Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Galasso Would Give Breaks to Fellow Developer

Proving why it is important to have ordinary citizens as opposed to millionaires in Village government, Trustee Mark Galasso recently questioned the need for sidewalks, lighting and open space requirements as part of the sprawling condo project being constructed along Mineral Springs Road. The project will include nearly 60 condominium units and will be among the largest developments in the Village. To the Village’s credit, they did require the property to be annexed by the Village before receiving water and sewer services.

But that seems to be where the accountability ends. Village Trustee Mark Galasso, President of Lancaster Development, a major highway contractor based in Richmondville, has questioned the need to enforce requirements for sidewalks, lighting and open space. The developer of the project, Nadeau, originally balked at putting in sidewalks but has agreed to do so. As for the streetlights, Galasso argues that it would cause the Village’s electric bill to increase. Really? Is this about saving money for the Village or for Nadeau? Then there’s Galasso’s rant against mandating open space in planned unit districts. Galasso objected, calling the practice “wrong on so many levels”.

However, if anything is wrong with the Village’s zoning ordinance, it is that it is not strong enough on developers. The sidewalks, streetlights and open space are all something to build on. However, there needs to be design guidelines as well to ensure that the project is aesthetically appropriate, pedestrian-oriented and not out of character with the rest of the Village. Compactness, density, walkability, minimum setbacks, building at the lot line, requiring tree plantings; these are all things that could make the Donats Brow project more integrated with the Village. It would make the difference between having an asset to the Village and having an eyesore.

Don’t expect Galasso to hold the developers’ feet to the fire, he’s a developer himself. This is something Village residents should think about when they consider their own levels of political and civic engagement and when they vote for Village officials. Who should be leading development in Schoharie County: citizens with a stake in the community or developers with their own agenda?

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Developers are in the business of building things that appeal to the public...that people want to buy into. Mark Nadeau has done enough research, and has enough experience, to know that if his target market wanted sidewalks, "compactness," and buildings at the lotline, he'd be designing them in.

Mr. Nadeau argues that the village can't maintain the sidewalks it already owns, so why should more be installed? Can't argue with the man there, can you?

Mr. Galasso's "rant" against open space is, I believe, his outrage at a portion of privately-owned property becoming a part of the public domain with no benefit to the private property owner...except for the Warm Fuzzy of knowing that he's contributing to the public. Not much of recompense, in my opinion, compared to having one's own supersized back yard, if that's what you paid for.

The village of Cobleskill grew up in the last century. Sure, it's a nice little village with pretty houses and manageable yard sizes. The times, they are a-changin' though, Sean. I fear your devotion to nostalgia or to that bastion of youthful idealism, "The Public Good," blinds you to the realities of economics.

If a developer builds it, likely...if you keep your hands off it...it will sell.

Anonymous said...

More from the first "anonymous": Do you seriously think that people who buy Mark Nadeau's places won't have their own trees planted if they want them? Or maybe they'll plant shrubs....just the way other homeowners throughout the village have been able to do on their own properties forever.

Sean Thomaston said...

Oh, is this another lecture on the beauty of the capitalist system?

Explain to me why you and me are going to give Wall Street 30 BILLION dollars to buy Bear Stearns' assets?

Why don't we just let the market handle this situation? Just tell people it's a "market correction" and not the Great Depression of 2008!

Back to Cobleskill, it's really not about what Nadeau thinks his customers want, it's about what the people of Cobleskill decide is best for their vision of their own community.

But I don't want to argue, I'm trying to enjoy the WARM FUZZY I get thinking about sending billions of dollars to Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

You are funny. So Cobleskill gets to decide how they want their community to be but Richmondville is just full of a bunch of NIMBYs. Come on Sean Don't be a NIMBY. Just let all the developers wind or otherwise do what they want. So what if Nadeau does not build sidewalks? We need more residences. So what if Reunion builds wind towers all over? We need clean electric. So what if Lowes builds...must I go on. You tag people as NIMBYs for being against something you support. Tag yourself as a NIMBY for Lowes and the Nadeau project.

