Updates

Judge won't OK Steuben wind-energy project, but it goes ahead anyway

A mid-December vote by a Steuben County Town Board that allows a controversial wind-energy project to go forward will stand, for now, without a judicial stamp of approval.

In a ruling released this morning, state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley declined to give his legal imprimatur to a 3-to-2 vote by the Prattsburgh Town Board in favor of a legal settlement with Ecogen Wind LLC.

Buffalo-area Ecogen had sued the board in November to force approval of a 16-turbine wind farm in the hilly Steuben County town. The company has said it spent $13 million on studies, legal fees and other expenses related to the project, which also would feature 17 more 415-foot-high turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, Yates County.

Ecogen brought suit against Prattsburgh shortly after the Nov. 3 townwide election, in which voters chose a new supervisor and a new board member, both of whom are openly skeptical about the Ecogen project.

The company apparently feared that the new board, once seated this month, would kill the project, and it sued preemptively so that pro-wind town lawmakers would have an opportunity to approve a settlement before two of them left office. The terms of the settlement allowed the project to go forward unfettered.

Two wind skeptics already on the board unsuccessfully sought to persuade Lindley not block the lame-duck board from settling the lawsuit. At the same time, Ecogen’s lawyers asked Lindley to give his approval to the settlement, presumably so that it would be more difficult for the new board to overturn.

Lindley said in his ruling, however, that it was “unnecessary and superfluous” for him to approve the settlement. He also said in his ruling that he was not disapproving it, either, and said the question of whether the mid-December vote was proper had not been put before him.

The Prattsburgh board, which now splits 4-to-1 against the Ecogen project, is scheduled to meet this evening.

“I guess that’s a good thing,” said Steve Kula, a wind-skeptic board member, referring to Lindley’s refusal to approve the settlement. “But it sounds like there’s a lot that’s open-ended at this point.”

Kula said he expected the board would begin working on a wind-turbine moratorium in the town and “trying to unwind the position of the previous board.”

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Huffing and puffing over wind power

Did the federal government, as some have said, give millions of dollars in stimulus funds to a non-producing wind farm in the Southern Tier town of Cohocton? Not exactly.

Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.

That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.

"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.

The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.

"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."

But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption...

Click here to read the entire City Newspaper article by Jeremy Moule.

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York

The company that was going to rejuvenate the economy of New London, Conn.—the site of the Kelo v. City of New London case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for a government to use eminent domain to seize property for private economic development—is pulling out of New London and moving on.

Pfizer, Inc. has merged with Wyeth and just announced that it is moving most of its 1,400 employees to nearby Groton. Opponents of eminent domain are pointing to the move as proof that the development project was ill-conceived from the beginning. Scott Bullock, co-counsel for the case with the Institute for Justice, called Pfizer the "very lynchpin of the project" and said, "All of this really just demonstrates the folly of government abusing eminent domain and granting massive corporate welfare to corporations and to developers." Project supporters argue that the economy is to blame for the development halt.

As reported in "The Buzz" in WORLD Magazine's December 5, 2009 issue.

Labels: Legal Issues

Ecogen Wind LLC's lawsuit claims the town of Italy, Yates County, delayed a decision on its industrial wind development proposal since 2002 and now can't deny its application (Nov. 5 story). In reality, Ecogen caused this long, drawn-out, expensive process by refusing to accept the town's original decision to remain non-industrial. A 2006 zoning law prohibiting industrial turbines, two town-wide surveys and several public hearings on this issue demonstrated that Italy wants to preserve its major strengths — natural beauty and a peaceful rural character. It was Ecogen's lawsuit threats and unrelenting pressure on the Town Board that led to a reluctantly made zoning law revision, application review and final denial.

Evidence submitted by citizens overwhelmingly showed that the short setbacks and high noise levels required to fit Ecogen's massive facility among our homes could damage Italy residents' welfare, property values, health and safety. Cohocton's experience with industrial wind turbines has been a nightmare and a learning experience. Recent elections in Italy and Prattsburgh clearly showed the people's choice to remain turbine-free.

We should have the right to say "no."

—Joan Simmons, Italy, Yates County

Labels: Freedom, Legal Issues, New York, Process

Which way did windmill voting tilt?

Steve Orr, Staff writer, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

As we’ve been reporting, a wind-power development company called Ecogen Wind has filed suit against the town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County seeking a judicial order allowing it to proceed with construction of a wind farm there without town board approval. This comes in the heels of a similar court action by Ecogen in early November against the neighboring town of Italy, Yates County, asking a judge to set aside a town board vote killing the project.

Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo and backed by a firm with offices in San Francisco and Houston, wants to build a 33-turbine wind farm in the hills of the two towns, which lie not far from the southern end of Canandaigua Lake.

At least part of the motivation behind these bare-knuckles lawsuits is the fact that voters in Italy and Prattsburgh elected anti-wind farm slates in voting earlier this month. Ecogen clearly fears the new boards will try to deep-six their project, on which they say they have spent $13 million so far.

The question I have is whether the voting in the two neighboring towns is part of a groundswell of opposition to industrial-scale wind farms in New York’s rural towns. There are several dozen wind farm proposals resting with town boards across the state, including some in the Rochester region - and most of the host towns had local elections on November 3. Someone I spoke with recently suggested a number of those elections did tilt against windmills.

This is where I’d like to enlist you visitors to help. If you know who won and who lost in town elections where wind farms were a major issue, post a comment here or shoot me an e-mail. Between your information and what I’m able to gather, I’ll post a running tally as we move along.

By the way, here are the legal petitions filed by Ecogen against the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh. They’re slow going if you don’t like legalese, but they might be worth reading – for the rural town-versus-wind farm conflict could prove significant in New York’s renewable energy future.

Response:
In Italy the town voted to replace 3 of the town board members including the supervisor. Italy has been more reasonable than Prattsburgh as far as the current town board and their work on turbines. Prattsburgh who suffered through ridiculous 3-2 votes in favor of wind for the past several years has turned the tide and has now 4-1 in favor of Town Board Members that are not going to be greenwashed by Ecogen/Pattern Energy. The basis to both of these lawsuits is that the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh have used our democratic process and shown that they are "Mad as hell. and not going to take it anymore." Now the greedy corporation will turn to a bevy of lawyers to twist the facts into some sort of feeble attempt to go against the will of the people.... Maybe it is time for another Tea Party!

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Town to fight wind company lawsuit

By Julie Sherwood, Staff Writer, Daily Messenger

A fight over whether a proposed wind turbine project bordering Naples will go forward heated up last week when the developer filed a lawsuit against the town, where 17 turbines were to go up.

The Article 78 action, filed in state Supreme Court in Monroe County by developer Ecogen Wind LLC, seeks to overturn the Town Board’s decision to stop the project by denying approvals and placing a moratorium on its development.

Last month, the board unanimously rejected the proposed wind turbine project, determining the gigantic, power-generating machines would have a negative effect on the environment. The board also imposed a six-month moratorium on wind turbines following a public hearing.

The decision followed a meeting the previous month attended by 116 residents. Most of those who spoke opposed the project over concerns about noise, light flicker, positioning on steep slopes and other concerns.

Supervisor-elect Brad Jones said he and other elected officials are ready to challenge the lawsuit that claims the town acted improperly and illegally in rejecting the project’s application.

“You don’t try to build a big industrial project when 70 to 80 percent said ‘we don’t want
industrialization in the town,’” said Jones. His family, like most others in Italy, choose to live there because of family history and the town’s rural character, he said.

“We need to represent the will of the people,” added Jones. “We will continue to fight.”

Messages left with Nixon Peabody LLP, Ecogen’s legal representative on the case, were not returned. Beth O’Brien, a spokeswoman with Ecogen’s partner on the project, Pattern Energy Group, said she could not comment because of the pending litigation.

Ed Premo, with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, which represents the town, said the Town Board did due diligence.

“It went through the process of carefully reviewing the application, went through two public hearings and carefully considered all documents and evidence,” he said, before the board determined the benefits Ecogen offered did not outweigh “the substantial adverse impacts of the project.”

Jones said Ecogen had bought several properties in the town, with plans to build turbines there, claiming in the lawsuit it had spent between $10 million and $12 million on those land deals, while pegging its entire cost for the project at more than $150 million.

Town resident Vince Johnson said he plans to ask the town to set up a legal-defense fund to pay for the ongoing costs in fighting Ecogen in court.

“Sadly, Ecogen is coming back to town again with a legal gun and trying to bleed the town dry,” he said.

Italy and Ecogen have been involved in several legal battles involving the turbine project, which is tied to one in neighboring Prattsburgh. Ecogen and Pattern Energy Group want to put up 33 wind turbines across the two towns, with the companies saying the Prattsburgh project depends on getting the permit from Italy.

Naples also has a lot at stake. This summer the Naples Town Board asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line. The town has focused on five turbines that Ecogen’s original plans sited on Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh. One would be within 250 feet of the Naples town line and less than 500 feet from a Naples landowner's property line.

Wind turbines are already towering over the landscape to the south of Naples. Fifty turbines — with most clustered on Pine and Lent hills in Cohocton — installed by another wind energy company, First Wind, became operational early this year. The company’s plans to erect more than 40 additional turbines for a project in Prattsburgh are currently on hold due to financing issues.
Lynn Barbuto, who owns Ceasar’s Pet Palace in Geneva, said she was dismayed when she drove to Naples recently with a friend who had been interested in buying a home there. When they saw the industrial wind turbines covering the hillsides south of town, they were “mortified,” she said.

Her friend, who grew up in Rochester and had been living in Florida, wanted to return to the Finger Lakes region — particularly the Naples area — and settle down, said Barbuto. “But she rejected that area due to those wind turbines.”

“We couldn’t believe these monstrous things were in this most beautiful site in New York,” said Barbuto. “What next?”

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Wind-energy firm takes town to court

Angered by a Town Board vote in Italy, Yates County, to kill a turbine proposal, a wind-energy company is asking a judge to override the elected board members and allow the project to go forward.

Ecogen Wind LLC, which had been seeking permission to erect 17 wind turbines, each standing 415 feet, said in court papers filed Wednesday that town leaders had dodged and delayed a decision on the proposal since 2002.

When board members finally did vote 5-to-0 in early October to deny Ecogen the approvals it needed, the action was illegal and based on reasons that Ecogen lawyers said were "demonstrably false and/or pretextural."

Ecogen's lawyers, from the Rochester firm Nixon Peabody, said the board had no lawful reason to withhold the permit, had violated the state Open Meetings law by acting in private and had been "arbitrary and capricious" in handling the environmental review process.

The legal action will ask a state Supreme Court justice to reverse the Town Board action and grant Ecogen the permit it needs to proceed, or to order the Town Board to issue the permit.

Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo, and partner Pattern Energy of San Francisco have planned to build an additional 16 turbines in adjoining Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The two-county wind farm could generate up to about 76 megawatts of electricity.

Because the Italy Town Board also declared a moratorium on any wind-related construction, the unbuilt Prattsburgh turbines are effectively blocked because they would connect to the transmission grid through an electrical substation to be built in Italy.

Ecogen said in the court papers that it has spent $13 million on studies, testing, land acquisition and other work related to the stalled project. It said $120 million in financing is jeopardized.

The action marks at least the fifth court skirmish over the Italy-Prattsburgh wind farm.

A spokeswoman for Pattern Energy did not return a call for comment Thursday. Neither did Italy Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn.

