Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Paul Gettys October 31, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus

October 31, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808

Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826

RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006

Dear Mr. Zigenfus:

Local Law No. 1 reads “Individual wind turbine towers shall be located with relation to property lines so that the level of noise produced during wind turbine operation shall not exceed 50 dba, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that…………….
This would mean that the total noise level, background plus wind turbine would not exceed 50 dba.

Local Law No. 2 reads “Windmill only noise levels at non-project lines shall not exceed 50.0 dB(A), except as set forth herein.” Unfortunately no one picked up this change prior to the hearing. The formula depicted on page 17 gives no relief.

Attached please find a chart depicting the total allowable noise level depending on the background noise and comparable noise levels plus a chart entitled “Typical Noise Levels”.

As can be seen by these two charts this change in the law will have a very drastic affect on those living near the windmills. It is likely that when the wind is blowing people will be forced to stay inside with the windows closed. This hardly seem fair to these landowners.

Please consider changing the law back to where it reads the total noise will not exceed 50dba, not the turbine only noise.


Paul Gettys



Public Hearing on the Dyckman Test Town - Cohocton Planning Board - 6:30 PM, Thursday November 2, 2006


The disreputable conduct of attorney Todd M. Mathes of the Albany law firm Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna to pervert NYS law by having the Cohocton Planning Board hold a bogus public hearing on the Dyckman test tower is clear evidence of local government out of control. The proper authority and jurisdiction for this matter is with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Since the ZBA has already ruled under NYS law, the only recourse for UPC to appeal is to file an Article 78 in NYS Supreme Court.

This public hearing will start early at 6:30 PM on Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Planning Board should never have accepted the DEIS. Without a proper application in a project NO ACTION should have been taken, by ANY Cohocton Town Board.

IT IS TIME TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR OUTRAGE with the conduct of UPC and the Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna law firm. It has already cost the Town of Cohocton $22,681.00 for legal fees to these attorneys. On top of that UPC has paid an additional $21,523.47 to Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna. These exact amounts were provided to Cohocton Wind Watch, from freedom of information filings by the Town of Cohocton. A total of $44,204.47 in legal costs in addition to that of the annual legal fees of Town Attorney Pat McAllister.

Does this sound like a bargain?

Why won’t the Town of Cohocton just obey the ruling of the Zoning Board of Appeals? The UPC test towers where erected without proper permitting. Attorney Todd M. Mathes would have you believe that these are communication towers. Folks, don’t passively accept such insults. The purpose of these UPC test towers is supposed to measure and record the wind velocity at the sites of their location.

THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS has the authority in this area and has already ruled that the Dyckman tower should be taken down.

Cohocton needs operate by the rule of law. Both Cohocton local law and NYS laws are being violated. Show town officials that they must comply with the Zoning Board of Appeals decision.

Monday, October 30, 2006

UPC attorney - Nixon Peabody - submission for Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2

NOTE: Nixon Peabody is the same law firm that represents Ecogen in their suit against the Town of Italy. Just more UPC and Ecogen corporate connections???


Saturday, October 28, 2006

Town position on Comprehensive Plan compliance concerning all new zoning laws by Robert C. Strasburg II

UPC leaseholders misunderstand Town Zoning Laws as regulated by NYS Law.

It is unfortunate that the pseudo patriotic notion that is being perpetrated on our Town has been allowed to solidify into the current opinion of many UPC leaseholders and landowners in Cohocton.

The idea that "I should be able to do on my land what I want" is not supported by case law. Not only does a Town have the AUTHORITY to restrict private land use, it also has the RESPONSIBILITY to do so to protect all residents in a Town. Please see the hyperlink below that will walk you through to a full understanding of just what Zoning entails.


Thursday, October 26, 2006

Hillary and Industrial Wind Turbines


Last night I saw Hillary Clinton's recent ad campaign and was
horrified to see it features wind factories.

I thought you might like to inform your members in the hope that some
of them will write or email her and express disapproval. She needs to
be aware of how many New Yorkers oppose these.

I heard that as few as 8 letters on a topic to a senator or member of
congress will make them take notice.

Thanks and thanks for your commitment to this issue,

Kari Pagnano

NOTE Read the June 28, 2006 letter to Senator Hillary Clinton by James Hall

National Wind Watch challenges support of industrial wind power by major non-profit groups

Rowe, Mass., October 26, 2006 -- Many advocacy groups, fighting global warming and the negative environmental and health impacts of fossil fuel or nuclear energy, have embraced large-scale wind power as part of a solution.

