With the recent discussion of proposed electricity-generating wind turbines in Schoharie County there has been a virtual hurricane of nasty lies and disinformation blowing around. Given what we know about wind power battles in other communities, the disinformation campaigns are most likely going to get a lot uglier.
Ironically, the main argument against wind farms is that they are bad for the environment. People who make this claim and/or buy into it are misguided at best. We've all heard the claims that wind turbines will spoil those scenic mountaintop vistas that we all know and love. However, as an industrialized society we need to generate power. Even those of us living in remote, rural locations use electricity (much of the energy we take from the grid is generated in someone else's backyard). Of the options for generating power that we currently have before us, wind power is not only the least-polluting, but it also has the smallest impact on its neighbors and the surrounding environment. Some may object to living near windmills, yet what of those who have had coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, or incinerators sited near their homes or in their communities? Can we take seriously the complaints of exurban homeowners about diminished views when so many children living in inner cities experience skyrocketing asthma rates due to traditional electricity-generating power plants? The impact of windmills both in terms of actual measurable effects and visual impact is minimal by comparison.
Many also complain that wind turbines are unfairly subsidized compared to "other businesses". Well, wind power is subsidized, as it should be! So many of the costs and subsidies of other forms of energy, like oil, are well beyond measure. You will never see a protestor with a sign saying "no blood for wind". Subsidies for wind power help to encourage green companies that might actually put silly things like saving the planet over the bottom line. Do you think that garaunteeing access to middle eastern oil doesn't require "subsidies"? How much will we spend in the future to ensure access to oil in the mid-east? The numbers are quite staggering. According to some estimates as much as a third of the 300 bil dollar defense budget is needed just to protect our access to mid-eastern oil (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/october24/energyvantage-1024.html). And people want to bitch about wind power companies making payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) instead of paying taxes directly.
Most of the arguments against wind power are not very rational. Instead, what most opposition boils down to, is nothing more elegant that good old American NIMBYism and a myopic fear of lowered property values. Many people in rural areas also have an instinctive resentment of outsiders coming in and changing the landscape.
I urge all residents to take an honest look at their conscience and their own energy consumption and consider the long-term effects of oil consumption on our economy and our environment. Any honest evaluation of the pros and cons of wind power should have wind power on top. If you can't see that, then you need to become better informed. Hopefully wind farm opponents will quit their scare tactics and realize that wind turbines are our friends!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Tilting at Wind Farms in Schoharie County
In one community after another, recent efforts to develop “wind farms” in the United States have resulted in a storm of controversy. Like Don Quixote, Cervantes’ literary protagonist who believed that windmills were giant monsters trying to attack him, today’s wind farm opponents have similarly made monsters out of the industrial-sized, electricity-generating windmills being proposed throughout the country. In many ways, there concerns are only slightly more grounded in reality than those of Quixote.
Few would argue that there is a critical need to free ourselves from our dependence on foreign petrochemicals. Wind is a renewable energy resource that does not pollute or contribute to global climate change, or help to prop up fundamentalist governments that support terrorism. To be sure, wind farms alone will not save the planet, but they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Yet wherever they have been proposed, property owners have risen up to say: not in my backyard! Citing lowered property values, spoiled view sheds, loud noise and even disrupted bird migration routes, wind farm critics have mobilized quite effectively to prevent wind farm developments.
In nearby Cherry Valley, residents successfully blocked a proposed wind farm citing many of the fears mentioned above. The same company who proposed the Cherry Valley wind farm –Reunion Power of Vermont – has recently been in negotiations to develop a wind farm on county-owned land in the Towns of Fulton and Richmondville. Do residents have an obligation to inform themselves of the details and potential ramifications of this project? Do Town and County officials have an obligation to listen carefully to the concerns of residents? Needless to say, the answer is yes!
But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture here: diminished property values and negatively impacted views should not be deal breakers when there’s a much higher public good involved. Any major public works project, new development or piece of infrastructure carries the risk of negatively impacting some of its neighbors. However, if NIMBY was the rule we went by, we’d have no airports, power plants, highways, trains, mines, or anything else that might negatively impact somebody’s property values somewhere. If something has the potential to catastrophically diminish a community’s quality of life, with no significant public good, then by all means, most people would and should oppose it. But I don’t believe that’s the case here.
That being said, critics are right to point out that residents and property owners should get involved. There are ways of mitigating the negative effects of wind farms. But these will only be proposed and implemented if people educate themselves and get involved in the process. So by all means, read up on this and get involved.