Dunn and two Town Board members who voted to deny the permit to Ecogen were ousted from office in voting Tuesday in favor of stridently anti-turbine candidates.

Supervisor-elect Brad Jones said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he hadn't seen the court papers. But, he added, the board will "continue to represent the expressed desires in the town, which is to resist industrialization."

Steve Orr, Staff writer, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

• Important Message from John Servo
• The Ecogen meeting is at the Prattsburgh School Cafetorium at 6:30 pm Thursday May 21. Come early if possible, as it will be well attended.
• Ecogen has a PILOT agreement with Prattsburgh for $9M less that their deal with Italy for a comparable number of wind turbines – 75% less than Italy's deal. We anticipate that Ecogen will present the Town about $1,000,000 in "sweeteners" – several trucks, maybe a new pole barn, some sidewalks, and Scholarship Fund. And where is the other $8,000,000? How stupid does Ecogen and the Town Board majority think we are? What was done to "grease the wheels of progress" to have this rip-off rammed down our throats?
• Those people who will be potentially damaged by noise, and health and safety problems are supposed to just "shut up and take it". This is not acceptable, and citizens need to make ourselves heard.
• This past week, Ecogen tried to get Prattsburgh Town board member Steve Kula to accept an artfully worded bribe – Steve's father would not get a (potentially several million dollar) gravel contract with Ecogen unless Steve Jr. recused himself from voting on any wind farm issues. And town attorney John Leyden – who also represents SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project – suggested that Steve accept and recuse himself! This, after Leyden has previously told Harold McConnell (who received money from a wind farm developer) – and before him David Hall and Andy Moesch, whose families leased to the developers – that they did not need to recuse themselves for conflict-of-interest! Evidently, attorney Leyden believes that only town board members concerned about noise, health and safety issues, and corruption should recuse themselves. If you want to protect the citizens and the Town, you better shut up! What do you think? Come to the Ecogen meeting and tell us what you think!
• Last month, a 25 acre property in Naples located 537 feet an Ecogen turbine site in Prattsburgh had its tax assessment lowered by 60%. What does this mean? If the Ecogen project is built as planned, the assessments on dozens of damaged properties in Prattsburgh will also be lowered – and if the Town budget doesn't go down, everyone else's taxes will go up. Welcome to the "financial benefits" of a badly planned wind project in Prattsburgh! Tell Ecogen – and their fans on the Prattsburgh Town Board – that you want Ecogen to guarantee protection from these higher taxes!
• Advocates for Prattsburgh will have a highly respected noise expert speak at the Ecogen meeting. He will address the health and safety impact on adjacent landowners which will result from these damagingly short setbacks. Please listen to what he says, and then tell Ecogen what you think, and what you want!
• If you have concerns about what is happening and Ecogen's plans for Prattsburgh, please sign up to speak at the meeting.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Noise, Process

Dear Folks,

It seems that some of us missed an interesting meeting in Prattsburgh last night. I have spoken to several people who attended and am passing along comments from Arnold Palmer, a landowner in Prattsburgh, who sent me this email.

Just to give you some basics - Prior to the regularly scheduled town board meeting there was a public hearing on the "wind law." Once there is a wind law the town is legally allowed to receive money for building permits from wind companies. They did not vote on the wind law last night - rather they agreed to have a workshop in a couple of weeks to discuss setbacks.

The following is from Arnold:

The meeting was standing room only.

A fellow from Cohocton - Lent Hill Road, [Judge Hal Graham] spoke eloquently about the noise resulting from a 2.3 turbine on his property, how strongly he supported the wind farm concept before they became operational, how completely frustrated he was with the noise level which is so different from what he was promised when he signed a lease, his complete lack of results in trying, now after the fact, to do something about it, how badly he felt about what he'd wrought on his neighbors, and urging the Board to act prudently.

He made the excellent point that, rather than relying on Ecogen or whomever to provide theoretical DB prognostications, the Prattsburgh Board had the option to simply come to Cohocton and listen. He urged them to visit his home and to do so on windy days without giving the wind company a heads up in that, whenever visitors were anticipated, the turbine speeds are slowed down so that visitors are treated to noise levels at 25% or less of what the residents are subjected to on a daily basis. Good discussion about what sorts of setbacks were necessary and what point from which the setbacks should be measured.

The overall tenor of the Hearing and Board Meeting was substantially different that any I've attended in recent memory.

However some things don't change:

The Town Attorney was his usual self, yelling at Al to keep quiet and bristling whenever his posture was questioned by attendees or the Board. Stacy got in a few "you people" epithets in a lengthy self-serving statement describing what a privilege it had been to direct the Comprehensive Plan initiative and remind everyone she was pleased with the Plan and couldn't care less whether anyone else liked the plan, or the people who worked on it or the process under which it was prepared.

When Judge Graham was speaking, the room was silent and he was given the courtesy of speaking when his allotted three minutes were up.

The star of the evening was Steve Kula. He was extremely even-handed on wind related issues, got Harold and the Town Attorney squirming on whether bills (attorney fees and engineering company bills, among others) were being paid properly and transparently or whether they were being sent directly to Harold rather than to the Town who had approved the bills and had them paid. He brought up a number of other equally lightning rod issues about propriety, including asking for an executive session at the end to present a 'legal solution' to end the issues of condemnation and Harold's vote.

So folks, the good news is that the wind law in its present form was not voted upon, and the Board appears to be taking the issue of setbacks seriously. Thanks to everyone who attended last night - the support from this group continues to stay solid, and it is appreciated.

Regards,
Ruth

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Noise, Process

Hamlin to consider new wind tower laws

by Meaghan M. McDermott, Staff writer

In the wake of a state Supreme Court decision striking down Hamlin's law regulating wind turbines, town officials plan to begin crafting a new law as soon as possible.

"We're looking at various options," said Town Supervisor Denny Roach, adding that he was "surprised and disappointed" by the Jan. 5 ruling from Justice David M. Barry nullifying wind turbine laws crafted through more than two years of public hearings, committee meetings and research. "Not only did we model our wind tower laws on other wind tower laws enacted throughout the state, but ours were more stringent than the other regulations, including some of the toughest noise restrictions in the state."

The Hamlin Preservation Group sued the town in August over the law, which would allow 400-foot-tall wind turbines to be constructed within 600 feet of property lines and public roads and within 1,200 feet of residences in areas zoned residential/very-low density. About 70 percent of Hamlin is zoned residential/very-low density.

The group claimed the Town Board ignored recommendations of its Wind Tower Committee — which included four of the 39 residents who filed the suit — to establish 1,500-foot setbacks from roads and property lines and 2,640-foot setbacks from homes.

Justice Barry ruled that town leaders violated state environmental quality laws in approving the new ordinance by not taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns related to wind towers or setting forth a "reasoned elaboration" on why the wind tower rules would not have a significant impact on the environment.

"We are very pleased with the decision," said Paul Lapinski of Redman Road, a member of the preservation group. "There are places wind turbines fit in, but they don't fit in right next to somebody's house."

Hamlin leaders began grappling with wind energy issues in late 2006, when Competitive Power Ventures Inc. erected two devices in northwest Hamlin to study whether it would be a good place for a wind farm. Since then, the company — now owned by Rochester Gas and Electric parent Iberdrola — has obtained options to lease about 15 properties for a possible wind farm in the northwest Monroe County town.

So far, Iberdrola has not put forth an official proposal for a wind farm in Hamlin.

But without a wind tower law on the books, Roach worries the town is vulnerable to developers. He plans to ask the Town Board to enact a temporary moratorium on wind farm development at the upcoming Jan. 26 meeting.

Lapinski said he'd like to see the town go even further than the wind committee's recommendations and prohibit turbines within 2,640 feet of property lines and 1,500 feet of roadways. He is concerned about noise, flicker, the possibility of ice thrown from spinning blades, destruction of airborne wildlife and what could happen if a tower were to collapse.

Roach said town leaders would take a harder look at potential environmental concerns.

But, Roach said, he's frustrated by more state and federal government calls for green energy and alternative fuels that don't come with any guidance for local governments for regulation.

"These are all grand goals, but there's no guidance and in the meantime the towns are left with the expense of getting regulations together and in place." he said.

Arthur J. Giacalone, attorney for the preservation group and a proponent of tight controls on wind energy companies, said he's aware of three towns that have banned industrial turbines altogether: Brandon and Malone in Franklin County and Meredith in Delaware County.

"Town boards need to understand they do have a right to keep these things out," he said.

Hamlin is the first Monroe County town to attract attention from a wind power firm. Other projects are ongoing in the region, however. Two farms are planned in Ontario County, there are three in the works in Genesee, one in Orleans and one in Livingston County.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

NYS Supreme Court Judge Nullifies Hamlin Wind Energy Law

The Wind Energy Law adopted in April 2008 by the Monroe County Town of Hamlin has been “set aside and annulled” by the Hon. David Michael Barry, Justice of New York State’s Supreme Court, in an “Order and Judgment” granted on January 5, 2009. The court’s decision concludes that the Hamlin Town Board violated the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when it neither took a “hard look” at the relevant areas of environmental concern, nor set forth a “reasoned elaboration” for its determination that the wind energy law would not have a significant impact on the environment.

The wind law nullified by the court would have allowed construction of 400-foot-tall wind turbines within 600 feet of property lines and public roads and 1,200 feet of residences. In adopting the local law, the Hamlin Town Board chose to ignore the recommendations of the town's Wind Tower Committee for 1,500-foot setbacks from roads and property lines, and 2,640-foot [half-mile] setbacks from residents. The Town Board also disregarded the WTC's recommended noise standards intended to protect the health and wellbeing of nearby residents.

The judicial proceeding was brought in State Supreme Court, Monroe County by the "Hamlin Preservation Group" [HPG], an association of town residents and landowners determined to protect Hamlin's rural character and natural environment, and thirty-nine (39) Town of Hamlin residents. Of special concern to the Hamlin residents was the town board’s failure to take the required “hard look” at potential adverse impacts on human health associated with industrial wind farms prior to establishing minimum setback requirements and noise standards in the challenged wind law.

Attorney Arthur J. Giacalone expressed HPG’s response to the decision:

The members of the Hamlin Preservation Group are thrilled with the court’s ruling, and grateful to Justice Barry for holding the Hamlin Town Board to the tough standards mandated by the State’s environmental review law. If a town chooses to allow, rather than prohibit, industrial-scale wind development, it must, at a minimum, protect its residents' health, maintain the town's rural character, and preserve property values by establishing meaningful setback requirements and noise standards. The court’s ruling will help to ensure those protections.

For further information, please contact Arthur J. Giacalone, at 716-687-1902.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Naples: Don’t get too close with those windmills

By Emily McFaul, correspondent

Naples, NY — The Town Board says wind turbines planned for neighboring Prattsburgh come too close to the Naples town line. Board members agreed this month to send a letter asking the state Public Service Commission to intervene and order a developer to move the towers further from town line.

“I think the board has made clear, we’re not against wind turbines, but we are against the improper siting of towers,” Supervisor Frank Duserick said.

This is not the first letter of protest the town has issued regarding the location of towers in neighboring townships. In July, the town appealed to the state Attorney General’s Office, arguing that Naples landowners’ property rights and safety are threatened by the placement of the towers. While a date has yet to be set, the Attorney General’s Office has expressed interest in meeting with the town.