Those organizations are misguided in their support of wind energy, says National Wind Watch (NWW), a coalition of grass-root groups defending wild places and rural communities from industrial development.

"Groups like Greenpeace and the state PIRGs have built their reputations by speaking out against rampant development and destruction of the environment," says Eric Rosenbloom, a Vermont science writer and current president of NWW. "In the past, they have reliably taken the side of communities against the greed of heedless corporations or convenient politics. But with industrial wind, they've gone to the other side. They're effectively acting as shills for giant energy companies looking for a fast buck with a trendy but very flawed technology that destroys landscapes, ecosystems, and communities."

According to material on NWW's web site, www.wind-watch.org, wind power on the grid has not been shown to reduce emissions or replace other sources of electricity to any degree that justifies its own negative impacts. Because it responds only to the fluctuating wind and not to actual user demand, it adds instability to the power load, thus further burdening other sources of power to keep the system balanced.

Since the environmental benefits aren't there, NWW questions the support of industrial wind power by so many organizations that are otherwise defenders of the environment.

"The argument that local sacrifices are necessary to save the planet just doesn't hold up," said Lloyd Crawford, NWW treasurer and owner of Stump Sprouts guest lodge and cross-country ski center in West Hawley, Mass. "These giant machines won't make the slightest dent in global warming. Their negative impacts, on the other hand, are substantial."

Those impacts include the disruption and deaths of birds and bats, fragmentation of habitat, damage to watersheds, and visual as well as auditory intrusion day and night. In addition to their immense height, tons of cement and steel in the foundations, and acres of clearance, wind power facilities require strong straight roads and substantial new transmission infrastructure.

National Wind Watch calls on all organizations interested in protecting the environment, wildlife, and our communities to more carefully consider the facts about industrial wind energy. The unavoidable conclusion is that big wind is a threat rather than a savior to those interests.

The statement from National Wind Watch was released to coincide with the 16th annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Burlington, Vt., Oct. 2529, 2006. NWW will be represented at an exhibit table by its Vermont affiliates led by Sheffield-based Ridge Protectors, along with Kansas affiliate Protect the Flint Hills and Industrial Wind Action of New Hampshire.

This is the second year that NWW has exhibited at the SEJ conference. The ad hoc Coalition for Responsible Wind Power, created by Sierra Club of Maryland Conservation Chair and NWW founding member Dan Boone, has exhibited for the previous two years and last year welcomed the newly formed National Wind Watch to participate.


National Wind Watch is a nonprofit corporation that promotes knowledge and raises awareness of the negative environmental and social impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information, analysis, and other materials are available on its web site, www.wind-watch.org.
National Wind Watch, Inc.

Sue Sliwinski Editorial

Dear Editor:

Why is it that supporters of commercial wind power routinely ignore the ever-growing mountain of data demonstrating this technology's ineffectiveness? And why do they refuse to acknowledge increasing real-life evidence that this kind of development is off the charts with respect to inappropriateness in our rural communities? I believe anyone who thinks it's okay simply doesn't comprehend the true impacts of what they're supporting. They say they've investigated, gone to see the machines close up, talked to people around them, and still insist that the money they or the town expects to take in makes it all worth while. It's hard to comprehend how anyone can come to this conclusion.

The turbines that Invenergy wants to use are almost as tall as Buffalo's Marine Midland Bank Building. Imagine 86 of these buildings plunked between the homes and properties of Sheldon, all with their own substantial access roads cutting back into woods, open fields, and meadows. 86! But wind turbines don't just sit quietly like buildings do. They whir and blink and moan, pretty much all the time.

This isn't just about how they "look" as supporters often say when trivializing opponents concerns. The setbacks that Invenergy is advocating defies all common sense, yet these distances are echoed by wind developers everywhere in order to more easily achieve their goals within the boundaries of residential areas where industrial development has always been off-limits. Wind developers across NY State are using the inexperience of policy makers and the lack of any guiding precedence to their advantage by telling us they are the experts, and ‘these’ are the numbers to use as our parameters. Ironically, their machines keep growing taller while their ‘recommended’ setbacks continue to shrink.