Sean Thomaston said...

What's funny is that you really think you've caught me contradicting myself.

I never said Donats Brow should or shouldn't be built. I'm saying how it should be built.

Saying the Donats Brow development should have sidewalks and open space is no different than saying the wind turbines should have adequate setbacks, which they should.

The NIMBYs are the people who are flat out saying no.

Lowe's is another issue entirely and should be considered in regards to the impact it will have on the local economy.

I don't think I've said that Lowe's shouldn't be built either, only that if it is and say it gets village water and sewer services, it should be forced to sign a community benefits agreement and pay a living wage, etc.

I think that any large development should be scrutinized and pressured so that the community in question can get the best deal out of it. That goes for Nadeau, Reunion Power, Lowes and anything else you can name.

Anonymous said...

Point of information: Nadeau's development is not being considered as a planned unit development. It will be in a "residential multi-family" zoning district.

Anonymous said...

"...it's really not about what Nadeau thinks his customers want, it's about what the people of Cobleskill decide is best for their vision of their own community."
***********************************
Yeah, I see your point. I see how well that's workin' with the buildings/signs/occupancies on Main Street.

In regard to the Bear Stearns debacle, I can't explain that to you. I don't agree with it either.

Sean Thomaston said...

"Nadeau's development is not being considered as a planned unit development."

Well here's the thing: as far as I know, the property is not part of the Village yet, so it wouldn't have a zoning classification. However, I'll admit to not having an answer. I will leave this question to a bigger planning nerd than myself.

-Carrot Top

Anonymous said...

Sean:you seem to be a champion for hardcore planning efforts. You want to hold Lowes and Donat Brow development to the fire and make sure they build what you want to the letter of the zoning law. Fine, because these 2 projects are located in zoning districts that already allow the use.

In Richmondville you constantly blanket insult everyone against the wind turbines as NIMBYs all while conveniently dismissing that the Richmondville zoning law does not allow the use. I talked to a trusted source on this zoning issue and was assured that the zoning does not allow this use.

Think of this…If Lowes was being proposed in a strictly residential district of Coby Village and the Village was proposing a new law to change the uses to accommodate big box stores in the residential district---don’t you think the residents might have good reasons to be NIMBYs? Or do you have some scale that gives projects more weight if they hold up more of your ideals?

To me you are treating the Reunion issue the same as my example of Lowes being proposed in a Village residential district where the Village only discusses setbacks – noise – sidewalks – traffic –etc…with no weight to the fact that the existing zoning does not allow a Lowes in that zoning district in the first place. People are mad because they are being asked to accept a use into a residential district that is already banned while being lead to beleive it will provide more protection.

You have closed your mind to the real zoning issues at hand in Richmondville in the hope of an end result that you think is a better good. If an industrial type of project with the same zoning issues as Richmondville were taking place in Village of Coby I’ll bet you’d be right up front arguing against it because the zoning was not be upheld and pushed aside.

This hypocrisy is what I find funny.

Kevin Federlein said...

Yes, I di have some scale that gives projects more weight if they hold up to my ideals. Thats actually kinda the whole point here.

There's no hypocrisy. I support smart growth in Cobleskill and clean energy in Richmondville.

Zoning ordinances are not etched in stone and can and should be updated as needed. Personally, I'd rather the Town adopt a new pro-wind ordinance that minimizes noise and visual inconvenience for neighbors rather than debate the legality of turbines under the current zoning code.

The problem with your point is that wind turbines are not being proposed in a highly populated residential area. The amount of people who can claim to be impacted is relatively small.

The change of zoning code does not strike me as particularly controversial in this case or in your hypothetical case.

I'll be perfectly clear where I'm coming from. Big box retail = bad, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels = good. Of course its not always quite this simple, but for the purposes of answering your comment...

Anonymous said...

From your original post: "Who should be leading development in Schoharie County: citizens with a stake in the community or developers with their own agenda?"

Since Galasso is a resident of the village and Nadeau will be a resident of the village, once the annexation is accomplished, why are their actions so suspect, simply because they have the money and knowledge to make money?