But after all is said and done, we can’t lose sight of the fact that young men and women are making the ultimate sacrifice everyday in Iraq to support our dependence on foreign oil. Therefore, don’t expect me to feel bad for somebody who complains that a wind farm is going to lower their property values, all the while tooling around in their SUVs sucking in that Middle Eastern oil like it was going out of style.
Few would argue that there is a critical need to free ourselves from our dependence on foreign petrochemicals. Wind is a renewable energy resource that does not pollute or contribute to global climate change, or help to prop up fundamentalist governments that support terrorism. To be sure, wind farms alone will not save the planet, but they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Yet wherever they have been proposed, property owners have risen up to say: not in my backyard! Citing lowered property values, spoiled view sheds, loud noise and even disrupted bird migration routes, wind farm critics have mobilized quite effectively to prevent wind farm developments.
In nearby Cherry Valley, residents successfully blocked a proposed wind farm citing many of the fears mentioned above. The same company who proposed the Cherry Valley wind farm –Reunion Power of Vermont – has recently been in negotiations to develop a wind farm on county-owned land in the Towns of Fulton and Richmondville. Do residents have an obligation to inform themselves of the details and potential ramifications of this project? Do Town and County officials have an obligation to listen carefully to the concerns of residents? Needless to say, the answer is yes!
But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture here: diminished property values and negatively impacted views should not be deal breakers when there’s a much higher public good involved. Any major public works project, new development or piece of infrastructure carries the risk of negatively impacting some of its neighbors. However, if NIMBY was the rule we went by, we’d have no airports, power plants, highways, trains, mines, or anything else that might negatively impact somebody’s property values somewhere. If something has the potential to catastrophically diminish a community’s quality of life, with no significant public good, then by all means, most people would and should oppose it. But I don’t believe that’s the case here.
That being said, critics are right to point out that residents and property owners should get involved. There are ways of mitigating the negative effects of wind farms. But these will only be proposed and implemented if people educate themselves and get involved in the process. So by all means, read up on this and get involved.
But after all is said and done, we can’t lose sight of the fact that young men and women are making the ultimate sacrifice everyday in Iraq to support our dependence on foreign oil. Therefore, don’t expect me to feel bad for somebody who complains that a wind farm is going to lower their property values, all the while tooling around in their SUVs sucking in that Middle Eastern oil like it was going out of style.
Too Much Caffeine for Tea Party Activists Bob LaPietra and Mark Galasso
Local real estate speculator Bob LaPietra and Cobleskill Village Trustee Mark Galasso are both heavily active in a local Cobleskill political party they have created and dubbed the “Tea Party”. However, listening to their ranting and raving and their plans for the Village of Cobleskill, one thing is clear: the last thing they need is more caffeine.
At a luncheon held at LaPietra’s Colonial Diner last Spring, the two spoke to an enthralled audience where they laid out their vision (or lack thereof) for the Village of Cobleskill. Calling himself an “extreme conservative Republican that would make Rush Limbaugh look liberal”, Mark Galasso called Cobleskill an “automobile-centered community” that shouldn’t worry about Downtown redevelopment and urged building a road bypassing Downtown, apparently so people could drive straight to Wal-Mart and the future Lowe’s and not even have to look at our crumbling downtown. Mark Galasso is president of Lancaster Development, a highway construction company, so building useless roads and other infrastructure is his bread and butter. It’s no surprise that he would have an instinctive urge to support any project that increases the sprawl that is parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of our communities.
Meanwhile, Bob LaPietra, who ran for Mayor in 2005 levels a series of general complaints about local taxes and regulations. LaPietra owns numerous commercial properties in the greater Cobleskill area. It’s unclear if LaPietra is asking for relief from taxes or from his own bad investments.
However, the real focus of their talk and their efforts is the consolidation of the Town and Village of Cobleskill. But this is the right idea for the wrong reasons. Town officials (and village-based developers) are licking their lips at the thought of gaining access to the Village’s water and sewer systems so that they can build out the rest of State Route 7, Mineral Springs Rd. and State Route 145 to the south and east of the Village. Dissolving the Village or even making the Town and Village borders contiguous would likely mean the extension of water and sewer lines to areas where there is presently development pressure.
To LaPietra and Galasso, I say, calm down, there is no rush to turn Cobleskill into another Long Island or North Jersey. Do everybody in the county a favor and switch to decaf!