The only true mitigating factor with regard to proposed commercial scale wind turbines and existing homes is adequate distance. Indeed, wind supporter and acoustic expert Dick Bowdler of 'New Acoustics' states that the idea of putting such massive machines so close to residents is likely to cause serious problems and when consulted, he advocates that commercial turbines never be built closer than a mile and a quarter to any occupied structure. The French Academy of Medicine came out this year with recommendations for 1.5 kilometer setbacks based on rising health concerns in that country, and the only peer-reviewed published paper that exists on wind turbine noise states, “…at a distance of 1500 m. (4900 feet) tall wind turbines may in fact be up to 18 dB noisier than the calculated values suggest. A further increase in annoyance may be expected because of the pulse-like character of the wind turbine noise, especially at high rotational speeds.”

Just this past June, a flicker study was done for Horizon Wind Energy by WIND Engineers, Inc that demonstrates shadow-flicker can still be an issue at a distance of almost 5000 feet, and a nuisance as far away as 3300 feet. Earlier this year in Pubnico Point, Nova Scotia, all eight members of the d’Entremont family had to abandon their home of 23 years because several turbines within a half-mile of their residence were making the children sick and causing their Mom’s migraines to worsen, according to CBC interviews. This is just one example of what is happening more and more often as commercial wind development proliferates without concern for the inhabitants of the local environments that are targeted.

If a wind turbine is so close as to dominate the immediate surroundings, then it’s too close. And if you want to sell and move away, your chance to advertise, “country living at it’s best” is gone. You can no longer refer to your home as quiet, peaceful, serene or as having beautiful views, yet developers tell us our property values will go up, not down, with turbines nearby!

Wind developers make up the rules as they go along. They’ve insisted that their skyscraper sized steel monsters make good neighbors despite mounting data to the contrary, and because few question their ‘expert’ status, and because they WANT to say YES to those pay-outs, the claims are often accepted at face value and without further meaningful research.

The commercial wind industry is making a mockery of all environmental and renewable energy advocates who support them. They’re often ruthless in their local activities, and will no doubt disappear long before we can hold them accountable for their indiscretions against us and against the planet. Where, I wonder will Invenergy and others like them be when society realizes the folly of it all?

Sue Sliwinski
National Wind Watch, Inc.
Sardinia NY
716 592 1403

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Cohocton/Prattsburgh Turbine Skyline Map

James and Shannon Lince letter to the Town of Cohocton - regarding Windmill Local Law #2

James and Shannon Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826

Town Board of Cohocton
Town Planning Board of Cohocton
15 S. Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826


Elected and appointed officials of Cohocton,

We write you again strongly objecting to the passage of industrial wind turbine law. As a resident in zoned agriculture and residential land AG/R, we oppose zoning variances and laws which promote and support commercial industrialization of this land. This industrialization will bring well documented nuisances, reduction in property market value, health and hazard risks to residents, and a reduction in property rights.

Passing this industrial zoning law is a clear breach of the spirit of residential zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

The damages that we as property owners will predictably incur based on your actions are material and substantial.

Very Truly Yours,

James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY

Analysis of Proposed Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 by Rick Bolton


David Miller letter to Cohocton Town Board - Public Hearing on Windmill Local Law #2


P.O. BOX 356
(585) 374-213O

October 23, 2006

The Hon. Jack Zigenfus
Supervisor, Town of Cohocton
15 S. Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826

Re: Adoption of Local law No. 2 of the Year 2006 (Wind Turbine Law)

Dear Supervisor Zigenfus:

My client James Hall and I are writing to you and the Town Board to urge you not to adopt Local Law No. 2 of the Year 2006 as written.

As you know, New York State Law requires that all Zoning Laws and amendments be written in accordance with the Town's comprehensive plan.

The Town of Cohocton's comprehensive plan, adopted in 1970, and apparently never updated, obviously makes no provision for the construction and operation of wind turbines, as they were not widely in use at that time. The Town's comprehensive plan does make it clear however, that the primary objective of land use planning in the Town is to preserve the Town's rural and agricultural characteristics. This is a worthy goal which should be promoted by your and other surrounding municipal boards.

Unfortunately, the proposed law does nothing to further those objectives, but rather will seriously detract from them, allowing as it does the construction of wind turbines some five hundred feet in height.

The law's failure to honor the Town's comprehensive plan makes it suspect and open to attack. Also, the requirement of a special use permit before construction, to be approved by the Planning Board without sufficient guidance from the local law, will render the granting of each permit equally suspect and open to litigation.