"...there needs [sic] to be design guidelines as well to ensure that the project is aesthetically appropriate, pedestrian-oriented and not out of character with the rest of the Village."

With what part of the village should the project be in character?Elm Street? Grandview Drive? Settles Mountain Road?

Anonymous said...

"Zoning ordinances are not etched in stone and can and should be updated as needed. Personally, I'd rather the Town adopt a new pro-wind ordinance that minimizes noise and visual inconvenience for neighbors rather than debate the legality of turbines under the current zoning code."

First - the wind law was encouraged by a developer with an agenda -- not by the community.

Second - the "citizens with a stake in the community" are the ones impacted even though not in numbers to be of a concern to you as long as it is not in your backyard.

Third - Richmondville did not explain why a wind law was being proposed. If it was under the circumstances you explained it would have been better to understand and work with. Instead it was proposed "to protect" property owners from a potential nuisance. The direction the town board took with this makes the current legality with the zoning code a very important and legitimate issue.

Fourth - if you really want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels - **sorry** throwing up some wind turbines may give you a warm fuzzy but a real solution will require some changes in many lives that many are obviously not willing to do.

Because you are soooo knowledgable --- How 'bout taking Bob and Don up on their debate proposal?

Anonymous said...

If you are interested in clean energy I have a hard time understanding why you are so quick to advocate for a measure that has destructive consequences when there are many other efforts that are more constructive, more meaningful with much less env. impacts that you could be advocating on your blog? The developers and others want the money even though they will pretend the env. is their sole concern. Give some equal attention to other efforts that people could take to reduce dependence on fossil fuels instead of stirring up a hornet nest every once and a while.

Anonymous said...

??? By your own admission you are a hypocrite. Why can’t we “update” the zoning law to allow big box? You want use the zoning law against anything you do not like and just call it an “update” if it fits your liberal agenda. Typical liberal. Hope you never serve on a planning board.

Lucy said...

I recently stumbled across this blog and I have found many of the "conversations" very interesting.

One thought - to those who are frequently posting - why not create an identity? I mean a name.

Reading the posts made by multiple versions of "Anonymous" makes the connections nearly impossible to make.

It seems like there are multiple people posting a variety of thoughts and unique perspectives - all of which would be more clear if they were more differentiated - that is attributed to an individual.


Just a thought.

P.S. My real name is not be Lucy - or maybe it is.

Kevin Federlein said...

Thanks for organizing your points so clearly, its very helpful.

"First - the wind law was encouraged by a developer with an agenda -- not by the community."

Yes, I suppose this is true, but it doesn't take into account the nature of wind energy development. Any wind farm dev. will have to be initiated by the developer as they must first determine where there is enough wind for a project to be feasible. Your attempt to use my own words against me is cute, but not much else.

"Second - the "citizens with a stake in the community" are the ones impacted even though not in numbers to be of a concern to you as long as it is not in your backyard."

Can't we find a way to accommodate those potentially inconvenienced without slamming the doors on renewable energy?

"Third - Richmondville did not explain why a wind law was being proposed. If it was under the circumstances you explained it would have been better to understand and work with. Instead it was proposed "to protect" property owners from a potential nuisance. The direction the town board took with this makes the current legality with the zoning code a very important and legitimate issue."

I'm not going to defend every decision by the Town Board, maybe they tried to deceive and maybe they just goofed up. I just don't find this issue compelling, if you feel that it gives your anti-windmill position legitimacy then keep harping on it.

"Fourth - if you really want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels - **sorry** throwing up some wind turbines may give you a warm fuzzy but a real solution will require some changes in many lives that many are obviously not willing to do."

No, actually developing wind power in line with NYS' renewable portfolio standards WILL help to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Naturally, wind energy is not the be all and end all of clean energy. We have got to focus on solar, bio-mass, fuel cells, efficiency and conservation as well.

I hardly think wind turbines have "destructive consequences". Inconveniences maybe. This is actually the kind of hysteria that gets me involved in this in the first place. Just relax and take a deep breath. Let's try and address this issue as rational adults, not stirred up insects.