At issue are turbines planned for Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh, part of the Ecogen project. Five turbines are scheduled to go up in the area, with the closest only 489 feet from Naples landowner John Servo’s property line. Servo is president of the group Advocates for Prattsburgh, which has opposed this project.

Technically, the setbacks meet project guidelines established for Ecogen through an environmental study headed up by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. But both Servo and the Naples Town Board say the setbacks are not enough.

The neighboring town of Cohocton passed a zoning law prohibiting the placement of turbines closer than 1,500 feet from a residence, a step that Duserick points out to the PSC as precedent that another town has acknowledged the undesirability of building within that range.

By placing turbines less than 500 feet from the Naples property line, Duserick and Servo argue that the project is creating “reverse zoning” that effectively limits Naples landowners from full use of their property for safety reasons. “The safety zone is 1,500 feet,” Duserick later said. “There should be a 1,500 feet setback, and actually it’s not enough. That’s for the smaller turbines.”

At a hearing last month, the Steuben County IDA outlined Ecogen’s new plans to install larger 2.3-megawatt turbines instead of the originally planned 1.5-megawatt model, but Naples received no advance notice of the hearing.

The increase in the turbine size means that only 36 towers will be placed instead of the 53 originally planned, but the towers will be 26 feet taller to generate the increased output. Ecogen project manager Thomas Hagner said contrary to what some project critics have suggested, no new environmental study is required.

And despite the number of towers being scaled back, with the site earmarked a prime wind resource, the Knapp Hill towers are still planned. Technically, Ecogen is within its rights to do so, said Hagner. “The turbines meet the permitting requirements of the government agency with jurisdiction on this issue,” he said.

For Duserick, frustration goes back to initial planning phases for the wind project, when the IDA notified the village but not the town of the impending development, leaving the town out of the loop in the environmental review process.

“It’s inappropriate and unethical to place towers so close to the town line without even talking to (us),” said Duserick. “I clearly question the ethics of what’s happening in Steuben County.”
In the letter to the PSC, the town also asks for setbacks of five miles from designated historic sites in Naples like the Memorial Town Hall, in order to protect the town’s scenic views and tourism trade.

The environmental review process for wind developments evaluates the visual impacts of turbines for a radius of 5 miles; for the Ecogen project, the determination recorded in the environmental impact statement is that there would not be “significant adverse impact for distant views (greater than approximately 2 miles).”

But there is some precedent in the PSC limiting turbines from being built in sites where they could be visually and economically detrimental. Last year, the PSC required Jordanville Wind to eliminate 19 of the 68 turbines planned for its Herkimer County project, since they would be visible from the Glimmerglass Historic District. Though the district fell outside of the 5-mile radius, the PSC acknowledged the district as a “nationally significant” historic resource, and a key factor in a regional economic plan developed around heritage-based tourism.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Dear Folks,

We just learned this weekend that First Wind is indefinitely postponing the Prattsburgh project. We have also heard from a reliable source that they are also refusing to pay the legal bills for the Town of Prattsburgh that they said they would pay. In addition, we believe the company owes the town money for other things (roads or something) that they have not paid.

We think it will be very hard for a court to allow the town of Prattsburgh to condemn property for a company that is indefinitely postponing the project and which OWES THE TOWN MONEY. And if the condemnations are disallowed, that will be disturbing for Ecogen, since we believe that the Ecogen project was counting on a precedent being set so that they could also ask the town to condemn land.

And speaking of Ecogen, there is reason to believe that their partner (and major financer) Babcock and Brown, is almost bankrupt. A recent look at the financial pages showed that their stock fell from $35 over a year ago to TWENTY FIVE CENTS. We are presently looking into this.

It's not over yet, but this news is VERY exciting.

We are very grateful to those of you who have not allowed yourself to be bullied by the companies -- those of you who have stood firm when pressed to sign leases and have chased off the wind company surveyors when they trespassed on your property. Because of all the letters written, meetings attended and attention to detail that has been paid, the wind companies have not been able to railroad through their projects.

If the condemnees had not chosen to appeal, First Wind could have possessed that land four months ago, and we might have had a very different scenario than the one we have now. Thank you to everyone who has supported the condemnees; thank you to those who have answered our most recent appeal for funds; and for those of you who want to help the condemnees with the final bill [see below], please send your checks to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Regards,
Ruth

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, Process

Members of Advocates for Prattsburgh are continuing to monitor wind happenings, even as the condemnees prepare for the December 12 appeal. We know that nearly everyone on this list continues to be concerned about the future of Prattsburgh, because wherever we go we are asked for the latest update.

Because of generous financial donations the condemnees will have their day in court for a case that affects every community besieged by wind companies. At this point, just $2000 is needed to ensure that the final legal bills can be paid.

Due to our vigilance, most Prattsburgh residents are not yet suffering from turbines with inadequate setbacks, although the Cohocton project has begun to affect some Prattsburgh properties. A drive to Cohocton will demonstrate the reality of the size of the turbines. There have already been noise complaints.

If you read the Naples Record a couple weeks ago, you know that Francis Hall, the father of former Prattsburgh Council Person, David Hall, received $439,250 from Ecogen Wind LLC for a deed transfer. This happened when David Hall was on the Town Board. Since Francis Hall began doing business with Ecogen in about 2003, David Hall voted on several resolutions having to do with wind companies – never once did he recuse himself.

It is impossible for people like David Hall and Harold McConnell to honestly assess the pros and cons of wind projects in Prattsburgh when they or their families are benefiting financially. And without constant monitoring by Prattsburgh residents and landowners, no one would know about these deals that are going on.

On December 12, the lawyer for the condemnees will appear in court to present their case that the benefit of the First Wind project will not be worth the cost. He will argue that the town has overstepped its bounds by condemning property for use by a private company and that, due to conflict of interest, the Supervisor’s tie breaking vote for condemnation should not be allowed to stand.

Because of your support, the condemnees have raised nearly $20,000. Just $2000 more will ensure that the lawyer is paid for the court appearance and for last minute responses to First Wind’s lawyers. If we all chip in, that goal can be reached. Please send whatever you can to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Things are about to get interesting out in Hamlin.

During his community forum in Irondequoit last night, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told a group of Hamlin residents that he'd send an environmental attorney to look into the town's wind tower regulations and the circumstances under which they were passed. He was responding to repeated requests from a group of town residents, all members of the Hamlin Preservation Group.

To be clear - Cuomo did not say that his office would take any action, just that he's sending a lawyer to take a look at the situation.

The Hamlin Preservation Group, which is suing the town over the regulations, has a couple of concerns. The first is with the regulations themselves: they allow the towers to be built too close to homes and roads, they say. The second is a perceived conflict of interest: one of the Town Board members has a lease agreement with Iberdrola - the company interested in building turbines in Hamlin - though he abstained from voting on the regulations.

Neither concern is unique to Hamlin.

"It's a big issue all across the state," Cuomo said.

Earlier this year, the AG's office issued a code of conduct for wind developers to help prevent improper relationships with town officials. Noble and First Wind have signed on, but Iberdrola has not. Among those that helped develop the code is Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green.

The Hamlin situation brings a larger problem into sharp relief: there are no uniform regulations for wind farm placement in New York. As Hamlin residents pointed out, that leaves the decision in the town's hands.

Cuomo says that his office has put together a task force to address issues like standardizing setbacks.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Dear Friends,

We have very good news in the battle against the property condemnations to benefit First Wind, condemnations triggered by a Town Board decision in which Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Harold McConnell cast the tie-breaking vote. Last week, in a document submitted to the judge, attorneys for windfarm developer First Wind revealed that Harold McConnell actually had more to do with their real estate transaction than previously admitted. Harold wrote the purchase offer, he reviewed the counter offer, and he interacted with the listing agency – an extent and level of involvement not disclosed in his affidavit for the court. Mary Perham used the word "perjury" in the article she wrote for the Corning Leader on Sunday.

First Wind appears to be sacrificing Supervisor McConnell to protect themselves, and their document makes our case for conflict-of-interest much stronger.

We are waiting for the judge to rule, however, there is a good chance she will refer this case to the Appellate Court for the hearing December 10. The court would then rule on the conflict-of-interest at the same time it considers the appeal by Prattsburgh landowners whose land was condemned by the Town as a result of Harold's tie-breaking vote. And while our case is strong – and getting stronger – this court case is an enormous expense, and Advocates for Prattsburgh needs your help.

If you have any doubts what is in store for us if we don't fight for our rights, just see what these wind turbines look like in Cohocton, especially up close. And the BIG issues are not their overwhelming visual dominance, but whether those of us near them will be able to live in our homes, and – let's face it – the personal financial impact. For most of us, the value of our homes and our property represents much of our life savings. What will happen if your property is devalued or becomes unsellable, or you can't get an equity loan to help pay your bills?

What about the NOISE? Last week, one Cohocton resident 4000 feet from a wind turbine said it sounded like a freight train. Is THIS what we want? And the potentially severe negative impact which peppering the Town with wind turbines would have on our local economy and our taxes is coming at the worst possible time.

Please contribute to the legal battle against eminent domain, and to throw out Harold McConnell's tainted vote to condemn the land of Prattsburgh property owners. We have worked tirelessly for nearly six years to hold the windfarm developers and state and local agencies accountable for the health and safety and environmental integrity of our area, and at this critical juncture, AFP needs your help. We need $5000 to pay legal expenses through December 10, when the court will decide. By every indication, we have a very strong case, and your contribution of $50, $500 or any amount will make all the difference.

So please, do what you can and send donations to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh NY 14873. It is the donations of concerned citizens like you which make this fight possible. Thank you, for all of us in Prattsburgh.

Sincerely for Advocates for Prattsburgh

Al Wordingham
Arnold Palmer
Ruthe Matilsky
Terry Matilsky
Al Muscianese
John Servo

Labels: Legal Issues, Money

New info calls statements into question

BATH - New court documents appear to contradict sworn statements by Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell about his involvement in a windfarm land deal. Kevin Bernstein, attorney for Windfarm Prattsburgh, submitted additional information about the transaction Monday to state Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure.

McConnell, a real estate agent, is under fire for voting on issues involving the wind developer after he received payments for his role in selling property to Windfarm Prattsburgh. McConnell has maintained the payments were for token assistance and should not have prevented him from voting twice in favor of eminent domain proceedings on behalf of the energy company.

Click here to read Mary Perham's whole article in this week's Steuben Courier.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Italy zoning changes pave way for wind energy

PENN YAN — The Yates County Planning Board approved proposed incentive zoning amendments to the Town of Italy’s comprehensive plan that would make way for wind energy development.

Incentive zoning refers to designated areas in the town where wind turbines would be allowed and developers eligible for financial incentives.

At Thursday’s meeting, board member Dave Christiansen asked Italy Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn why the town didn’t address the zoning issue during its moratorium on wind farm development.

At that time, Dunn said a majority of people opposed wind farm development and the town eventually banned wind farms. However, a lawsuit filed by wind farm developer EcoGen LLC prompted discussions with the town attorney on incentive zoning, she said, with feedback from the town board and residents supportive of such an option.

She said the proposed zones encompass two locations, which were chosen because the areas have already attracted interest from developers and town residents there are interested in leasing their properties.

Board Member Carroll Graves asked if a developer could still sue the town over potential development areas that are excluded from the incentive zoning plan. Dunn replied that she hopes the zoning proposal will show courts that the town is allowing such development, even if it’s in a designated area.