We urge the Town Board to give this law no further consideration and to adopt a more sensible alternative, more in keeping with the Town's stated goals
Thank you for your attention to this matter.


David P. Miller

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by CWW

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by CWW

Passing Windmill Local Law #2 would be a grave error for the Town of Cohocton. Any Councilman that would vote for the adoption of this ordinance will bear the responsibility of the harsh consequences that will take decades to recover. The evidence that this law was drafted to meet all the desired requirements of UPC is undeniable. The public safety has been sacrificed for corporate greed. We are told that landholders can scar the landscape because they want to extract extra income from an industrial project because they control the votes on the Cohocton Town Board. We are also told that the Zigenfus administration can push through this ordinance, written by a law firm that masquerades as working for the Town, but paid for by UPC, because Jack and Wayne rule the roost.

Well what about the looking out for the ordinary property owners and residents? Without increased setbacks and protective site locations, residents will be condemned to the horror of an unbearable existence among a forest of monster machines. Jack and Wayne will vote for their UPC patron. So it is up to Mr. Wise and Mr. LeVesque to voice their objection to save our town from adopting a law that guarantees law suits into the indefinite future.

What we need to do NOW is to scrap Windmill Local Law #2 and sit down and write a law that is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. A Moratorium is needed NOW. What is the all fired rush to judgment to pass a law designed for the first developer that pushed their way into town? Now that a second developer has announced intentions to do a project, would it not be prudent to sit down and create an open process to write a model windmill law? The deception and secrecy used to formulate Windmill Local Law #2 is the reason that Cohocton is in turmoil.

Everyone in town knows it is about the money! So all we need to know is how many and how much has been paid or promised to buy votes? Passing Windmill Local Law #2, as it is written, will prove that UPC bought Cohocton. Do the right thing and reject this law.

The environment will be the biggest loser if this Town Council approves Windmill Local Law #2. No doubt wildlife will suffer a huge negative impact, but area residents will suffer even worse. Do you care about people or are you so taken up with the idea that shadow flicker is the image you want for Cohocton?

Property owners will suffer massive losses if industrial turbines higher than the Xerox tower are allowed and erected next to the homes of residents. Once the viewshed is given over to industrial towers, the value of our property will drop like a rock. This law will be the cause of great harm and financial hardship to everyone, but what will happen to homeowners when they can no longer sell their property? The Town of Cohocton will be the target of lawsuits that will far outspend any income from a PILOT program.

Low frequency noise is a health hazard that will make life unlivable. Pregnant women will have their offspring placed at serve risk by the ill affects of this continuous noise. God did not create nervous systems to be condemned to man made industrial machines. Our well being is a natural birthright! Windmill Local Law #2 is an ordinance that is made for the benefit of the UPC developer. Why are you about to pass this law when the setbacks are so close to our homes? At the very least all setbacks should be from the adjoining property lines, not dwellings.

Also why are these setbacks not the same distance from all public roads? Shouldn’t the traveling public have the safety protection from the greatest ice throw distance when they drive on Cohocton roads? Of course they should, so why is the Town Board ready to pass a law that obviously ignores this primary public safety need?

We MUST have a Moratorium, if you are unwilling to defeat this law. Start over and write legislation that will resolve these glaring failures in Windmill Local Law #2. Follow the spirit of our Comprehensive Plan, or undertake that a new master land use plan be updated before adopting any industrial wind turbine zoning changes.

I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore! This Town Board has acted with immense irresponsibility by allowing this awful Windmill Local Law #2 to be written. Why was an outside law firm used and why is UPC paying the legal fees for this legislation? This stinks to high heaven! Every resident of Cohocton should oppose this Board if they pass WLL #2. It sure looks like more than the leaseholders are being paid to get the UPC project approved.

Explain why the Empire State Wind Energy developer is able to propose wind turbines without a PILOT, while UPC wants to pay the town, school district and county so little? People are asking, why is this Town Board so eager to do damage to Cohocton by passing this law? The conduct of Councilmen has been disgraceful. The School Board is getting ripped off “big time” by the PILOT and SCIDA has land as part of the UPC proposal. When will this Board disclose the exact amount of the PILOT or is it so low that it is a joke?