At a luncheon held at LaPietra’s Colonial Diner last Spring, the two spoke to an enthralled audience where they laid out their vision (or lack thereof) for the Village of Cobleskill. Calling himself an “extreme conservative Republican that would make Rush Limbaugh look liberal”, Mark Galasso called Cobleskill an “automobile-centered community” that shouldn’t worry about Downtown redevelopment and urged building a road bypassing Downtown, apparently so people could drive straight to Wal-Mart and the future Lowe’s and not even have to look at our crumbling downtown. Mark Galasso is president of Lancaster Development, a highway construction company, so building useless roads and other infrastructure is his bread and butter. It’s no surprise that he would have an instinctive urge to support any project that increases the sprawl that is parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of our communities.
Meanwhile, Bob LaPietra, who ran for Mayor in 2005 levels a series of general complaints about local taxes and regulations. LaPietra owns numerous commercial properties in the greater Cobleskill area. It’s unclear if LaPietra is asking for relief from taxes or from his own bad investments.
However, the real focus of their talk and their efforts is the consolidation of the Town and Village of Cobleskill. But this is the right idea for the wrong reasons. Town officials (and village-based developers) are licking their lips at the thought of gaining access to the Village’s water and sewer systems so that they can build out the rest of State Route 7, Mineral Springs Rd. and State Route 145 to the south and east of the Village. Dissolving the Village or even making the Town and Village borders contiguous would likely mean the extension of water and sewer lines to areas where there is presently development pressure.
To LaPietra and Galasso, I say, calm down, there is no rush to turn Cobleskill into another Long Island or North Jersey. Do everybody in the county a favor and switch to decaf!
Historic Homes Along Main Street Soon to be History
In late 2006 the Cobleskill Village Planning Board began hearing proposals by Diamond Development to build a Rite Aid pharmacy and a 7500 square foot office building on property between Legion Drive and Campus Drive.
If built, the new pharmacy and office building would front on Main Street, where four residential homes now stand. These homes, all in the Victorian style, are presently not protected by the local historic district, although they contain many features and elements that make them worth protecting. Not only that but they provide sorely needed residential space in Downtown Cobleskill. Yet the owners of these properties have already agreed to their sale and development.
I think we have to seriously question the wisdom of allowing this project to be built. Not only will we lose 4 historic homes that are crucial to the Village’s heritage to another ugly suburban-style box, but the building of Rite Aid may result in the closure of the Eckerd’s Pharmacy down the street, as Rite Aid recently purchased Eckerd’s.
In essence we would be trading four architectural gems for an ugly box and potentially another large empty building to sit vacant. Not only is this bad for architectural and appearance reasons, this may be bad for fiscal reasons. Does Cobleskill need another big empty store? It’s been months since Advance Auto vacated it’s location on West Main street for it’s new store on Burgin St, and it still sits empty as it probably will for the foreseeable future.
I urge all concerned residents to get involved and question this project, and demand that Village trustees explain why this project has been approved and/or why they think it’s a good idea.
If built, the new pharmacy and office building would front on Main Street, where four residential homes now stand. These homes, all in the Victorian style, are presently not protected by the local historic district, although they contain many features and elements that make them worth protecting. Not only that but they provide sorely needed residential space in Downtown Cobleskill. Yet the owners of these properties have already agreed to their sale and development.
I think we have to seriously question the wisdom of allowing this project to be built. Not only will we lose 4 historic homes that are crucial to the Village’s heritage to another ugly suburban-style box, but the building of Rite Aid may result in the closure of the Eckerd’s Pharmacy down the street, as Rite Aid recently purchased Eckerd’s.
In essence we would be trading four architectural gems for an ugly box and potentially another large empty building to sit vacant. Not only is this bad for architectural and appearance reasons, this may be bad for fiscal reasons. Does Cobleskill need another big empty store? It’s been months since Advance Auto vacated it’s location on West Main street for it’s new store on Burgin St, and it still sits empty as it probably will for the foreseeable future.
I urge all concerned residents to get involved and question this project, and demand that Village trustees explain why this project has been approved and/or why they think it’s a good idea.
Empire Zone or Twilight Zone?
In late 2006, portions of Schoharie County were awarded Empire Zone status by the Empire State Development Corporation, New York State’s industrial development agency. Areas designated as Empire Zones enjoy tax benefits for companies to set up or expand their business and therefore increase local employment. Ever since, county leaders have been excitedly hailing the program as a panacea for Upstate’s economic woes.