Click here to read the complete Finger Lakes Times article by by Amanda Folts.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Steuben judge dismisses CWW efforts to halt $230 million First Wind project

Bath, N.Y. - Cohocton town officials are breathing a sigh of relief today after three legal challenges to the $230 million wind turbine development in the town have been dismissed.

Steuben County Supreme Court Judge Marianne Furfure sided with Cohocton town officials, developer First Wind and leaseholders Tuesday morning, dismissing three lawsuits filed by local advocacy group Cohocton Wind Watch to halt work on the 50-turbine wind development in the town.

According to Cohocton town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, Furfure made her ruling from the bench. No written copy of the decision was available Tuesday afternoon, according to employees at the Steuben County Supreme Court Clerk’s office. “She just dismissed it without comment,” he said.

Click here to read Bob Clark' entire Hornell Evening Tribune article.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Not in my valley, say Italy residents

Members of the Italy Town Board listen to people speak during
a public hearing to rezone land to allow windmills in the town on Saturday.

Nearly 70 concerned residents and neighbors spoke out about potential rezoning for wind turbines in the Italy Valley at a public hearing Saturday. The discussion continued a forum that began at a meeting last week in which emotional residents protested the proposed changes, which would allow developer Ecogen LLC to move forward with plans for wind turbines in two areas in the southern portion of the town.

About two-thirds of the speakers on Saturday opposed wind development, said Town Board member Malcolm MacKenzie. Of those, many surmised that developers are not concerned about the best interest of the residents.

Click here to read the entire Messenger Post article.

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption

Click on image to view a slide show

BURKE, N.Y. — Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy looked, the wind companies had been there first.

Dozens of people in their small town had already signed lease options that would allow wind towers on their properties. Two Burke Town Board members had signed private leases even as they negotiated with the companies to establish a zoning law to permit the towers. A third board member, the Tacys said, bragged about the commissions he would earn by selling concrete to build tower bases. And, the Tacys said, when they showed up at a Town Board meeting to complain, they were told to get lost.

“There were a couple of times when they told us to just shut up,” recalled Mr. Tacy, sitting in his kitchen on a recent evening.

Lured by state subsidies and buoyed by high oil prices, the wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, promising to bring jobs, tax revenue and cutting-edge energy to the long-struggling region. But in town after town, some residents say, the companies have delivered something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.

“It really is renewable energy gone wrong,” said the Franklin County district attorney, Derek P. Champagne, who began a criminal inquiry into the Burke Town Board last spring and was quickly inundated with complaints from all over the state about the wind companies. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo agreed this year to take over the investigation.

Click here to read the entire New York Times article by Nicholas Confessore.

Labels: Disadvantages, Legal Issues, New York, Process

Hamlin residents sue to block wind farm plans

by Michael Zeigler, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Staff writer

Hamlin residents who oppose a new town law regulating the development of wind farms have sued the town.

The Hamlin Preservation Group and 39 town residents filed a lawsuit Tuesday in state Supreme Court against the law, claiming it will ruin Hamlin’s rural nature and environment.

The Hamlin Town Board unanimously approved the law at a contentious meeting April 24. One board member abstained because he had signed a lease agreement with a wind energy firm

The law, which was the first passed by a town in Monroe County, allows electricity-producing wind turbines up to 400 feet high in parts of town zoned residential-very low density. Turbines may be placed within 600 feet of property lines and 1,200 feet of residences.

Attorney Arthur J. Giacalone, who represents the Hamlin Preservation Group, said about 70 percent of the town is zoned residential-very low density, including fruit orchards near Lake Ontario. He said the town board ignored recommendations of its Wind Tower Committee to establish 1,200-foot setbacks from roads and property lines and 2,640-foot setbacks from homes.

Town Supervisor Dennis Roach didn’t immediately return a call requesting his comment.

Labels: Legal Issues

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced last week "the launching of an investigation into two companies developing and operating wind farms across New York State amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices."

Under investigation is our very own "First Wind", formerly known variously as "UPC" and "Global Winds Harvest". First Wind, as the developer of Windfarm Prattsburgh, has pressed the Prattsburgh Town Board to initiate condemnation proceedings and exercise eminent domain for their benefit. While we are hopeful that that the Attorney General's investigation will lead to proper regulation of windfarms across the state, it is still necessary for us to continue the legal strategies that are underway.

For this reason, Advocates for Prattsburgh is proceeding with its Article 78 to annul the decisions of the Town Board to proceed with eminent domain. As we mentioned earlier in Latest News, the tie-breaking vote was cast by Town Supervisor Harold McConnell, who refused to recues himself, even after admitting he receiving money from First Wind. We are doing as much as is humanly possible to get these projects properly regulated, and we need your financial support for legal fund. Please send your donations to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Another pressing concern is that, at the same time that First Wind - owner of Windfarm Prattsburgh - is under investigation, the other windfarm developer operating in Prattsburgh - Ecogen - seems to have stepped up its attempts to acquire easements for transmission lines as well as new sites for towers. People have reported finding four-wheeler tracks as well as surveyor's marks on their property when no permission was granted. In addition, we have been told that the leases that have been offered put significant restrictions on a landowners' use of his own property.

Ron and Lynn Iocono have filed an appeal of the condemnation of their property by the Town to provide an easement for Windfarm Prattsburgh. Three other landowners have joined them in the appeal. Ron and Lynn live in Delaware and were planning to retire here in a few years. He is working overtime as an EMT to help pay for the appeal.

On September 5, our Article 78 will be heard in Bath. We are asking the judge to set aside the vote of the town supervisor on eminent domain because of conflict of interest. This is the second time our case will go to court and it has cost us additional funds. Many of you have been very generous in responding to our most recent appeals and we really wish that taxpayers didn't have to use their own money to see justice done, but that is the system we live with, and we continue to need donations. So please send what you can.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Corruption allegations swirl around push for wind power

At first there were sporadic complaints last year to the office of Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne. Then the outcry grew. North Country residents alleged that undue influence was being put on local leaders to approve multimillion-dollar wind farms, with turbines 200 feet or taller, in their rural communities near the Canadian border.

To Champagne's dismay, he thought some of the public officials approving the contracts were also leasing their own land to the wind developers. Champagne found as many as seven town board members in Franklin County who had apparent conflicts of interest.

"These elected officials (who had lease agreements with wind developers) were the same ones who would have to pass the appropriate local legislation to allow them to be constructed," Champagne said last week at his office in Malone. "And they would do it."

As New York seeks to produce 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013, the push by developers and the state to expand wind farms is creating unintended results: bitterly divided communities, accusations of corruption and complaints of poor state oversight for a new type of energy.

Champagne calls it New York's version of a "gold rush" and said it could be the next Enron scandal in the making. He sent out a memo to every town board in his county, urging them to adopt stronger ethical codes.

Some critics question whether the wind farms will produce adequate electricity or instead are being built to tap into public subsidies and sell wind-energy credits on the open market to offset pollution from other industries.

Michael Lawrence, supervisor of Brandon in Franklin County, said the battle over whether to have a wind farm "has created devastation in the community."

Champagne has turned over his cardboard box of documents on cases across the state to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Last week, Cuomo issued subpoenas to two of New York's major wind-farm developers, saying that "if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

Click here to read the whole front page story by Joseph Spector, Albany bureau, published in today's Democrat & Chronicle.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Cuomo Probing Conduct Of Wind Power Companies

ALBANY—The Attorney General’s office has launched an investigation into two companies developing and operating wind farms across New York state amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.

Wind farms are clusters of large electricity-generating turbines powered by wind and connected to the electric grid.

Subpoenas were served on Newton, Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) and Essex, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power, LLC. They are part of an investigation into whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

In recent months, the Office of the Attorney General has received numerous complaints regarding the two companies from citizens, groups and public officials in eight counties alleging improper relations between the companies and local officials and other improper practices.

“The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels,” said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it.”

The Attorney General’s subpoenas seek, among other things:

–All documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity.
–All agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines.
–Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices.
–All documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others in development across the country, according to its web site. First Wind developed the Steel Winds wind farm in Erie County and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming (GenWY Wind) counties.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC, has three active wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming Counties.

The investigation is being led by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Heffner of the Syracuse Regional Office under the supervision of Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen Biben, who oversees the Attorney General’s Public Integrity Bureau. Assisting in the case are Investigators Thomas Wolf, David Bruce and Andrea Burnham.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Prattsburgh tables eminent domain issue

7/18/08, Prattsburgh, N.Y. - A final vote by the Prattsburgh Town Board on whether to move ahead with eminent domain proceedings is on hold for a week.

The town board agreed Tuesday night to a proposal by town Councilman Steve Kula to try to iron out legal difficulties with two local school districts before voting on the eminent domain issue.

The board will invite representatives from the Prattsburgh and Naples central schools, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and the county to discuss their issues in executive session at 7 p.m. June 24 at the town hall.

Earlier this year, the school districts challenged both an agreement between the town and wind farm developer UPC and a 20-year tax break for the developer provided by SCIDA. UPC has since changed its name to First Wind.

The two districts charge the town agreement was used to reduce payments they should receive through SCIDA’s tax incentive. The districts estimate they will lose a total of $1.6 million in funds they would have received under similar SCIDA agreements.

“I just want to be sure we’re playing from the same playing field,” Kula said later. “I want honesty and openness.”

Representatives of several of the agencies met recently with SCIDA board member and county Legislature Chairman Philip Roche, R-Erwin, but no settlement was reached. First Wind was not asked to attend the meeting.

The town board was poised to vote Tuesday night on condemning portions of roadway owned by seven property owners, a step necessary before eminent domain proceedings can begin. The seven have refused to sign easements allowing First Wind to lay underground electrical transmission cables for the proposed 36-turbine windfarm.

Tempers grew heated at the meeting as residents questioned town Attorney John Leyden about the proceedings.

Leyden said 60 out of 70 written concerns submitted during a recent public comment period had no bearing on whether the roadway should be condemned. Leyden said the comments dealt with the value of the wind farm and not condemnation.

The board will make a decision based on oral comments, 18 exhibits and the written comments, he said.

Ruth Matilsky, an opponent of the project, said Leyden’s explanations added to her confusion.

“I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone,” she said.

The questions about the proceedings angered one man, who said the seven property owners should be forced to sign.

After words were exchanged between those for and against the issue, town Supervisor Harold McConnell told the opponents they had no right to tell supporters to shut up.

“You people make me sick,” he said, angrily.

by Mary Perham, Corning Leader

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

PSC should kill Iberdrola deal, law judge says

The state Public Service Commission should reject the proposed takeover of Energy East Corp. by a big Spanish utility, an administrative law judge said today in a much-awaited recommendation.

Energy East is the parent of both Rochester Gas and Electric and New York State Electric and Gas.

The Department of Public Service law judge, Rafael Epstein, picked apart the proposed $4.5 billion deal between Iberdrola SA and Energy East, writing that the commission should disapprove the transaction “on the ground that it does not satisfy the ‘public-interest’ requirement of Public Service Law.”

But if the commission does approve the sale of Energy East, there are pre-conditions that should be met, he wrote.

They include forcing Iberdrola to sell its wind power plants in New York; to agree to $646 million in public-benefit adjustments; and to abide by safeguards and rate proceedings as proposed by the PSC staff.

Iberdrola officials had earlier said they would walk away from the deal, which has been approved by other affected states and the federal government, if New York demanded they sell their wind power farms.