And I will be happy to take part in any panel discussions with Bob and Don providing they'll have me.

Anonymous said...

Well I guess it will be hard for us to see eye to eye if you think clear cutting, massive grading, flattening of ridge tops, yards of concrete and stone, visual and noise impacts and other items are simply inconveniences and not destructive consequences. Conservation, small solar and wind, increased vehicle fuel efficiency are all measures with less consequences that have not been seriously tried. But if you think big business with big projects is the answer then God bless. Simply label me hysterical.

Anonymous said...

Wow, life is so simple yet you perpetuate the BS. Cobleskill needs business, if it had a Lowes by now there would be a nice tax base and more people working. As far as maintaining the cutsie village atmosphere and look, forget about it, you have been trying it for the past 50 years and it just does not work. Let's face it you are not Martha's Vineyard, nor Stockbridge, nor an adorable Vermont village, etc. Make zoning practical and stop with the power/political games. And lastly, you will need energy, wind will keep you warm in the years to come and help cook your food, rather than complaining on how ugly the turbines are, reflect on the abominable structures that most of you live in especially after having had the wheels removed. If I had the patience to deal with the local zoning board, I would turn that closed up auto store into a strip joint and really wake up the down town area.

Kevin Federlein said...

Relatively speaking, the items you mentioned are not that destructive and can be reversed a lot more easily than what goes into extracting and producing other energy sources.

And the other sources of clean energy are being seriously implemented but the fact is, they all run up against the same challenges as wind energy more or less. Property owners can just as easily claim that solar panels are aesthetically undesirable. If you try to incentivize or force vehicle efficiency, i.e. smaller vehicles people with squeal about safety issues and freedom of choice.

I'm not a supporter of big business and big projects. I like wind precisely because it is on a smaller scale in terms of footprint and impact, that moves us away from our dependence on big oil. So thats a fairly dishonest portrayal of my position.

So not only are you hysterical, but you have maliciously distorted my views as well.

Can't wait to debate in public, sounds like a real sandbagging.

Anonymous said...

Yeah and I am sure the thousands of windmills needed won't have much impact combined and their use will quickly shut down the coal and oil industry. I have a bridge to sell you in NYC too. As for a sandbagging, hope you use that college time to study up.

Anonymous said...

"And lastly, you will need energy, wind will keep you warm in the years to come and help cook your food, rather than complaining on how ugly the turbines are, reflect on the abominable structures that most of you live in especially after having had the wheels removed."

Nuclear, coal, and oil will keep me just as warm - thanks. And my home never had wheels. Are you excited about living next to a wind turbine? If so I am sure there are some homes without wheels for sale on Warnervlle Hill that you can move to.

Anonymous said...

"Can't we find a way to accommodate those potentially inconvenienced without slamming the doors on renewable energy?"

WHAT way? Give us some suggestions.

"Personally, I'd rather the Town adopt a new pro-wind ordinance that minimizes noise and visual inconvenience for neighbors..."

HOW? How can an ordinance be crafted that will minimize the noise and visual impacts as much as not having the things there?

"The amount of people who can claim to be impacted is relatively small," but if I'm one of those people, I am 100% affected. How many people can be impacted before you see their side of the issue? If you'd owned property, for thirty years, that you'd been planning to sell...to live on the proceeds, would you still feel that the decrease in your property value was worthwhile?

Ann Animus

Hysterical Too said...

"I just don't find this issue compelling, if you feel that it gives your anti-windmill position legitimacy then keep harping on it."

It will be harped on. So you do not find it compelling when an industry decides a local zoning code needs to be changed to accomodate them so they initiate and participate in a campaign of misinformation with some willing goverment participants? It appears you are fine with that as long as you like the industry and not fine if you do not. How about the people that made purchase decisions based on the zoning code? Tough shit on them?

Anonymous said...

