordeleau and 40 others in an anti-tax group, challenges the underpinnings of what critics say is a longstanding -- and illegal -- corporate welfare system at the Capitol.
Besides an afternoon appearance before the Court of Appeals, a rally sponsored by the Tea Party Coalition is being held at noon outside the Capitol.
"We want to end these cash grants," said Buffalo lawyer James Ostrowski, who is representing the plaintiffs who, if successful, could turn on its head the state's funding of everything from Fortune 100 companies to small startups.
"All the money we save if we win this lawsuit we want to turn into an immediate tax cut," Ostrowski said.
The group says Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is continuing the corporate subsidy program done by generations of governors. They are zeroing in on his recent deal with IBM, Intel and others in which $500 million will be steered through the state university as part of a nanotechnology package based in the Albany area.
Ostrowski said such subsidies -- whether indirectly made through the state university or direct, such as the $600 million to a chip manufacturing facility near Saratoga Springs -- all violate the state constitution.
The lawsuit specifically targets everything from direct cash appropriations the state has made in recent years to IBM, apple and grape growers, Delphi Harrison, the Hyatt Regency Buffalo, a Rochester soccer stadium and others. Even the now-scuttled cash Albany was trying to use to lure Bass Pro Shops to Buffalo was in the earliest court papers when the case was filed three years ago.
The lawsuit was tossed from State Supreme Court. But a mid-level appeals court last year rejected legal arguments by lawyers for Cuomo -- when he served as attorney general representing the state in the case -- and unanimously said the suit could go forward.
"Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge," the Appellate Division's Third Department warned last year.
The state has said the grants are legal and necessary for the "public purpose of promoting economic development." A state lawyer last year said the lawsuit could spawn "months or years of uncertainty and the potential for a multitude of additional disputes" over state spending.
Ostrowski said the case has attracted the interest of conservatives from the Tea Party and liberals from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The state's constitution -- in Article VII, Section 8 -- states that "the money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking." Critics say besides directly violating the ban in annual budget appropriations, the state has used public benefit corporations, authorities and other off-budget ways to steer money to companies.
That Cuomo's nanotechnology announcement sent money to the state university and not directly to IBM and Intel shows the state is nervous about the lawsuit, Ostrowski said. "They're afraid they're going to lose the lawsuit and they're already restructuring their corporate welfare."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tea Party Rally against corporate welfare Albany Capitol steps - NOON Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Everyone invited to join this rally in Albany. CWW is a petitioner in this action. Show you support.
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY's highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12522&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalClassDismissed+%28Political+Class+Dismissed%29This is the summary from the Court’s web site. Formatting may be a bit off.
To be argued Wednesday, October 12, 2011
No. 190 Bordeleau v State of New York
In this declaratory judgment action, 50 New York taxpayers challenge the constitutionality of state appropriations to the Department of Agriculture and Markets and two public benefit corporations (PBCs) for ultimate distribution to private entities for economic development projects. They argue, in part, that this funding violates article VII, § 8(1) of the State Constitution, which prohibits gifts or loans of state money or credit to private entities. The challenged appropriations and grants included funding through Ag & Markets for promotional activities by the New York Apple Growers Association and the Long Island Wine Council to encourage consumption of New York agricultural products, and funding through PBCs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Saratoga, Albany and Dutchess Counties and renovation of a hotel in downtown Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued the State, its Urban Development Corp. (UDC) and Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp., and six private companies, including International Business Machines Corp., West Genesee Hotel Associates, and GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc.
Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling there was no violation of the gift or loan provision. It said, “The State is authorized to provide funding to a public benefit corporation, including [UDC]…. The very purpose of the [UDC] is to promote the State’s policy of enhancing job opportunities, urban renewal and economic development…. A review of the [UDC] projects at issue here shows that each speaks to a viable public, economic development purpose….” It said Ag & Markets “is expressly authorized to aid in the promotion and marketing of New York’s wine and grape products” and its appropriations to fund promotional contracts with non-profit agricultural organizations are not barred under Article VII, § 8.