Epstein's recommendation sets the stage for the parties in the case to respond - they have until July 1 to do so -- and then a vote by the PSC.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Governor David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

RE: State Energy Policy and Iberdrola Takeover of Energy East

Dear Governor Patterson:

You have inherited policies from two previous administrations, and your agencies are still tenaciously clinging to these policies and promoting them. Times have changed, however, and it is imperative that you reformulate at least one of those policies – the state energy policy.

As a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, I can tell you that trouble is brewing here around the most contentious issue to appear in upstate New York since the Abolition Movement. Wind turbine construction is seen as a huge threat to our economy and our way of life in upstate New York. Citizens are becoming aware of the scam that Iberdrola and other wind developers are perpetrating on us, and in this post-Enron era, the public has little patience for corporations that lie, cheat, and steal. This undoubtedly will become an election issue next fall, and political hopefuls are recognizing the importance of being on the right side of this issue. Politicians who encourage Iberdrola’s takeover of Energy East, who support Article X, who champion wind development as the solution to our energy crisis, will find themselves criticized, ridiculed, and heavily challenged come fall.

Please provide leadership to our party, and give these incumbents and challengers the support of a thoroughly enlightened, objective, and science-based energy policy. Clean house at NYSERDA, where too many officials have close ties to the industries they are supposed to be overseeing. Redirect DEC, OPRHP, and Ag & Markets to return to their mission of protecting the resources under their charge, rather than exploiting them for corporate profit. It is becoming painfully clear that the Pataki administration led us way off track in this regard. We are looking to Democrats to set things right. If they don’t, they stand little chance of beating back Republicans in the next gubernatorial race.

The party that shows the public that it is not in the pocket of foreign corporations, but instead is courageously standing up to their posturing and threats, will ultimately be the one that triumphs here. Please support the Public Service Commission in its efforts to save us from being exploited by a foreign corporation. Please give clear instructions to your agencies that they must safeguard the welfare of all the people of New York State, and not just a tiny fraction of wealthy businesses. Your leadership is key.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrea Rebeck, AIA Columbia University ‘78
4652 Oak Orchard Road, Albion, NY 14411-9509
Telephone: 585-590-1199

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

EMINENT DOMAIN:
Do they have what it takes to take what you have? Ask the people in Prattsburgh, NY


On May 21, 2008 nearly 150 people attended a public hearing in Prattsburgh on a proposal for the town to seize the roadway owned by seven residents. The properties are needed for a 100-mile underground electrical cable system for the 36-turbine wind farm being developed by UPC (now “First”) Wind.

Don't believe it? Click here to read more. Or click here to watch a video of residents faced with having their land taken in order to accommodate an industrial wind farm. Or click on each name of those giving testimony to link to video of that testimony.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF RESIDENT RON IOCONO
When you had the eminent domain hearing April 21st, [I received] a certified letter that was postmarked on the 17th, a Thursday. By the time I received this letter on Monday the 21st I would have had to have driven 350 miles in six hours to attend the hearing. Right now what's taking place in this town affects people all across the United States. Eminent domain is a very serious issue - nobody's property is safe.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF EDWARD CERRA
If you think a project of this magnitude is accepted by the residents of Prattsburgh, then why wasn't this put up for a general vote by the residents? The reason is because you all know it never would have passed. A man's land and his home are second only to his family. I hope you realize the Pandora's box you are opening over this eminent domain. The magnitude of the power you are authorizing is beyond expression. Whether you are for the turbines or not, authorizing eminent domain will affect every member of this community.

What's next for eminent domain issues? Gas companies are pounding on our doors as we speak for easement rights. If I say no, they're going to come running to this board and request eminent domain. You do it for one, then the precedent is set for all other corporate giants to hand this board a bauble and get their way.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CARL RAYMOND
Was it proper to threaten property owners with eminent domain before the April 22 meeting? Because two of my neighbors were threatened, and eventually did sign easements. One of my neighbors did not cave in, but she was also threatened with eminent domain before it was even discussed in a public hearing. It's a question of ethics, and what's right and what's wrong. And for foreign owned companies to come into this community and tell people they're going to take their land, U.S. property, because of eminent domain, is not right.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF STEPHANIE LIPP
Prattsburgh is indeed economically and socially depressed. It has been for many years. It's clear that's one of the main reasons members of the board have signed host agreements with industrial wind turbine corporations that promise to bring such growth and positive changes.

If the wind farms are allowed to come here based on eminent domain, it will truly be a miscarriage of justice. The streets of this village will be paved with gold if what [developer] First Wind is promising is true. You have only to look at other communities where they have built, and then left, to know that will not be the case.

I urge everyone who believes this power is clean or green to do your own research. You really don't have to dig very far to see the truth. It's important for all of you to know that many who oppose industrial wind turbines are very committed to the earth and trying to reduce our personal carbon footprints, reducing our consumption, using solar, or photo voltaics, which doesn't hurt your neighbors.

Continued below:

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF JUDITH HALL

This is not about turbines or no turbines this is about fundamental rights of all property owners. .....The night you passed the resolution [for eminent domain] the entire presentation by UPC was about eight properties along Fisher Road. When the resolution was read, it encompassed the whole project area.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CARL WAHLSTROM
There are just three Prattsburgh residents [who will benefit from the wind farm] - Mr. Taylor, the Jensons, and the Smiths. Ms. Jenson made a statement at a public hearing and she mentioned she had lived around wind turbines and it wasn't bad, that you get used to them. After the hearing my wife and I approached her and asked how close she had lived to the turbines. She replied, “Around twenty miles away.”

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF NANCY WAHLSTROM
Taking land from individuals to push through this project is disgraceful.... we know that only three people with wind turbines actually live in Prattsburgh. We know all 170 adjacent landowners whose property will be devalued will result in harm to the entire tax base of this town...

We need confirmation that any insurance that is provided through UPC project is aware of the setbacks of this project and that they are within what has been determined to be a hardhat area for Vestas turbines, 1300 feet, and does not meet GE manufacturers specifications for safety.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF BROOKE PREVEAR
Last month I was informed of the town boards intent to use eminent domain in order to complete UPC's wind farm project. I attended the April 21st town board meeting. The main focus of this meeting was on eight parcels of land in which eminent domain would be used in order complete UPC's project. It was stated that the owners of these properties had been sent certified letters informing them of the vote to be held that evening. The eight properties discussed are positioned on Rosie Hill, Block School, Fisher and Cook School Roads. Those are four roads.

Just prior to voting, the resolution was read. Rather than listing the eight properties discussed during the meeting, the resolution gave approval for eminent domain to be used on any property positioned along those four roads as well as four additional roads that were not mentioned once during the meeting. I find this exclusion of information very deceiving. My property happens to be located on one of those roads. I am directly affected by the town boards vote to use eminent domain but I've received no notification regarding this matter. No certified letter inviting me to attend a meeting in which a vote was held to condemn my land. It concerns me that the town board would or could pass a resolution of such magnitude without contacting all the landowners who would be directly affected by it. It also concerns me that a resolution of this magnitude is being passed in favor of UPC, a private corporation, not a public utility. In fact at the April 21st meeting, UPC was asked, and refused to reveal their wind data. How can we consider this project a benefit to the community when UPC won't disclose their supporting data?

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF STEVE TRUDE
What's really surprising about eminent domain is what it's doing to your community - it's ripping you apart. What it's also doing, which is not listed in any of the studies is people's health or welfare, or any health effects from emotional stress due to an eminent domain situation.... What we're doing here is setting a precedent for the rest of the state. All these wind farms, which you know are coming in all over the state now, are going to use anything possible to get the job done.... Is any amount of money worth it?

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF ALAN ISSELHARD
The beneficiaries of Prattsburgh's eminent domain actions are not the general public, as required by eminent domain laws, the fundamental justification for exercising property condemnation and acquisition has not been met. ...This eminent domain action will benefit only the wind developer and not the community at large.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Town Board Prattsburgh, NY
19 N. Main St
Prattsburgh, NY 14873

RE: Eminent Domain Resolution

Board Members:

I challenge the propriety of using eminent domain for the benefit of a private company, UPC now First Wind, in Prattsburgh. The Constitution of the United States allows eminent domain in cases of "public use" only, and is intended to be used for providing essential services.

Industrial wind development does not meet the qualifications of an essential service, since it only duplicates the generation of electricity and does not replace our current generating facilities. The existing facilities must be kept on standby as backup for wind power; therefore the wind facility is redundant and not essential.

The perceived "public good" of the wind development helping solve our environmental problems and global warming has not been proven with any actual scientific data, for the reason that real world operation of industrial wind projects does not support this premise. Indeed, there are many negative effects associated with wind turbines, including serious safety issues, that would most definitely NOT be in the interest of Prattsburgh citizens.

An examination of the proposed economic benefit to the community reveals numbers based on estimates, without guarantees and without consideration of the overall costs to the community in lost property values, higher electricity rates and taxpayer subsidies and tax credits to the developer. Again, the public benefit is extremely questionable.

The increase in the abuse of eminent domain for the benefit of private entities has created a groundswell of opposition from New York and Detroit to California. Many individuals are fighting the practice, and the courts, which used to routinely rubber stamp local condemnations, are responding. Six state legislatures have passed bills increasing protections for people threatened with eminent domain. Eleven others are considering such bills, including New York.

Your actions affect not only Prattsburgh, but your neighboring communities as well. A decision to use eminent domain in this matter shows that the Town Board has no interest in protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens or in following the spirit of the United States Constitution. I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on this resolution and do the right thing for your community and future generations in the Town of Prattsburgh.

Sincerely,
Joan Simmons
Town of Italy

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Prattsburgh residents weigh in on eminent domain

5/25/08, Prattsburgh, N.Y. - Both sides of a dispute over eminent domain proceedings in the town of Prattsburgh weighed in with vigor Thursday night in the volunteer fire station.

Nearly 150 people attended the public hearing on a proposal for the town to seize roadway owned by seven residents. The properties are needed for a 100-mile underground electrical cable system for the 36-turbine wind farm being developed by First Wind.

Eminent domain allows a municipality to take private property if it serves a common good. The municipality must pay the owner for the land, determined by fair market value.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in The Corning Leader. For those who are new to the controversy, background articles by Mary are linked in a preceding post.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

The following is from Jim Sawicki's public presentation to the Prattsburgh Town Board this past Thursday:

Good evening. I would like to thank the Town Board of Prattsburgh and everyone here tonight for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. I am a neighbor of Prattsburgh. My name is Jim Sawicki, and I own property in the town of Italy. So, it has come to this. Here we all are this evening faced with difficult issues... Neighbor pitted against neighbor. Communities split apart. For what? For whom?

Click here to read Jim's entire presentation. It's well worth your time.

Labels: Disadvantages, Legal Issues, New York, Process

SCIDA refuses to alter windfarm agreement

5/16/08, Bath, N.Y. - A disagreement over the terms of a tax deal for a windfarm development in Prattsburgh will apparently have to be settled in court.

The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency refused to change the terms of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement Thursday for a 36-turbine project by First Wind, formerly known as UPC.

Attorneys for the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts requested a renegotiation claiming the company should be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes.

The tax agreement involves First Wind paying a fixed amount of taxes to the school districts, the town of Prattsburgh and the county over a 20-year period.