I am for the use of wind power, but against the way it is being implemented locally. Siting standards vary from place to place with no industry or government standards. It appears that companies are moving as fast as possible by hunting out targets where opposition is low or local zoning is weak. Maybe a large wind facility cannot be sited safely in Richmondville. If the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas instructs employees to minimize time spent within 1,300 feet of a turbine then why ask a resident or my kids or anyone else on my property to be within 1,300 feet? If such distance cannot accomodate a project then I guess we cannot have a project. That does not mean a project will not be appropriate somewhere else. Maybe a company or state agency can purchase property to have appropriate setbacks. It does not mean I am anti-wind if I am against the way projects are currently being pursued. If a local zoning ordinance does not allow the use, then that needs to be made clear before asking a community to change it. Then if they want it to change so be it. The issues are bigger than most small rural areas can handle and the people that need to get a grip are the ones that think a wind project is an ultimate good even if sited in unsafe conditions. I am a NIMBY if it cannot be built in a safe manner.

Kevin Federlein said...

"It appears that companies are moving as fast as possible by hunting out targets where opposition is low or local zoning is weak."

Or, could it be that wind energy companies are merely going where the wind is, which happens to be in rural areas with weak zoning and low potential opposition.

If opposition is low, is this not a reflection of the limited number of people potentially impacted?

Despite your assertion, it seems like wind energy has encountered a great deal of opposition locally, at least here and in Otsego County.

"If the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas instructs employees to minimize time spent within 1,300 feet of a turbine then why ask a resident or my kids or anyone else on my property to be within 1,300 feet?"

How many residences are actually located within 1300 feet from the Huse property line? Use this link to view a map of the Huse parcel which allows you to measure distances.

http://www.schohariecounty-ny.gov/remote/RPSOpeningScreen?coSwis=43&Home=http://www.schohariecounty-ny.gov/CountyWebSite/search.jsp

From what I can tell there are only 6 residences within under 1300 feet from the Huse parcel line, not necessarily from where turbines would be sited. Now, for all I know, one of these may be the Huse farm house, and others may be only seasonal residences. Is there no way to site these turbines to minimize the impact on the handful of nearby residents? Such as for example by locating them at maximum distance from residences?

If the Huse property wind farm turns out to be unacceptable based on whatever setbacks are decided upon, I'm fine with that. At the same time, if 4 or 5 people are inconvenienced by wind turbines...haven't people made larger sacrifices for our country's energy needs?

"So you do not find it compelling when an industry decides a local zoning code needs to be changed to accomodate them so they initiate and participate in a campaign of misinformation with some willing goverment participants?"

If this were not overblown rhetoric I would have a problem with what you describe. But c'mon, really, how many places that are suitable for wind power are actually currently zoned for wind turbines? If we held to your standards, we'd have no wind power or even any projects, because they would have to be zoned for long in advance.

At the end of the day, I like wind power, but don't really care if it is built in Schoharie County. It seems to me that concerns over property values are the predominant focus, an issue which I have no sympathy for. I believe wind power should be developed without any conern whatsoever for property values.

The only concern that has merit, is the potential public health threat posed by noise, flicker and ice throws. But how well are these threats understood? Further, are newer model turbines successful at minimizing these threats?

Maybe if wind projects are rejected by communities on this basis it will force the wind industry to design and build better turbines. I'm for that.

Anonymous said...

"I believe wind power should be developed without any conern whatsoever for property values. "
Sean...or is it Kevin....
That is REALLY stupid....
then again "Or, could it be that wind energy companies are merely going where the wind is, which happens to be in rural areas with weak zoning..." is really stupid as well. Most of the WIND is right here....
--The Mayor--
"....it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows ..."
--Bob Dylan--

Kevin Federlein said...

"....it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows ..."

Actually, in order to profitably site wind turbines it takes a test tower that needs to collect wind samples for about 12-18 months.

Further, the idea that we should not build wind turbines because of property values is a joke.

When I think about all the sacrifices people have made for this country's energy production needs, both direct (in terms of being removed from land through eminent domain) and externalities (air and water pollution) I have no sympathy for NIMBYs complaining about wind turbines bringing their property values down.