The Appellate Division, Third Department modified by reinstating the claim that the appropriations “indirectly gave state funds to private entities in violation of … article VII, § 8(1) by passing the funds through [Ag & Markets] and the PBCs before disbursement.” It said, “Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge, for the State may not do “‘indirectly that which cannot be done directly”‘….” It said the constitutionality of the appropriations does not depend on whether they served a public purpose, but “whether their public benefits constitute sufficient consideration while the private benefits are merely incidental.” The question was not resolved as a matter of law by the defendants’ submissions “showing their public purposes,” it said, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The defendants argue that “appropriations for the public purpose of promoting economic development” do not violate article VII, § 8. “Recent precedents establish that an appropriation is valid … so long as it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit is purely incidental,” the State says, claiming the challenged appropriations meet this standard. It also argues the appropriations “were not gifts at all because the recipients agreed to create jobs or provided other valuable consideration to the State in exchange for the funds.”
For appellant State: Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood (518) 474-1394
For appellant IBM: Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Manhattan (212) 474-1000
For appellant West Genesee Hotel: Kevin J. Cross, Buffalo (716) 853-5100
For appellant GlobalFoundries: Harold Iselin, Albany (518) 689-1400
For respondents Bordeleau et al: James Ostrowski, Buffalo (716) 435-8918
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY's highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12522&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalClassDismissed+%28Political+Class+Dismissed%29This is the summary from the Court’s web site. Formatting may be a bit off.
To be argued Wednesday, October 12, 2011
No. 190 Bordeleau v State of New York
In this declaratory judgment action, 50 New York taxpayers challenge the constitutionality of state appropriations to the Department of Agriculture and Markets and two public benefit corporations (PBCs) for ultimate distribution to private entities for economic development projects. They argue, in part, that this funding violates article VII, § 8(1) of the State Constitution, which prohibits gifts or loans of state money or credit to private entities. The challenged appropriations and grants included funding through Ag & Markets for promotional activities by the New York Apple Growers Association and the Long Island Wine Council to encourage consumption of New York agricultural products, and funding through PBCs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Saratoga, Albany and Dutchess Counties and renovation of a hotel in downtown Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued the State, its Urban Development Corp. (UDC) and Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp., and six private companies, including International Business Machines Corp., West Genesee Hotel Associates, and GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc.
Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling there was no violation of the gift or loan provision. It said, “The State is authorized to provide funding to a public benefit corporation, including [UDC]…. The very purpose of the [UDC] is to promote the State’s policy of enhancing job opportunities, urban renewal and economic development…. A review of the [UDC] projects at issue here shows that each speaks to a viable public, economic development purpose….” It said Ag & Markets “is expressly authorized to aid in the promotion and marketing of New York’s wine and grape products” and its appropriations to fund promotional contracts with non-profit agricultural organizations are not barred under Article VII, § 8.
The Appellate Division, Third Department modified by reinstating the claim that the appropriations “indirectly gave state funds to private entities in violation of … article VII, § 8(1) by passing the funds through [Ag & Markets] and the PBCs before disbursement.” It said, “Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge, for the State may not do “‘indirectly that which cannot be done directly”‘….” It said the constitutionality of the appropriations does not depend on whether they served a public purpose, but “whether their public benefits constitute sufficient consideration while the private benefits are merely incidental.” The question was not resolved as a matter of law by the defendants’ submissions “showing their public purposes,” it said, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The defendants argue that “appropriations for the public purpose of promoting economic development” do not violate article VII, § 8. “Recent precedents establish that an appropriation is valid … so long as it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit is purely incidental,” the State says, claiming the challenged appropriations meet this standard. It also argues the appropriations “were not gifts at all because the recipients agreed to create jobs or provided other valuable consideration to the State in exchange for the funds.”
For appellant State: Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood (518) 474-1394
For appellant IBM: Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Manhattan (212) 474-1000
For appellant West Genesee Hotel: Kevin J. Cross, Buffalo (716) 853-5100
For appellant GlobalFoundries: Harold Iselin, Albany (518) 689-1400
For respondents Bordeleau et al: James Ostrowski, Buffalo (716) 435-8918
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Windmills blow into Orangeville
Love them or hate them, wind farms continue to stir up a storm of controversy in Western New York.