SCIDA approved the tax agreement Thursday and attorneys for the school districts said they will follow through with a court challenge. The two sides argued their cases in court in late April, prior to the final agreement being approved. Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet presided over the hearing and a decision is pending.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in The Corning Leader. For those who are new to the controversy, background articles by Mary are linked below:
4/4/08 - Schools sue over wind farm payments
5/3/08 - Schools await windfarm decision
5/9/08 - Opponents demand investigation into wind farms

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

This coming Thursday, May 22, from 7 to 9 pm there will be a Public Hearing at the Fire House at 15 Allis Street in Prattsburgh on Eminent Domain. Mentioned in the town’s resolution of April 21 are eight specific properties as well as any other property it might need on Rosey Hill Road, Gay Road, Cook School Road, Davis Road, Fisher Road, Dillenbeck Road, Block School Road and Matoon Road for the same purpose.

Those property owners who may subsequently wish to challenge condemnation of their property may only do so based on the issues, facts and objections raised at the Public Hearing. We have been told, but as of this date it has not been confirmed, that written comments can be submitted up until and including 5 pm May 27.

I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of attending this public hearing. This project will affect not just Prattsburgh, but all the surrounding towns. In this writer’s opinion, the reason that land needs to be condemned for the project is that, bottom line, the majority of people in Prattsburgh do not want this project.

Windfarm Prattsburgh has never proved its public benefit. The wind data has never been revealed, despite countless requests. Forcing landowners to sign easements for a project that will put 400 foot towers right next door to their property is nothing short of criminal. nd if Prattsburgh will do this for Windfarm Prattsburgh, they will do it for the Ecogen project and any other project that might come along. And once the precedent is set, other towns will be affected.

If you have any concern at all about Eminent Domain for this Project, please make your voice heard.

Very truly yours, Ruth Matilsky

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Dear Folks,

This message is long, so you might want to print it out and read it at your leisure, especially the quotes from the Resolution and the Easement (see References below).

The town of Prattsburgh has authorized the commencement of condemnation proceedings against eight landowners who have refused to sign easements for the Windfarm Prattsburgh project (see references below for quote from the resolution). Advocates for Prattsburgh has consulted lawyers to determine whether litigation is practical. We are told that if the condemnation is appealed the town would have to prove public purpose – something we believe has never really been done. Keep in mind that the Company is private and Prattsburgh will not get free electricity. Using these lawyers would cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000.

This mailing is going out all over the state as well as to Prattsburgh landowners and residents because eminent domain and public benefit is an issue that affects all of us, especially those of us involved in the fight for proper regulation of wind projects. We need to know how much support there would be for litigation and would appreciate your taking the time to let us know the following:

1. This question mostly pertains to those who own land in Prattsburgh and Italy, but anyone is welcome: Do you wish to be (or continue to be) a member of Advocates for Prattsburgh? If yes, Please provide your name address and phone number. If you own land in Prattsburgh, could you indicate the address of the land?
2. Do you support litigation to fight the condemnation?
3. How much money would you be willing to pledge to support the fight?
4. What can you do to help? Fund raise? Write letters? Attend meetings?
5. Is there a lawyer among you who would work pro bono?

Please think carefully about this because we will be basing our strategy on the kind of support that we have. We believe that this eminent domain proceeding not only works against the people of Prattsburgh but against the people of New York.

References:

A. From the Resolution of April 21, 2008 at special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Prattsburgh - Adopted by a vote of 3-2:

Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the commencement of condemnation proceedings under the EDPL against the landowners... identified in Exhibit A to this resolution for the purpose of obtaining the remaining easements necessary for the Company to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair and replace conduit and electrical lines within the rights of way along, within and across the following roads within the Town of Prattsburgh: Rosey Hill Road, Gay Road, Cook School Road, Davis Road, Fisher Road, Dillenbeck Road, Block School Road, Matoon Road.

In addition the Board shall also authorize the commencement of condemnation proceedings against any other [unnamed] property along the aforementioned roads for the purposes of obtaining the remaining easements necessary for the Company to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair and replace conduit and electrical lines within the rights of way if the Company can show to the Town Supervisor’s satisfaction that best efforts have failed to obtain an agreement with such additional landowners.

B. We have been given a copy of the underground line easement that people are being asked to sign, which says in part:

That the grantor...does hereby grant...the exclusive and permanent right of way and easement to build, rebuild, relocate, operate, repair, maintain, renew and at their pleasure remove underground transmission lines for purposes of transmitting electricity, communication systems, including cables conduit, wires, pedestals, closures, handholes, transformers, pipe and pipelines and other such appurtenant or supporting apparatus, structures or markers as the Company, or such successors or assignees, may now or shall from time to time hereafter deem necessary for the transmission and distribution of electricity and the rendition of communication service upon, under, through and across strips of lands twenty five (25) feet in width from the border of the Grantor’s property and continuing along the public right of way within certain property owned in fee by the Grantor located in tax map...

Grantee may freely assign, mortgage, encumber, sublease, license or otherwise convey all or any portion of its interests under this Easement Agreement…without obtaining the consent of Grantor.

Grantor also conveys to the Company the right of way and easement for the passage of persons, vehicles and machines as shall be deemed necessary for construction, installation, maintenance and removal of the Company’s facilities and as a covenant running with the land hereby... and releases the Company from any and all claims of damages to the property or lands within the bounds of said easement strip.

Sincerely,
Nancy Wahlstrom
Advocates for Prattsburgh

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Prattsburgh supervisor accused of profiting off vote to seize land for turbines

Under fire over accusations he and other town and county officials have endorsed generous tax breaks and cut sweetheart deals with the Massachusetts-based UPC Corp. wind farm developer, Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell faces further criticism following a vote last week to condemn and seize private land for the project.

After admitting he accepted real estate commissions in at least one land deal last fall involving UPC, McConnell on April 21 cast the deciding vote on an “eminent domain” resolution.” The action will allow construction of 36 controversial, 386-foot tall wind turbines towers in the town.

Scores of the imposing, densely-clustered turbine towers have spiraled taller than upended football fields above the Naples Valley on hilltops in neighboring Cohocton in recent months. Many other communities have frantically enacted moratoriums and taken other actions to control placement of the massive towers pending further study of environmental impact and questions about whether the turbines can do what they are intended - generate “clean, safe power” in a rural region touched more by occasional gentle breezes than by strong and steady winds.

by Jack Jones in The Naples Record, April 30, 2008

Click here to read the entire article.

Labels: Legal Issues, Morality, Process

Regarding the recently proposed abuse of Eminent Domain by Prattsburgh, NY town officials, we are joining with others in urging you to write a personal appeal to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and send tonight or by Monday, April 28th.

It is important to have as many people as possible contact Attorney General Cuomo ASAP. Developments imply that contact from voters at this time can have a positive influence. Pass on this message to your own lists.

You may submit your appeal in one of 3 ways:
Fax: (518) 473-9909
Online: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/online_forms/email_ag.jsp
Mail: NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224-0341

Click here to read an example letter.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

On Monday April 21, 2008 the Prattsburgh Town Board voted to approve a resolution that allows for the use of eminent domain proceedings in order to facilitate the Windfarm Prattsburgh Project. Cohocton Wind Watch is appalled by a threat of an inappropriate application of legal confiscation that only benefits UPC Wind. UPC representatives and attorney refused to provide any evidence that sufficient wind exists in Prattsburgh to generate electricity from industrial wind turbines.

When a Board member asked, what quantity of electricity can be expected to be generated and go into the grid, no total amount was provided. UPC has had six years to secure easements for transmission lines. If they are unable to buy these rights from property owners, they seem determined to rely upon state force to compel objecting land owners to give up their property rights. No meaningful benefit to the community, region, or society has ever been documented or proven.

Legal actions from two local school districts over a PILOT tax exemption are pending against the Town, SCIDA, and the UPC developer. The Prattsburgh Board voted 3 to 2 to approve condemnation initiatives that can apply to any property within the township. Councilman Charles Shick and Steven R. Kula courageously voted against the eminent domain resolution. Supervisor J. Harold McConnell, refused to recue himself from the vote after admitting he took money as a commission from the sale of property to a wind developer while overseeing the passage of wind projects approvals.

James Hall for Cohocton Wind Watch

Labels: Legal Issues

We have heard from reputable sources that the Town of Prattsburgh Supervisor has been hired and earned money as a real estate agent for UPC Wind Company. He has been helping them purchase property necessary for the company’s transmission lines and transport routes. Also, from his Town Supervisor’s position he has sent letters to landowners asking them on behalf of the town, to sign contracts with the wind company. Conflict of interest??? We think so!

Nancy Wahlstrom

Labels: Legal Issues, Morality

In an article by published in this week's Corning Leader, Mary Perham reports that

Two local school districts claim they aren’t getting their fair share of tax payments from a wind farm development in the Prattsburgh area. Charging deliberate attempts to prevent them from receiving proper payments, two local school districts filed lawsuits recently against the Town of Prattsburgh and Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and other agencies.

The lawsuits filed by both the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts allege the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the 36-turbine wind farm project creates a significant loss in anticipated revenues for the schools. Both districts want the tax agreement thrown out for the wind turbines that stretch along hillsides in Prattsburgh and Naples.

Click here to read the entire article, including UPC Wind's oblique response.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York

Lots of interesting things in wind contracts

By EDNA McGINNETT

Having read several different industrial wind energy landowner contracts, I really have to hand it to wind developers. In exchange for a few thousand dollars, the wind company can preempt landowners’ rights to: extract sand and gravel from their property, develop mineral rights on their property, allow hunting, build additional outbuildings or plant trees, etc.

If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project.

The wind company has the sole discretion as to what electrical generation equipment will be placed where and when on leased property. In addition, these leases contain language which allows the wind developer to use other land owned by the landowner even if such acreage is not included in the lease agreement.

These landowner contracts subordinate the landowners’ rights in favor of the wind developers. Once landowners sign an option they are under obligation to sign the lease agreement if the developer decides to exercise the option.

One of the reasons these contracts are so restrictive is explained in comments made by NYSERDA about wind energy lease agreements: “Before allowing wind turbines to be purchased and installed, project investors, financing organizations, and power purchasers will want to be sure the lease provides clear, unimpeded rights to use of the land over the expected life of the project.”

“Termination clauses need to be ‘reasonable’ so that the risk of installing the wind turbine equipment and having the lease terminated is low and manageable. If the risk of termination is deemed too high, it will be difficult for the project developer to obtain financing for the project.”

These leases typically prevent a landowner from complaining or taking action against the wind company because of noise, flicker, visual, audio, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic, electric and radio frequency disturbances and other side effects caused by the operation of the project.

Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.

Published on 3/14/08 in the Dunkirk, NY Observer

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

The Steuben County Supreme Court, by Decision dated January 9, 2008 has made a ruling in the Town of Cohocton wind turbine case.

In the matters of Cohocton Wind Watch and James Hall et al. against Canandaigua Power Partners et al, and two related cases, acting Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure has determined that with one exception in one case, the petitioners in each of the three pending lawsuits have standing to proceed with the actions. In addition, Judge Furfure denied the respondents' motion to dismiss the cases, finding that the petitioners did not violate the stature of limitations and that the petitioners did not fail to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing a decision of the Town's Code Enforcement Officer to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, Judge Furfure declared that all of the individual property owners whose lands are to be a part of the wind turbine projects are necessary parties to the actions.

Judge Furfure has given the petitioners additional time to serve some of the landowners with copies of the petition in the actions, and has given counsel for the respondents sixty days in which to serve their answers to the petitions upon counsel for the petitioners.