We've spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of lives fighting a war for oil, yet we're supposed to scrap an energy alternative that can meet up to 20% of NYS energy needs, because it MIGHT lower some people's property values.

If this is stupid, then I must be retarded.

"The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind"

-Bob Dylan-

Anonymous said...

"How many residences are actually located within 1300 feet from the Huse property line?"

Projects may be located on more than just the Huse property and the issue is setback from other private property, not just residences.

Zoning way in advance is called planning. A political board quickly changing zoning for any purpose based on one request typically runs contrary to good planning.

I also want to complain about the real NIMBYs in Schoharie County... the quarry opposers and NYC watershed opposers. We need stone and cement, but they do not want it mined in their backyards, it might lower their property values. There is no evidence that this lowers property values. These anti-watershed people make me sick too. We need clean water in NYC but they don't want NYC telling them what they can do on their land.

Gotta love water said...

The Forgotten Renewable? - Hydro

I enjoy reading posts about renewables. I'm not an expert in electric production but maybe someone out there has some expertise.

Questions and thoughts; there is an existing renewable energy source in Schoharie County called hydro. The Blenheim Pumped Storage Power Project can produce 1,040 megawatts in peak demand. This project also serves as a recreation resource. If we need more electricity can’t this source be used more often instead of just as an emergency back up?

Our NewYork City reservoir is a stored power source that is not used for electric generation. A small power plant on the Ashoken Reservoir produces 5 megawatts of electricity (5 wind turbines?) and the Hinckley Reservoir has a 9 MW facility. Can’t we tap into our NYC reservoir for electric too?

If these projects are not able to be used efficiently, wouldn’t one more hydro project somewhere in NY be less controversial, use less land and be more efficient than building 600 wind turbines? I might be wrong but when I mess with the electricity calculations on a 1.5 MW wind turbine per year versus some hydro options and their elec. production per year it seems to take a lot of wind turbines to produce the amount of electric one hydro plant can produce. The recreation opportunities with hydro are better too. Plus reservoir construction means people have to be bought out and if you are a neighbor you get water front property and views. Smells like property price increases to me.

Not saying that wind can’t be part of the solution too, but if we have potential resources already in existence why are we thinking first of building new projects in new locations? And if we talk about building new projects in new locations shouldn’t we build projects with the most bang for the buck (like 1 hydro plant)?

How about a discussion on the feasibility of solar on large existing buildings (wal-mart buildings, county building).

Not explorin' all of these options first seems stupid to me.

Kevin Federlein said...

Photovoltaics, biomass, fuel cells are all being explored and implemented in a variety of ways, both with private sector and public sector support. I support and applaud these efforts.

The problem with hydro is that the potential for displacing large numbers of people as well as ecosystems is very large.

In Schoharie County, the hamlet of Gilboa was evacuated to make way for the reservoir & dam. This is a sacrifice that goes way beyond the inconveniences of living near a wind turbine.

"Projects may be located on more than just the Huse property"

Correct you are, and thats a good thing, because Schoharie County as well as the Town of Richmondville has a lot of sites that would be more ideal in terms of minimizing the number of people impacted.

"and the issue is setback from other private property, not just residences"

Yeah but let's think about this for a second. If someone owns a 300 acre parcel of unimproved land, why should anyone lose sleep over whether or not wind turbines are sited at an adequate distance from that particular property line?

Future residential development on that property? Any kind of future development, on a large enough scale to be pre-empted by wind turbines would probably have a much larger negative effect than the turbines themselves.

In this case, the market would dictate that developing this parcel would be unprofitable, if there are wind turbines.

The effect would be no different than if the parcel were downzoned. Yes, the property bears some diminished value, but any basic use of local police power (be it a downzoning of that piece of land or a specific rezoning of an adjacent parcel) is a burden that society is entitled to ask that property owner to bear for a good reason.

All of this assumes that it is okay to ever change a zoning ordinance, which many commenting on this blog do not seem to believe.

"Zoning way in advance is called planning. A political board quickly changing zoning for any purpose based on one request typically runs contrary to good planning."