The most recent project, Stony Creek Wind Farm in the tiny town of Orangeville, calls for as many as 59 wind turbines to be built in that rural community.
And with more than 200 turbines already turning in Sheldon, Wethersfield and Eagle, it seems like Wyoming County will retain its claim as the wind capital of Western New York.
With New York State's goal of having 30 percent of the state's energy needs supplied by clean, renewable energy sources, the landscape is changing throughout the state. The Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison recently applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
Although the Stony Creek project has been approved by the Town Board and is slated to begin in the spring, many residents have raised concerns, including noise levels and the effect of the project on wildlife, and two lawsuits have been filed to try to stop the project.
Town Supervisor Susan Mays said those issues have been addressed by the town from the beginning.
"We have looked at everything they've submitted, and all of their material was included in each of the studies that was done," she said. "The Town Board looked at everything thoroughly, and that's how we came to our conclusion."
"You're always going to have opposition to projects like these," she said.
Eric Miller, director of business development for Invenergy, the company erecting the windmills, said the Stony Creek project "will create more than 100 jobs and provide millions of dollars in new revenue to local businesses and contractors during construction."
"Once operational, it will employ four to six full-time staff," Miller said. "The town will benefit from 7.5 miles of town roads that will be rebuilt by Stony Creek at the completion of construction."
Mays also said payments from the project developer to the town would amount to about $667,000 a year for the first 20 years of the project, which would eliminate town taxes for residents.
"The Stony Creek Wind Farm is far and away the largest economic development project in our town's history," Mays said. "It not only provides significant and direct economic development benefits to the town and its taxpayers, but it will result in hundreds of construction jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to local businesses during these very difficult times. The amount that we will get for the 59 turbines will eliminate town taxes and there is also $750,000 for road reconstruction for the roads used for the project."
The approval for Stony Creek comes after the addition of six windmills on the former Bethlehem Steel site along Lake Erie and the approval by the Allegany Town Board in August for 29 wind turbines above Chipmunk Road. The two projects are among 17 renewable energy projects in the state to receive funding through a program aimed at reducing the state's dependence on fossil fuels.
But windmill fever will not extend into the lake. A plan to put up to 150 wind turbines in Lakes Erie and Ontario was halted after the New York Power Authority determined it would be too expensive.
In Orangeville, not everyone agrees on the Stony Creek wind farm's economic impact on the town.
"The basic question is whether the benefits outweigh the burden," said Gary Abraham, attorney for Clear Skies Over Orangeville, a coalition of town residents that has taken the town to court over the issue.
As for the potential revenue from the project, Abraham said there is no guarantee that will happen.
"It's not a great feat to eliminate town taxes," Abraham said. "It's really kind of a cruel joke. In other towns, they've just spent [the income] on other things. They're not reducing town taxes. There's no guarantee that's not going to happen in Orangeville. And the town's taxes are only 15 percent of a person's property taxes."
Although the lower courts sided with the town in the Clear Skies suit earlier this year, the group is continuing the fight, seeking a hearing from the New York State Court of Appeals.
"In 2009, the town adopted a law regulating wind farms, and we sued the town," Abraham said. "We claim that the law is not supported by any evidence. It adopts a noise standard that is outrageously high based on [state Department of Environmental Conservation] standards. We're hoping the highest court in New York will address this issue."
A second lawsuit is pending, brought by resident Robert White, who is seeking to declare the tower's area variance null and void. He maintains the tower would be within 800 feet of a cabin on his property, violating town setback requirements. His next court date is scheduled for Nov. 9. White declined to be interviewed by The Buffalo News.
Even after a project is completed, the controversy continues. Glenn Cramer, a former Sheldon town councilman, said his town is still divided over the issue.
"I wouldn't use Sheldon as an example of a successful wind farm," he told The News. "It is another example of why industrial wind farms do not belong anywhere near people. The town will be forever divided."
Cramer said that in addition to the noise, the shadow flicker -- the shadow cast when a large windmill blade sweeps in front of the sun -- can be a problem. Some people who live near windmills in other areas have complained that the effect is like a light switch being rapidly turned on and off.
"When someone from Sheldon supports the wind farm, ask him or her what he or she stands to gain financially from it. I think you will see a direct relationship. Some residents have gained from the wind farm, but it has been at the expense of their neighbors."