Why won’t this Board submit the reports from the “so called” independent environmental consultant Bagdon or is their work being approved by your Albany attorneys, who are paid by UPC? And you wonder why the Town of Cohocton is at great risk of lawsuits when your actions are the very reason that court case actions will be the end result of this foolish law!

Zigenfus and Hunt are leading the band all right, straight into bankruptcy! Dyckman gets his money from his leases, anyone wonder why the others are voting for this bad law? Cohocton have become a den of thieves and the Sheriff of Nottingham is operating way above his pay grade. Where is Robin Hood when you need him!

If you have any guts you will stand up to this UPC robber baron and do what is right for Cohocton. Declare a moratorium and scrap Windmill Local Law #2. Prove you are responsible office holders. But if you vote this law in, WE all will remember what you did and will never forget the shame you brought to our town.

It makes no sense to pass Windmill Local Law #2 when so many deficiencies are evident in the law. After all these months all that can be said is that this law is being railroaded down our throats for the benefit of very few interests. Sure the landholders who have UPC leases want this law to pass. But why are you Board members so determined to reject any sensible attempts to write into the law needed protections for area residents. Cohocton will be changed for the worse forever when you approve the construction of these industrial turbines.

Every resident will see, hear and be haunted by a greed driven scheme to defraud and sell our primary natural resource and substitute it with a boondoggle that will steal our children’s legacy. What is wrong with this Board? Why are you unwilling to hear out the Empire developer when they offer a much more attractive project than UPC? Something is very wrong. Come clean and face the public. Tell us your real motivation to approve a law that has been modified from Windmill Local Law #1 to make it even more accommodating to UPC?

By passing this bad law, you are willfully making us the victims of your efforts to please certain landholders and a company that has refused to modify, add needed safeguards or scale down their development. In fact the UPC project has increased greatly the total Mega Watts capacity and now their larger 2.5 MW turbines will be 423 feet in height. The 500 foot limit in WLL#2, the ability to place industrial turbines anywhere in the town and with no limit on the number of turbines, Cohocton will become an industrial wasteland.

Vote down WLL #2 or pass a Moratorium to hear out the Empire proposal or demand that UPC revise their site locations. We need real protective setbacks, true public safety standards and a better money pay out to the entire community.

What a mistake to pass Windmill Local Law #2. Without adequate liability assurance and insurance coverage, the Town of Cohocton is setting itself up for unending litigation. Everyone is at risk under this ordinance. Leaseholders will bear the responsibility of property liability. The Town opens itself up to investigations for breaking New York State laws or ignoring regulations. Taxpayers will be saddled with the burden of future un-funded decommissioning costs. Property owners will lose the use of their land without fair compensation or even be unable to live or sell their land or house.

Adjacent towns will have their local economy and tourist business hit with lack of visitors because of the horrid viewshed from industrial wind turbines. How many more examples do you need before you step back and reflect on what you are doing? All this insanity for such little money! Anyone with even an ounce of objectivity would need to question your motives for wanting to pass this law.

If you are so bent upon approving a wind project, tell us the reason you are so unwilling to negotiate with Empire State Wind Energy? Don’t insult us by saying it is too late to back away from legislation written to facilitate the UPC project! Compare the money pay out and the option, from Empire, to buy the entire project in the future, with the snow job that UPC is presenting.

Cohocton would confirm that it is an undesirable location for decades to come, if WLL #2 is adopted. Think before you vote, a Moratorium is the responsible action to take for all of the residents of Cohocton. I appeal to your conscience, your common sense and your duty to protect the entire community.

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by James Hall

Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 – October 24, 2006

The Cohocton Town Board has ignored all evidence and proof that this proposed Windmill Local Law #2 does not protect the public safety, property rights of residents and environmental preservation. It is clear that this ordinance violates the Comprehensive Plan. The industrial turbine manufacture’s stated specifications for setbacks are greater than written into this law. Approving a law that that does not meet such standards, guarantees lawsuits. This Board is about to take a fork in the road that will assure perpetual litigation, create unlimited liability claims and cause financial ruin for all of Cohocton.

What needs to be emphasized is that Windmill Local Law #2 is truly a moral issue. The affects of adopting this law will condemn residents to a life of continual horror. This law has no limit on the number of industrial turbines as high as 500 feet, located anywhere in the town. You are aware that Empire State Wind Energy has announced intentions to construct their own project, in addition to the two UPC projects. Now a third developer has made inquiries and has expressed interest in Cohocton since there is no restriction on the number of ventures that can be built.