Nice tight argument. However, I don't think Richmondville is changing its zoning that quickly. There is currently a Town-appointed committee of citizens investigating setbacks and other necessary protections to be put in place if the zoning ordinance is updated to permit wind turbines. "Good planning" does not mean a community can never stray from its original plan. As long as major changes (such as this) are based on articulable standards designed to protect the public, they must be considered part of a reasonable community planning process.

Regarding the CSP's quarry expansion plans and the dam, these are really separate issues and should be addressed separately where they can get the focus they deserve.

Anonymous said...

“The problem with hydro is that the potential for displacing large numbers of people as well as ecosystems is very large.”

You are focusing only on building a new reservoir {which **as an aside** could provide enough electric to put a thousand wind turbines to shame}. I think the previous post was making reference to using existing reservoirs when possible and only building ANY new project if using existing reservoirs cannot provide enough new power.

And let's think about this for a second. If someone owns a parcel of unimproved land, don’t they have the right to use any part of their property for hunting and other purposes without being subjected to a possible unsafe condition? That’s why I would lose sleep. It is not just about future residential development on that property. But there are cases where someone might have bought a small parcel to build a home that will now be subjected to unsafe setbacks in your world.

“In this case, the market would dictate that developing this parcel would be unprofitable, if there are wind turbines.”

So are you now in agreement that property values will go down near a wind turbine?!?

“society is entitled to ask that property owner to bear for a good reason.”

Is it a good reason to subject anyone to a nuisance that may not be necessary in the first place if there are other viable options to use existing hydro capacity that have not been excluded first?

“All of this assumes that it is okay to ever change a zoning ordinance, which many commenting on this blog do not seem to believe.”

I can’t speak for others but it is not my contention that a zoning ordinance cannot be changed, but it is all about the manner in which it is started and pursued. The sorry way it started in Richmondville and the path it was on was only corrected due to public outcry that the former supervisor claimed did not exist. Granted it is all water under the bridge now and the current town body is doing a better job. But a lot of headaches could have been avoided right from the get go if gov’t boards stop having knee jerk reactions to every proposal that blows this way {pun intended}. Look at the proposal, consider the implications, get the public involved, discuss thoroughly, have the facts, determine if a zoning change is good, and then act. Don’t bend over backwards to force it through with minimal discussion in hopes no one realizes what is going on. Man that is wrong. Perhaps I’ll stop dwelling on what almost happened soon but it is scary how it was going and my kids would be impacted playing in their own backyard.

“Regarding the CSP's quarry expansion plans and the dam, these are really separate issues and should be addressed separately where they can get the focus they deserve.”

Yes and please focus on them soon. It should be interesting.

gotta love water said...

I do not know if there is any way to use exisitng hydro but if so it should be tapped into.

i would think if you are talking about people being safe on their own property no matter what they choose to do then setbacks need to be from the property line. You should not be afraid to venture on your own property when you leave your house. Now is wind power unsafe at certain distances is what I'll leave up to others to research all though hunting sometimes in this area is way more unsafe.

I just want to make sure the County is using available hydro. I would not argue that we need to have a whole village flooded.

Anonymous said...

Kevin...
"If this is stupid, then I must be retarded."

Occam's Razor...

--The Mayor--

Anonymous said...

Razor this awhile Mayor.

Kevin Federlein said...

Occam's Razor: When rational argumentation and logic fails, the most simple solution is best: resort to childish name-calling.

Anonymous said...

gee even kevy nows how to google

Anonymous said...

but his is a bit of a spin on the meaning, although there are several...
My interpretation: when there are several explanations that may fit a given situation, the simplest one is usually the correct one.
--The Mayor--

Anonymous said...

as spiro once said "effete intellectual snobs". Who said "oh what a gift"

Kevin Federlein said...

"gee even kevy nows how to google"

Shows what you know...Actually used Wikipedia.

Wow, things get really ugly when the schoolyard bullies run out of Limbaugh/Hannity talking points and "googled" crackpot theories about the dangers of wind turbines.

You guys are obviously out of gas. Take a break and wait for next week's new posts.

-Kevy