News Staff Reporter Barbara O'Brien contributed to this report.
The most recent project, Stony Creek Wind Farm in the tiny town of Orangeville, calls for as many as 59 wind turbines to be built in that rural community.
And with more than 200 turbines already turning in Sheldon, Wethersfield and Eagle, it seems like Wyoming County will retain its claim as the wind capital of Western New York.
With New York State's goal of having 30 percent of the state's energy needs supplied by clean, renewable energy sources, the landscape is changing throughout the state. The Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison recently applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
Although the Stony Creek project has been approved by the Town Board and is slated to begin in the spring, many residents have raised concerns, including noise levels and the effect of the project on wildlife, and two lawsuits have been filed to try to stop the project.
Town Supervisor Susan Mays said those issues have been addressed by the town from the beginning.
"We have looked at everything they've submitted, and all of their material was included in each of the studies that was done," she said. "The Town Board looked at everything thoroughly, and that's how we came to our conclusion."
"You're always going to have opposition to projects like these," she said.
Eric Miller, director of business development for Invenergy, the company erecting the windmills, said the Stony Creek project "will create more than 100 jobs and provide millions of dollars in new revenue to local businesses and contractors during construction."
"Once operational, it will employ four to six full-time staff," Miller said. "The town will benefit from 7.5 miles of town roads that will be rebuilt by Stony Creek at the completion of construction."
Mays also said payments from the project developer to the town would amount to about $667,000 a year for the first 20 years of the project, which would eliminate town taxes for residents.
"The Stony Creek Wind Farm is far and away the largest economic development project in our town's history," Mays said. "It not only provides significant and direct economic development benefits to the town and its taxpayers, but it will result in hundreds of construction jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to local businesses during these very difficult times. The amount that we will get for the 59 turbines will eliminate town taxes and there is also $750,000 for road reconstruction for the roads used for the project."
The approval for Stony Creek comes after the addition of six windmills on the former Bethlehem Steel site along Lake Erie and the approval by the Allegany Town Board in August for 29 wind turbines above Chipmunk Road. The two projects are among 17 renewable energy projects in the state to receive funding through a program aimed at reducing the state's dependence on fossil fuels.
But windmill fever will not extend into the lake. A plan to put up to 150 wind turbines in Lakes Erie and Ontario was halted after the New York Power Authority determined it would be too expensive.
In Orangeville, not everyone agrees on the Stony Creek wind farm's economic impact on the town.
"The basic question is whether the benefits outweigh the burden," said Gary Abraham, attorney for Clear Skies Over Orangeville, a coalition of town residents that has taken the town to court over the issue.
As for the potential revenue from the project, Abraham said there is no guarantee that will happen.
"It's not a great feat to eliminate town taxes," Abraham said. "It's really kind of a cruel joke. In other towns, they've just spent [the income] on other things. They're not reducing town taxes. There's no guarantee that's not going to happen in Orangeville. And the town's taxes are only 15 percent of a person's property taxes."
Although the lower courts sided with the town in the Clear Skies suit earlier this year, the group is continuing the fight, seeking a hearing from the New York State Court of Appeals.
"In 2009, the town adopted a law regulating wind farms, and we sued the town," Abraham said. "We claim that the law is not supported by any evidence. It adopts a noise standard that is outrageously high based on [state Department of Environmental Conservation] standards. We're hoping the highest court in New York will address this issue."
A second lawsuit is pending, brought by resident Robert White, who is seeking to declare the tower's area variance null and void. He maintains the tower would be within 800 feet of a cabin on his property, violating town setback requirements. His next court date is scheduled for Nov. 9. White declined to be interviewed by The Buffalo News.
Even after a project is completed, the controversy continues. Glenn Cramer, a former Sheldon town councilman, said his town is still divided over the issue.
"I wouldn't use Sheldon as an example of a successful wind farm," he told The News. "It is another example of why industrial wind farms do not belong anywhere near people. The town will be forever divided."
Cramer said that in addition to the noise, the shadow flicker -- the shadow cast when a large windmill blade sweeps in front of the sun -- can be a problem. Some people who live near windmills in other areas have complained that the effect is like a light switch being rapidly turned on and off.