However, across the state, a growing number of critics of the Empire Zone program are suggesting drastic changes to the current system, some going as far as to urge getting rid of it. One major criticism is the use of Empire Zone exemptions to attract retail businesses, which seldom make decisions about where to locate based on tax benefits. Many of these businesses would choose a location regardless of the Empire Zone benefits it receives. Further, retail businesses often take business away from existing businesses, thereby reducing the net creation of jobs.
Further, there are no conditions or requirements associated with the awarding of Empire Zone benefits. There is nothing to stop a company from taking advantage of the program and then cutting jobs. A report released by the New York State Initiative for Development Accountability in May, 2007 claimed that in 2005, of the nearly $400 million in tax exemptions created by the program, 70 percent went to companies that cut jobs!
However, the biggest problem with this program is that it only reinforces the inter-municipal competition for development (also known as the race to the bottom) throughout the state. Upstate’s major cities (Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo) are actually a patchwork of numerous municipalities that each must compete for industry for its own small tax base. Doing away with this fragmented system of municipal government would create multiple benefits for economic development. First, Upstate’s regions would experience less duplication of services which would enable them to lower taxes. Secondly, region-wide planning and development agencies could create a unified and coherent vision, which would eliminate the need for each town, village and city to fight over every tax ratable that comes along. Incidentally, companies facing such a unified front might be a lot less inclined to request outrageous benefits packages if they couldn’t pack up and move to the neighboring town and village.
In the face of all these fragmented municipal governments, perhaps creating even more “zones” to intensify inter-municipal competition is not the smartest policy, especially if we’re going to be handing out tax exemptions like candy with no strings attached.
And while New York State is focusing all this effort on a program to create tax exemptions for companies, they are nearly ignoring other strategies for economic development. Companies don’t just look at the tax rate when looking for a location. Many companies instead want a steady supply of college graduates from which they can draw qualified and talented employees. Upstate NY has plenty of colleges, but it presently doesn’t have the resources and attractions necessary to keeping students here once they graduate. Cities like Albany and Rochester have made strides recently with their own efforts to create a vibrant nightlife in their cities, some projects have even utilized Empire Zone designations. But right now, Upstate cities can’t compete with places like Manhattan/Brooklyn, Boston, or San Francisco. This can change, and it must.
However, across the state, a growing number of critics of the Empire Zone program are suggesting drastic changes to the current system, some going as far as to urge getting rid of it. One major criticism is the use of Empire Zone exemptions to attract retail businesses, which seldom make decisions about where to locate based on tax benefits. Many of these businesses would choose a location regardless of the Empire Zone benefits it receives. Further, retail businesses often take business away from existing businesses, thereby reducing the net creation of jobs.
Further, there are no conditions or requirements associated with the awarding of Empire Zone benefits. There is nothing to stop a company from taking advantage of the program and then cutting jobs. A report released by the New York State Initiative for Development Accountability in May, 2007 claimed that in 2005, of the nearly $400 million in tax exemptions created by the program, 70 percent went to companies that cut jobs!
However, the biggest problem with this program is that it only reinforces the inter-municipal competition for development (also known as the race to the bottom) throughout the state. Upstate’s major cities (Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo) are actually a patchwork of numerous municipalities that each must compete for industry for its own small tax base. Doing away with this fragmented system of municipal government would create multiple benefits for economic development. First, Upstate’s regions would experience less duplication of services which would enable them to lower taxes. Secondly, region-wide planning and development agencies could create a unified and coherent vision, which would eliminate the need for each town, village and city to fight over every tax ratable that comes along. Incidentally, companies facing such a unified front might be a lot less inclined to request outrageous benefits packages if they couldn’t pack up and move to the neighboring town and village.
In the face of all these fragmented municipal governments, perhaps creating even more “zones” to intensify inter-municipal competition is not the smartest policy, especially if we’re going to be handing out tax exemptions like candy with no strings attached.
And while New York State is focusing all this effort on a program to create tax exemptions for companies, they are nearly ignoring other strategies for economic development. Companies don’t just look at the tax rate when looking for a location. Many companies instead want a steady supply of college graduates from which they can draw qualified and talented employees. Upstate NY has plenty of colleges, but it presently doesn’t have the resources and attractions necessary to keeping students here once they graduate. Cities like Albany and Rochester have made strides recently with their own efforts to create a vibrant nightlife in their cities, some projects have even utilized Empire Zone designations. But right now, Upstate cities can’t compete with places like Manhattan/Brooklyn, Boston, or San Francisco. This can change, and it must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)