Approval of this law will open Pandora’s Box with all the terror that comes with a culture of greed and sleaze. The manner upon which UPC came to town and the sordid inducements used to seduce, intimidate and even bribe people is depraved. The entire Town Board has refused to intercede and stop this nightmare of civic corruption. The real victims of this illicit scheme of theft are the residents and property owners who are being sentenced to an industrial asylum of eternal torture.

Mr. Wise and Mr. LeVesque have voted unanimous approval on each stage of the UPC projects. Windmill Local Law #2 was written to accommodate and facilitate this sole foreign developer. It benefits UPC far more than Windmill Local Law #1, while maximizing even greater harm to local residents. We know that Supervisor Zigenfus and Councilman Hunt have sold their honor to their UPC benefactor. We challenge Councilmen Wise and LeVesque to refute Jack and Wayne’s world.

It is our hope that both of you are men of conscience and moral fiber. It is within your power and capacity to reject Windmill Local Law #2. Do you have the moral courage to vote down this malicious law and save the town? Our children and grandchildren will judge and condemn any town official that sells out our future. At the very least make a motion and have a vote, for the record, on a six month Moratorium so that a serious and sincere hard redrafting of a windmill law can be undertaken.

The responsibility rests upon your shoulders. Both of you need to become community leaders. Resist the pressure to rubber stamp this destructive legislation, step forward and earn the respect and gratitude of all the residents who know in their heart that Cohocton will be altered beyond all recognition. It is NOT TOO LATE to sit down and design a development project that can benefit all of Cohocton and preserve the environment at the same time.

Mr. Hunt has proven that he is not a man of his word, has no semblance of objectivity and makes irrational decisions. Mr. Zigenfus has demonstrated he is dishonest, a liar and a little man that aspires to be a ‘tin horn’ dictator. As we speak several investigations are being conducted that could well lead to criminal charges. No wonder that many citizens within our community have concluded that both Hunt and Zigenfus have been bribed. Time will tell if such allegations will be proven in a court of law. Even the appearance that Cohocton is a “den of thieves” and a home of crooks and corrupt politicians is most unfortunate.

The conflict of interest position that Mr. Dyckman has with UPC leases must be most uncomfortable for him. Folks can empathize that he might well wish he never ran for Councilman. That leaves the critical and decisive votes and the fate of our town in the hands of Jeffrey Wise and Milton LeVesque. Search your conscience and save your own soul and that of our town. A mere six month Moratorium so that we all can come together in “good faith” and rework a sensible windmill law and update our Comprehensive Plan is not too much to rescue Cohocton from financial bankruptcy and an environmental waste land. Windmill Local Law #2 must NOT become law if Cohocton is to have a future worth living.

James Hall

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by Robert C. Strasburg II

Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318

NYS Open Meeting Law, Public Officers Law, Article 7, Section §100, gives the following legislative declaration: “The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants.”
Reference: NYS Department of State Website at: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.htm

You are the servants of all Cohocton Residents and are elected to office, bound by duty, honor, and the law to serve the best interest of us, the residents.

*According to the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform, I quote: “All municipalities that adopt and amend zoning must do so in accordance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan”

*(see, Town Law sec. 272-a, 11-a below, copy attached).” Reference: the following statement found at: http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
**According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it.”

**Reference: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”.
Local Law #2 is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s Comprehensive Plan based on the following quotes from it:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”

Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”

Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”

Your attorneys told you that you did not do windmill law #1 right; now I have shown you that NYS says you are not doing windmill law #2 correct either because it violates Cohocton’s binding Comprehensive Plan which you are honor and legally bound to follow. If you continue in this blatant disregard of the law, you will answer for your action under oath.

You are the oath sworn servants of all Cohocton residents. There is a due process for you to follow. Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and Councilman Wayne Hunt, we demand that you stop this rogue activity of high jacking our Town and return to submission as our servants and follow the laws of New York State.

You have been duly served with this notice of violation.

Jeff Wise and Milton LesVesque, just because your Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and Councilman Wayne Hunt have chosen to disregard NYS law and due process, that does not mean you have to. I urge you to do what is right. Vote no on windmill Law #2 and I urge you to make an immediate resolution for a Moratorium on this wind turbine development.