"When someone from Sheldon supports the wind farm, ask him or her what he or she stands to gain financially from it. I think you will see a direct relationship. Some residents have gained from the wind farm, but it has been at the expense of their neighbors."
News Staff Reporter Barbara O'Brien contributed to this report.
Vt. orders work to stop at Lowell wind project due amid possible environmental violations
A stop-work order has been issued for construction on the Lowell Mountain wind power project because of possible environmental violations, a top Vermont official said Friday.
Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz confirmed that the order had been issued for what an inspector determined was inadequate handling of storm runoff during the early stages of work on the project, which is being developed by Green Mountain Power Corp.
Markowitz said that as crews were working on a new road that is to carry equipment and eventually the more than 400-foot-tall wind towers to the mountain ridge line, they needed gravel to prevent newly exposed soil from running off during rains.
"As they're clearing land to build the road they need to put cover on some of the exposed ground so that there isn't runoff," she said. "The place that they expected to get the gravel did not have an adequate amount and so they moved to another location that was not contemplated in the permit."
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility reported problems with runoff early in the week to the Agency of Natural Resources — problems made worse by heavy rains last weekend. She said a state inspector came to the site, confirmed the problems and issued the stop-work order Wednesday. She said road-clearing work remained halted Friday as the company awaited a final review and permission from the state to resume work.
Schnure said the result would be that the company was beginning work on storm water drainage systems it had planned to wait to install until the road was built. "With the really heavy rains it became evident we needed to work on that now," she said. "We refocused our attention on getting those done before we continue with the clearing."
GMP's $156 million, 21-turbine wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and is expected to provide enough power for 24,000 homes.
Some neighbors and environmental groups have vehemently opposed the project, saying it will destroy key wildlife habitat and spoil mountain views in northern Vermont with towers and turbines standing more than 400 feet in the air.
David Mears, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is part of the Agency of Natural Resources, said steps to slow runoff that were needed and missing were the gravel cover for newly exposed soil and stone-lined catch basins along the side of the part of the road that had been built to slow water from running downhill and carrying sediment with it.
"These were fairly serious violations of the storm water permit, particularly the storm water control (problems) and the discharge of sediment," he said.
Luke Snelling of opposition group Energize Vermont pointed to earlier environmental violations, including improper tree cutting and filing of wetlands on adjacent conservation land that caused the project to be delayed for months when they were discovered.
"This is the second time at this site something has been screwed up to the detriment of the environment," Snelling said. "How many more to we have to go before we see this is a bad project in a highly sensitive place?"
Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz confirmed that the order had been issued for what an inspector determined was inadequate handling of storm runoff during the early stages of work on the project, which is being developed by Green Mountain Power Corp.
Markowitz said that as crews were working on a new road that is to carry equipment and eventually the more than 400-foot-tall wind towers to the mountain ridge line, they needed gravel to prevent newly exposed soil from running off during rains.
"As they're clearing land to build the road they need to put cover on some of the exposed ground so that there isn't runoff," she said. "The place that they expected to get the gravel did not have an adequate amount and so they moved to another location that was not contemplated in the permit."
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility reported problems with runoff early in the week to the Agency of Natural Resources — problems made worse by heavy rains last weekend. She said a state inspector came to the site, confirmed the problems and issued the stop-work order Wednesday. She said road-clearing work remained halted Friday as the company awaited a final review and permission from the state to resume work.
Schnure said the result would be that the company was beginning work on storm water drainage systems it had planned to wait to install until the road was built. "With the really heavy rains it became evident we needed to work on that now," she said. "We refocused our attention on getting those done before we continue with the clearing."
GMP's $156 million, 21-turbine wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and is expected to provide enough power for 24,000 homes.
Some neighbors and environmental groups have vehemently opposed the project, saying it will destroy key wildlife habitat and spoil mountain views in northern Vermont with towers and turbines standing more than 400 feet in the air.
David Mears, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is part of the Agency of Natural Resources, said steps to slow runoff that were needed and missing were the gravel cover for newly exposed soil and stone-lined catch basins along the side of the part of the road that had been built to slow water from running downhill and carrying sediment with it.