David P. Miller, Esq.
111 N. Main Street
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 374-2130

Labels: Legal Issues

We know for fact that UPC absolutely does not have a contiguous line from the windmills to the proposed substation in the Prattsburgh project. In addition, Ecogen, which has bought up lots of land, still can't get to its substation because (among other reasons) the County of Yates is not allowed by law to sell them 10 acres of land on Emerson (it has something to do with green acres). People upon whom pressure has been put have been standing firm and refusing to sign easements.

And while we know that members of Advocates for Italy who live on Emerson Road have made agreements with Ecogen, those people are still living in their houses. They may have signed some kind of agreements to keep quiet and to sell in the future, but clearly Ecogen is not spending the money at this time to buy them out. We can only speculate as to how much money Ecogen actually has.

In talking to your neighbors and acquaintances please tell them:

• Ecogen and UPC do not have a contiguous transmission route from the wind turbines to their substations
• If UPC and Ecogen can't get to their substation then they can't make their projects work.
• The town of Prattsburgh has said that UPC has permission to use Town right of ways, saying that this is all that is required for UPC to bury its cable, but this is not true.
• Landowners own land up to the middle of the road. The Town has 25 foot easements from the middle of the road in order to maintain the roads. The town does not own this land and cannot sublease this land. So while town permission is necessary to use this land to bury cable, landowners' permission is absolutely required. The town has intentionally misled the citizens.
• In addition, UPC is misleading people by hiring an outside firm (Prospect Land services, I believe) to contact people and act like they are representing the Town. They are pressuring people to sign right of ways and easements for UPC to bury the cable.
• No one is required to sign an easement. UPC is not an electric utility and does not have power of eminent domain.
• And once a landowner signs an easement it is forever. Perhaps for this project they will bury the cable, but if the companies have easements and in the future want to put up huge power lines, there will be nothing a resident can do if those easements are signed. And remember it is not just the poles and wires - there is also the 100 foot "tree clearing rights" that will be invoked.

Please make sure to share this information with everyone you know.

Ruthe Matilsky

Labels: Legal Issues

Week by week, UPC Wind’s involvement in Cohocton becomes more blatantly evident in The Valley News. Last week they took out nearly 2 full pages of ads under several guises in their continuing effort to promote their project before next month’s election. One was a half-page color ad by UPC pledging to “Save our town!” and extolling the “beauty” of its promised “new jobs!” “prosperity!” and “opportunity!” Another was a 3/4-page ad by Wayne Hunt with quotes from Judge Furfure’s recent court decision. Apparently the Judge felt that “Local Law #2… was not the first step of a larger project” nor were “changes made by Local Law #2… made at the request of project applicants as a preliminary step to this project.”

Where was Judge Furfure when Local Law #2 was made?
- Obviously nowhere near Cohocton where the picture was quite different. Without UPC there would have been no Local Law #1 or #2. Our Comprehensive Plan has no place for wind turbines at all.
- Throughout the entire process it’s been clear that our elected and appointed officials have had one goal in mind – working with UPC to craft a legal framework that would permit their project.
- UPC’s enormous Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) came on the heels of Local Law #1, and its even bigger SDEIS came almost instantly after Local Law #2 was passed and, oddly enough, fit its provisions precisely the way a hand fits into a carefully tailored glove. “Hearings?” Who were our leaders listening to?
- One reading of Local Law #2 should convince any sceptic that it was written by attorneys, not local politicians. And who paid the attorneys who wrote it? Hello? Is anyone home?

When a glove moves, it’s the hand behind it that makes it move. Unfortunately, Judge Furfure just looked at the glove and ignored the hand. We still have a chance in this fall’s elections, however, to turn the tide of deception that’s been overtaking our town. Browse through our “Updates,” review the Reform Cohocton platform and slate of candidates, and then help us get out the vote for people who can see through this whole ruse.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Steve Trude, Reform Cohocton candidate for Town Board, has raised a serious question with our Town Assessors about the tax status of the UPC Wind project. A copy of his letter follows:

Dear Ms. Damboise, Mr. Densmore, and Mr. Domm:

SCIDA has not approved a PILOT for the UPC/CPP/CPPII Projects. The developer has taken the risk of starting construction without building permits. As with any building construction that does not have “special exemption”, the value of the entire project is subject to industrial tax assessment.

These UPC industrial machines, if built, reside on land of several Cohocton property owners, who supposedly have lease agreements with UPC. A host agreement between the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developer does not cover the independent tax jurisdiction of the Cohocton - Wayland School District and the County of Steuben.

Without a valid PILOT, it is legally required that such a project must be assessed at full value and applied to each of the individual property accounts where any portion of the project is erected.

Every tax payer in the Town of Cohocton has a financial interest in the consequences of the proper tax assessment that your board will assign to each of the leaseholders property. Your board has a fiduciary responsibility to compute a market cost value for assessment of this industrial project, publish your determination and adjust the tax rolls accordingly.

A PILOT exemption cannot be approved after the fact. It has been publicly acknowledged by UPC that the entire project has a cost in excess of $150,000,000. There is no agricultural exemption for an electric utility, which UPC was granted by the Public Service Commission. NYSEG and Frontier are taxed in this manner, so must UPC.

Although it is recognized that the aforementioned circumstances are perhaps unusual as a normal course of business for your office, never-the-less it falls well within the realm of your responsibility and mandate. How you knowingly and intentionally go forward at this point with required and necessary decisions is now the question and will be monitored closely in and for the public interest.

In the interest of full disclosure, the Cohocton Assessment Board should release their full tax value assessment for the UPC Project before the 11/06/07 election.

Click here to view a PDF copy of Mr. Trude's letter.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Money

On Friday August 31, 2007 three separate Article 78 lawsuits were filed in Steuben County by citizens and property owners against the Cohocton Planning Board. (The UPC project known as Cohocton Pine Hill / Lent Hill and Dutch Hill Project has violated their conditional PSC permit. A stay has been requested from the Supreme Court on all construction. Improper siting of 51 industrial wind turbines in violation of Town and NYS law and regulations is the basis of the litigation.) Certain turbines intrude upon the property in adjacent towns and Ontario County.

These lawsuits are in addition to the action against Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 pending before Supreme Court Judge Marianne Furfure and awaiting Fourth District appellate review on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #1. Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus has stated publically that the Town of Cohocton is not concerned about the ruling by Judge Furfure.

At issue is the consistent and continual violation of zoning laws and lack of public health and safety protections in the UPC land use plan. The issuance of "Special Use" permits by the lead agency, Cohocton Planning Board, is challenged in these actions.

UPC has released statements that all permits have been granted and construction on the project has started. On Friday August 24, 2007 trucks working for UPC were cited by Steuben County Highway Department for operating without road permits.

Additional litigation regarding the UPC Prattsburgh Project as well as the Cohocton Project is being readied.

David P. Miller, Esq.
111 N. Main Street
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 374-2130

Labels: Legal Issues

According to an article put out yesterday by the Associated Press

A group of residents is suing a farmer, claiming the propane cannon he uses to scare away birds from his sweet corn is too loud. Some of produce farmer Dennis Polley’s neighbors say the propane blasts — sometimes as loud as 120 decibels — have prevented them from enjoying their property.

Phil Palmgreen, whose property is roughly 500 yards away from Polley’s, said he could feel the impact of the blasts in his chest. “It’s been so bad all summer we’ve never even had a cookout on our deck because it was going to go off every couple of minutes,” said Palmgreen.

120 decibels? That's only 15 decibels louder than one Clipper Liberty wind turbine. 500 yards? That's 1500 feet, the setback specified by Windmill Law #2. How many cannons does Dennis Polley have? Only one. How many noise generators are we currently signed up for? Fifty-one, at last count. Click here to read the whole article.

Labels: Disadvantages, Legal Issues

We've been able to get a copy of the 50-page "Host Community Agreement" Jack Zigenfus signed on behalf of the Town almost 2 weeks ago.

The document starts with an introduction in which we are told upfront that the "Agreement" is with "Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company." Why on earth does an international wind company with US home offices in Massachusetts need to do business in NY through a Delaware LLC that is conveniently out of legal reach?

The Agreement then goes through 6 full pages of legal definitions, followed by 36 pages of legal contingencies, and concludes with several signature pages and a projected payment schedule. Copies of several critical underlying agreements referenced in the document aren't available yet. These include 1) a "PILOT Agreement" with SCIDA (won't be ready for a month), 2) a "Host Mortgage," 3) a "Road Use Agreement,"4) an "Oversight Agreement," 5) and a "Security Agreement," among others.

One interesting clause (Section 29.1.1.) reads as follows: "at the Company's option, the Company may terminate this Agreement at any time, by written notice to the Town (the date of such notice being the "Termination Date"), delivered on or before September 1, 2008."

We firmly believe that the electorate should and must be included in any decision-making of this magnitude and that construction should be delayed at least until all documents pertaining to any proposed Agreement are made public and citizens can express their will in this fall's elections. Click here to read the entire "Agreement" as it currently stands.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues

We've just received a letter from the Town Board, dated 8/15, heralded by an ad in this week's Valley News, and apparently mailed out to all Cohocton residents, in which our elected officials announce in glowing terms "that the final agreements have been signed to allow for the first Wind Power Project in the Southern Tier of New York State" and that "there will be approximately 50 wind turbines generating 2.5 Megawatts each of clean renewable energy in the Town of Cohocton."

The letter confesses (boasts?) up front that they've been working the proposed project for "the past few years" even though most of the town's citizens were not made aware of their plans until April 2006, well after the last election in which voters could have expressed their sentiments. Then, after telling us about the financial windfall they think their "agreements" will bring to Cohocton, they go on to tell us that they really haven't figured out what to do with the promised money.

It seems clear from the letter that our current administration is deeply committed to getting UPC's project well into the construction phase before the voters can express their will in this fall's election. Whatever happened to truly representative government in our Town?

We'll post a copy of the Agreement our town leaders have just signed as soon as we can obtain one. In the meantime, click here to read their letter, and then visit Reform Cohocton to consider some alternatives.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues

An article in Cooperstown's weekly newspaper, The Freeman's Journal, last week discusses ongoing local opposition to the Community Energy wind project proposed for Jordanville. Note the similarities between the their situation and ours, especially the timing:

As the Holy Trinity monks hold prayer services and mount a letter-writing campaign, Otsego 2000 is seeking out the most appropriate “petitioners” to file an Article 78 complaint against the 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Farm, a preliminary step to going to court to block the 400-foot-tall towers in view of James Fenimore Cooper’s Glimmerglass.

After a year working through the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, the towns of Warren and Stark, on June 20 and 21 respectively, accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the project and approved special-use permits. That step started a 30-day clock running on the Article 78 proceeding.

The next step for Community Energy is to apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the monks at Holy Trinity Monastery, the Russian Orthodox Church’s spiritual headquarters overseas, have begun a cycle of “molebin,” prayers of supplication somewhat like the Roman Catholic novena, and as many as a dozen people from the community have been attending. Father Luke Murianka, the deputy abbott, said all are welcome.

“Certainly, we feel that prayer is one of the best methods,” Father Luke said, but influential Russian Orthodox clerics are also weighing in, and their letters will be sent to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and others in state government.

Archbishop Hilarian Kapral of Australia, former abbot at Jordanville and metropolitan in Manhattan, had visited a wind farm in Tasmania and concluded “it would be terrible tragedy to have it here.”

The archbishop in Manhattan, Gabriel Chemodakov, has also written a letter decrying “the desecration of the landscape.”