Zigenfus and Hunt have abandoned public trust. We are desperately depending on you Jeff and Milt to do what you know is the right thing to do. Take this Town back from the high jacking of Zigenfus and Hunt and return it to the residents that voted you into office.

We are in America, not North Korea. Choose to follow the democratic principles that our forefather shed their blood to insure we could have. Override Zigenfus and Hunt; propose a resolution to revisit our Comprehensive Plan for updating “before” enacting new zoning in conflict with it. Milt and Jeff, separate yourselves from this dictatorial act of treason.


Robert C. Strasburg II

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by Paul E. Gettys

October 24, 2006
29 Wayland Street
North Cohocton, NY 14808

Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY

RE: Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 – October 24, 2006


I had planned on starting with comments on the proposed law itself, but due to the time constraints I will save these comments till last.

Instead I will make comments on the performance of the Board itself during the development of the Industrial Windmill project.

· About three or four years ago I stopped into Mr. Zigenfus’s office in Atlanta for a short discussion. I was curious what had happened in the Town in the past in regards to past businesses and the topic of the need to develop new enterprises came up. He indicated that he was in the process of developing a wind power project. I expressed my concern that we should be selective in what type of businesses the Town should be attempting to develop. I never heard anymore at the Town meetings so I assumed the project feel through.

Given what happened in Springwater when the project was made public in its infancy, I can understand why UPC wanted it to be developed in secret. I assume this is the reason why the leases read that the land owners were not to divulge any information about the project. I do not fault either UPC or the leaseholders as they were only trying to protect their interests. However, I feel you Councilmen had an obligation to divulge this information to the public, as you should be responsible to us not UPC. Not to do so indicates an arrogance that you felt you know better than we what is good for us and the Town.

Mr. Zigenfus posted an April 2, 2002 article in this issue of the Valley News. Certainly an article posted four and one-half years ago does not constitute keeping the Town’s citizens notified and up to date. I attended monthly Board meetings for more than a year before UPC made the project public, and I never heard a word about the project.

· Mr. Hunt has been a strong proponent of the UPC project, becoming an leader in YES and writing articles in the Valley News in support of the project and critizing those against the project. He indicated that he had this right as a citizen of the Town, which I certainly concur with. However, this behavior seems very inappropriate for a Councilman who should have an open mind. If you felt that your rights as a citizen overshadowed your responsibilities as a Councilman, you should have resigned.

· Mr. Dyckman ran for office during this period when the UPC project was being developed. Being he was a leaseholder, he should have known that he would not be able to participate in any debate or vote in regards to this project. As this project is certainly one if not the most important issue ever to face this Town, he should have withdrawn from the race or least informed the voters of his conflict of interest. By not doing so he has become a lame duck Councilman.
· Give the solid backing of the project by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt; we the citizens should have been able to look to Mr. Wise and Mr. LeVesque to question the project and the proposed laws. Instead you gentlemen have rubber stamped all proposals put forth by Mr. Zigenfus and Mr. Hunt. These actions do not serve the Town well.

The initial Pilot program indicated that the Town would receive about $160,000 per year and the school district about $600,000.

· We have requested figures on the new program and have been told that this information is confidential. This leads me to believe that the Towns share will be even less than $160,000 and this information will not be divulged until after Local Law No. 2 is approved so as not to interfere with support for it passage.

· A number of people have questioned if the State will not simply reduce their payments to the school by a like amount so the school will be right back as if there were no project. As there have been no responses to these comments one can only assume that this is correct.

On October 11, 2006 Tom Golisano and Keith Pittman from Empire Wind Energy LLC made a presentation at the Cohocton School to those interested citizens of the Town who were willing to attend. Unfortunately only one of you Councilmen felt it was worth your time to attend. Their program indicated that they could develop a project which would bring the same amount of money into the Town with fewer and shorter towers or could develop a more extensive project which would bring more money into the Town. They even talked about eventual ownership by the Town. I spoke to Mr. Pittman at a meeting on October 19, 2006 and no one from the Town Board had called him to set up a presentation or even thank them for coming out to our Town. I can not think of any honorable reason why a six month moratorium should not be invoked and discussions initiated with Empire. The deal UPC is proposing can be obtained from any number of wind developers if Empire does not perform as advertised.

In my opinion there have been several violations of the sun shine law where all Town Board meetings are to be made Public.

· For the two plus years where the project was kept secret from the Public there were obviously meetings with both UPC and the Board itself.