"These were fairly serious violations of the storm water permit, particularly the storm water control (problems) and the discharge of sediment," he said.
Luke Snelling of opposition group Energize Vermont pointed to earlier environmental violations, including improper tree cutting and filing of wetlands on adjacent conservation land that caused the project to be delayed for months when they were discovered.
"This is the second time at this site something has been screwed up to the detriment of the environment," Snelling said. "How many more to we have to go before we see this is a bad project in a highly sensitive place?"
Experts say first offshore wind turbines in Great Lakes years away
MUSKEGON — Large wind turbines are still years away from being installed in the Great Lakes, the federal government’s offshore wind manager and a former industry insider say.
Yet, U.S. Department of Energy’s Christopher Hart and former Bluewater Wind offshore wind developer Mike O’Brien agreed Friday that Grand Valley State University’s offshore wind assessment and research buoy could significantly impact the potential for wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Hart and O’Brien attended the dedication of the buoy Friday at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Lake Michigan field station. The floating, 20-by-10-foot structure is equipped with a special laser wind sensor to measure wind speeds at various heights over the lake.
When each was asked by The Chronicle to look into their “crystal balls” to predict when turbines might be installed in the Great Lakes, Hart said six to eight years and O’Brien said as early as three to five years.
Hart said he expects that the first offshore wind projects will be completed in the Northeast portion of the United States, because traditional energy costs there are higher so offshore wind’s cost competitiveness will be realized sooner.
After technology advancements are complete and financial risks of offshore wind energy minimized, Hart said he expects “best” projects to begin being installed in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. Among the advancements currently being pursued is improved power transmission capabilities for offshore turbines, being backed by Google, and larger turbines to access better winds farther offshore.
Hart said the goal is to reduce the costs of offshore-wind-produced electricity from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. He said he expects about half of the cost reduction to come in technological advancements and the other half from lower capital costs.
By building bigger wind farms with larger turbines and blades and putting them farther offshore, Hart said he expects offshore wind development to make better business sense. It also will allay concern about the turbines’ appearance from the shore.
O’Brien said the wind-assessment buoy’s data, if deemed accurate, and state changes in the permitting process are keys to making offshore wind farms more viable in the Great Lakes. He said if those two items are favorable for developers, wind turbines could be put in the Great Lakes in three to five years.
However, O’Brien said it may be five to seven years if floating turbines are deemed the better option to install farther off land in deeper water.
Yet, U.S. Department of Energy’s Christopher Hart and former Bluewater Wind offshore wind developer Mike O’Brien agreed Friday that Grand Valley State University’s offshore wind assessment and research buoy could significantly impact the potential for wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Hart and O’Brien attended the dedication of the buoy Friday at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Lake Michigan field station. The floating, 20-by-10-foot structure is equipped with a special laser wind sensor to measure wind speeds at various heights over the lake.
When each was asked by The Chronicle to look into their “crystal balls” to predict when turbines might be installed in the Great Lakes, Hart said six to eight years and O’Brien said as early as three to five years.
Hart said he expects that the first offshore wind projects will be completed in the Northeast portion of the United States, because traditional energy costs there are higher so offshore wind’s cost competitiveness will be realized sooner.
After technology advancements are complete and financial risks of offshore wind energy minimized, Hart said he expects “best” projects to begin being installed in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. Among the advancements currently being pursued is improved power transmission capabilities for offshore turbines, being backed by Google, and larger turbines to access better winds farther offshore.
Hart said the goal is to reduce the costs of offshore-wind-produced electricity from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. He said he expects about half of the cost reduction to come in technological advancements and the other half from lower capital costs.
By building bigger wind farms with larger turbines and blades and putting them farther offshore, Hart said he expects offshore wind development to make better business sense. It also will allay concern about the turbines’ appearance from the shore.
O’Brien said the wind-assessment buoy’s data, if deemed accurate, and state changes in the permitting process are keys to making offshore wind farms more viable in the Great Lakes. He said if those two items are favorable for developers, wind turbines could be put in the Great Lakes in three to five years.
However, O’Brien said it may be five to seven years if floating turbines are deemed the better option to install farther off land in deeper water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)