The Cohocton Planning Board rubberstamped UPC Wind's FEIS last month and is set to review [approve without question?] the developer's application for special use permits at its meeting this coming Wednesday evening, July 11th. If and when this step is passed, assuming the same process applies here, UPC will then have to "apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions." UPC and its local supporters will also be running a gauntlet of local prayer and, most likely, facing a similar Article 78 legal proceeding.

And remember, this year is an election year. As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over!"

Click here to read the entire article.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Last week our Town was called into Supreme Court before Justice Marianne Furfure to give an account of its behavior in passing Local Law #2. Why did our leaders bypass review under the SEQRA, and how did they reconcile legally paving the way for an industrial wind project with Cohocton’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan? What did Judge Furure want to know? According to the Bath Leader, she questioned whether there should be expert proof of potential harm, what standards are reasonable and practical, and whether the town “short-circuited” the process. “It's hard for me to say this isn't any big deal,” she said. “You're setting the protocol, the standards, you're setting the stage.”

The response of our Town attorneys was illustrative:
- Local Law #2 wasn’t passed with the UPC Wind project in mind, they testified with straight faces. It was done to protect the Town.
- They indicated that their Albany attorney, Mr. John Henry, had been chosen to represent the whole town, not UPC’s interests.
- They alleged that Local Law #2 couldn’t have any environmental impact because it didn’t actually set up any turbines by itself.
- They tried to claim that the Cohocton residents who brought the lawsuit really didn’t have any legal “standing” to complain.
- Were they contrite or conciliatory? Not a bit.

The author of the Sermon on the Mount advises us to, “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” We’ve heard these words before, and many others like them, and say we believe. But when push comes to shove, how do we behave?

Is this a winner-take-all fight? At Cohocton Free we believe there’s still a path of compromise leaseholders and our Town leaders can pursue that will respect the wishes and preserve not only the rights of both sides but the integrity of our community. Curious? Click here to read our 5/8/07 proposal online or here to download a PDF version.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Understanding the size of the transmission lines

UPC says their poles will be 65 feet high in Prattsburgh, with 20 foot arms on either side of the center pole, which means that a 40-foot right of way is required to run overhead lines.

Typically, NYSEG owns a 30-foot right of way along the road in front of people's homes (and sometimes across property). This means that in order to put up the transmission lines, NYSEG and/or UPC will have to get additional easements from property owners. This is a lot of easements, and if people don't sign the papers, then UPC is stuck.

Now here's what people should know: if you sign an easement for a 40-foot right of way, the guy wires may be attached and go on your land outside of the 40-foot right of way. But that is not all.

This next part is hard to explain, but here's a simplified explanation. Look at your abstract and you'll probably find an easement for NYSEG. It says in the easement that NYSEG has the right to get rid of trees that are in the way of their lines. Sure enough, if one looks at the plans for transmission lines in the EIS one sees that NYSEG and/or UPC reserves the right to cut tall trees located within 50 feet of either side of the pole so that tall trees don't interfere with the transmission lines.

This amounts in reality to a 100 foot right of way for NYSEG and UPC.

For example: a landowner has a house set back 60 feet from the road with tall trees on the front of his land providing privacy. UPC puts up poles for transmission. The poles are typically 29 feet from the center of the road, which puts them 10 or 15 feet onto the land. The arms extend another 20 feet onto the land. Then UPC cuts down tall trees that are located 50 feet on either side of the pole. Gone are beautiful trees. Gone is privacy. Gone is life as you know it.

People need to know this. Please let as many as possible know and encourage them NOT to sign additional easements.

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

Judge Marianne Furfure will hear the Cohocton Wind Watch Article 78 against the Town of Cohocton, NY on Windmill Local Law #2 on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM in Supreme Court, 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York.

This action contests the compliance with SEQRA on the passage of the second town law that modifies the zoning statute that allows the UPC industrial wind turbine project.

It was stipulated in court that the Town of Cohocton, in the first Article 78 action against Windmill Law Local #1, did not follow SEQRA.

CWW contends that the Town Board has passed a windmill law to specifically accommodate the developer, UPC Wind (aka Canandaigua Power Partners I & II, LLCs), which has proposed two projects when both are contingent and part of one large development. UPC Prattsburgh is also a project of this same two township development.

Counsel for CWW is Richard Lippes and David Miller.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Senate Bill S4608

On April 19, 2007, Senator Jim Alesi introduced legislation in the New York Senate, cosponsored by 7 other senators, that "establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18-month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008."

Sponsors' Justification

Recently there has been renewed interest in wind energy development in New York. Although the recent growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents in wind-rich counties are concerned about their ability to address existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their jurisdiction. With modem wind turbines standing between 200-400 feet tall, wind energy projects can have a major impact on the surrounding area. These wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of our highways and byways. Furthermore, wind energy facilities could have a negative impact upon residential areas and adjacent communities.

Wind energy is an important renewable energy source, however, it is very important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York in order to avoid any negative impacts upon the surrounding areas. This legislation seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities and places an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities so the task force can complete its study and make recommendations.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Coalition of Citizens File Antitrust Complaint with the Department of Justice Against the Wind Energy Industry

Naples NY, April 25, 2007

A grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Antitrust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.

This Complaint, filed today with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, maintains that windfarm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors, and in some cases public officials have engaged in illegal geographic Market Allocation, Price Fixing and Bid Rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

As a result of this illegal conspiracy thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.

The 94 citizen Complainants expect that the Department of Justice will act quickly to assign appropriate resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these allegations and to punish any and all criminal wrongdoing to the full extent of the law. The Complainants also expect that the Department will take appropriate measures to ensure that the members of this international cartel are prevented from retaliating against any of the listed Complainants.

According to the Department of Justice, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation by individuals or companies are felonies currently punishable by maximum individual fines of $1 million, maximum corporate fines of $100 million, and maximum jail terms of 10 years.

Citizens from the following locales in New York are participating: Naples, Cohocton, Wayland, Cape Vincent, Lowville, Stamford, Malone, Wyoming, Cherry Valley, Addison, Canisteo, Allegany, Rochester, North Bangor, Little Falls, Hornell, Fairport, Webster, and Prattsburgh. Citizens from the following locales in Vermont are participating: Sheffield, East Burke, Sutton, and Peacham.

Questions regarding this Complaint (available in PDF form here) may be directed to:

Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627 (H), 585-233-8539 (M)
perplus1@aol.com

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church millenia ago he compared and contrasted two approaches to life - trying to live according the letter of the law or seeking to follow after its spirit or intent. In Paul's estimation, the first way led to death while the second led to life. Of course he was referring to the Biblical law, which is righteous in both its letter and intent, not to many of our human laws which are corrupt in both.

What law do we say we are following in Cohocton? When it comes to windmills, the law cited is Local Law #2 (LL#2), enacted by our Town Board in late 2006. Serious questions have been raised about its "letter", which UPC Wind and its supporters are using as their guide. But what about the spirit or intent of this Law? According to a recent NY Department of State publication about the functions of a Zoning Board of Appeals,

A zoning law is a community's guide to its future development. That is its purpose. It is not meant to be just another governmental intrusion, another bit of red tape to be untangled before the property owner can go ahead with his plans. The protections afforded residents and property owners within the community from undesirable development come from the restrictiveness of zoning. Traditionally, zoning is characterized by pre-set regulations contained in the ordinance or local law, and applicable uniformly within each district. A landowner can look at the zoning map and regulations and know that if he follows them, he has a right to use his land in a certain way, and that neighboring property is subject to the same restrictions. But, because all land in the district is subject to the same rules, and because no two parcels of land are precisely the same, problems can arise.

Labels: Cohocton, Freedom, Legal Issues, Morality, Process

Wind-farm development put on hold

Meaghan McDermott
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Staff writer

March 12, 2007 8:13 pm — HAMLIN — By a vote of 3-0, the town board tonight approved a one-year moratorium on wind farm development, giving a nine-member town committee time to research wind farms and make recommendations about what areas of Hamlin, if any, would be appropriate for a wind farm.

“This moratorium will give our committee time to thoroughly discuss the facts without the fear of a developer coming in tomorrow” asking for a project approval, said Town Supervisor Denny Roach.

One board member, Paul Rath, abstained from the vote. He is a landowner in Hamlin and has been approached by a wind power company. Another board member, David Rose, was out of town.

Developers haven’t yet asked the town to approve a wind farm. However, Massachusetts-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. negotiated some land-lease agreements with property owners and built two 200-foot tall meteorological towers in the town’s northwest quadrant late last year. The towers will collect wind speed and direction information for up to 18 months. That information will tell the company if Hamlin is a good spot for wind power.

Editor's Note: Click here to read a background article by Meaghan McDermott published in the Democrat & Chronicle earlier today.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.

James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."

The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM. Richard Lippes of Buffalo, NY and David Miller of Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill. Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay. This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month. While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

It appears that our Town Board is poised to pass yet another fatally flawed Law on November 21 in its attempt to satisfy UPC Wind and its leaseholders. This Law is so vulnerable that there will undoubtedly be lawsuits and legal fees, and failure in the courts is so predictable that our elected leaders are trying to get the Town to indemnify them. Who are we kidding? Read our article in this week's Valley News for a discussion of some of the proposed Law's problems.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Earlier this week the Cohocton Town Board sponsored a Public Meeting to review the proposed "Windmill Law #2". Many speakers gave well-researched and impassioned presentations to our Board, expressing their serious reservations and asking for time to reconsider before moving forward. Here are a number of links to the reports they submitted that are well worth reading: Cohocton Wind Watch, Richard Bolton, Paul Gettys, James Hall, James and Shannon Lince, David Miller, Don Sandford, and Robert Strasburg. We agree with these and others who are raising their voices in a chorus asking for a moratorium on wind power development in our Town. Please let our local leaders know where you stand.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

The Cohocton Town Board appears poised to pass "Windmill Law #2" to replace the seriously flawed one it passed in January. Both laws were crafted by UPC Wind, but the developer's hand and paid legal counsel are even more evident in #2 than they were in #1. There are two vital public meetings coming up for community input on Thursday 10/19 and Tuesday 10/24, both being held at the Cohocton Elementary School. Please read the new law, then come out and voice your concerns.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

In a big win for the Mohawk Valley community who rallied against it, Governor Pataki joined state legislators and local leaders at the SUNY-IT Campus in Marcy to sign legislation that limits the use of eminent domain by electric and gas corporations. The law adds new restrictions for companies looking to take over people's land to use for electric and gas line projects, like the one proposed by New York Regional Interconnect.
The 200-mile long power line project would cut right through the Mohawk Valley. Many say it would have a negative impact on property owners, the environment, and the local economy.
Governor Pataki echoed their arguments against the plan: "We don't need a power line running through this community that's going to split it in half and take people's homes," Pataki said.
If built, the power line would provide electricity to New York City. But many argue it would also raise the rates for other customers in the state.

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

Under New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) segmentation is defined as the division of the environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as though they were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of significance. Considering only a part or segment of an overall action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. Is “segmentation” going on in our area? Our article in this week's Valley News addresses this vital question. For further information, visit the "Process" section of our main website and then read Brad Jones' penetrating analysis of the recent Prattsburg DEIS.

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

Public utilities have the power to exercise the legal principle of "eminent domain" when their plans conflict with the interests of private property owners. Could this legal power be exercised in Cohocton? This week's Valley News article opens up the topic. We address other aspects of personal freedom on our main website here.

Labels: Legal Issues, Process