· During the discussions of the subject law, the Town Planning Board had open discussions and votes on points of the proposed law. The Board had neither discussions nor votes on the individual points, which would lead one to believe that once again there were non-public meetings.

Mr. Hunt, when people were critizing his actions, indicated that he would not change and it was up to the public to express their dissatisfaction at the next election.

· I feel it is the responsibility of all voters to do so if they feel the Board has not properly fulfilled their obligations.

· It is my understanding that the Board has put a resolution on the November ballet that their term be increased from two to four years. Given their actions during the development of this project, I feel that their term of office should be shortened to one year or a mechanism be installed where they can be recalled. I am retired now, but when I was still working my boss did not reward me for an inferior performance.

I would now like to discuss a number of points within the proposed Law itself.

1. There is nothing within the Law which limits the number of towers that can be construction within the Town or even a minimum spacing.

2. The maximum allowable height was 500 feet both in Law No. 1 and Law No.2.
Why was this necessary when a 1.5 kw turbine was proposed? I believe the actual height was less than 400 feet. When it was increased to 2.0 kw the height was increased to 403 feet. Now at 2.5 kw the proposed height is 430 feet. Obviously UPC knew then that larger turbines would be proposed and given there is still 70 feet left, it can only be assumed that turbines larger than 2.5 kw will be used on future projects.

3. The maximum noise level at the property lines is set at 50 dba. There were discussions within the Planning Board to limit it to 35 dba at an existing house. This would have been in line with the DEC suggestion that the noise be restricted to no more than 6 dba above the ambient level. Unfortunately it was voted down by the Planning Board and not even considered by the Town Board.
4. The minimum set back to any dwelling is 1500 feet and the minimum set back to any property line is the height of the tower plus 100 feet or 530 feet for a 2.5 kw turbine. This means that the developer has taken away development rights from the adjacent landowner for the difference of 970 feet. This will amount to over 20 acres of land whose owners will have forfeited their development rights. It should be noted that General Electric who manufactures these units suggests that the minimum set back to a property line be over 800 ft.

5. There were discussions of developing a paragraph (assurance) which would protect the adjacent landowners who property values dropped as a result of this project. This was not done as it was felt by both Boards that it would be too difficult to write a requirement which could have been enforced. Cohocton Wind Watch volunteered to write this or pay for the expertise to do so. Neither Board accepted this offer. This will force the adjacent landowners to bring individual lawsuits. This was very generous of the Board to provide this protection for UPC. Too bad they are not as thoughtful of the Town of Cohocton Citizens.

6. A number of people expressed concern that their were no requirements within the law requiring the windmill developer to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from all lawsuits arising from this project. UPC volunteered to do so for the leaseholders. However, the Town Board did not include this. Already we have to pay for the cost of one lawsuit. There certainly will be more. This is certainly very generous of the Board to bear costs which should be UPC’s.

I believe the whole procedure in which these laws were developed was flawed. UPC provided a sample law which was used to develop Law No. 1 and paid for the Lawyers that wrote the modifications to develop Law No. 2. The Town hired neither technical nor legal expertise to assist in the development of these laws. Then we wonder why laws were developed which protect the windmill developer, but neither the Town nor its citizens.

In summary I believe the Town Board has done a great disservice to the Town in the development of this and future projects and the citizens of this Town will have to pay for their folly for years to come.

Very truly yours

Paul E. Gettys

Presentation Cohocton Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 by Don Sandford

Beginning this past spring with the industrial turbine discussion with the planning & town boards, its indifference and secrecy immediately stifled legitimate debate, deliberately creating and contributing to much of the bitter confrontation existing at the board meetings, when in truth you should have been welcoming and answering questions in a timely manner. But instead, no matter how legitimate, sincere the concerns, objections or suggestion had been, the outcome was always the same, comments and questions not being answered and certainly not a legitimate two way open and fair interaction from the local town government we expected and deserved.

As a result, there exists an uncertain future for people living daily near the proposed impact industrial turbine sites because of all the unanswered questions still pending relating to quality of life issues and property devaluation. A life time of emotional & monetary investment in their homes now means nothing if they clashed with the as now written local law #2 and in doing so you are thereby saying to the people to be most adversely effected, that they all are expendable for your vision of progress and will not be listened to or be an important part of your decision making process. With no credible public comment at open board hearings by the board members or UPC and only by Empire Wind Energy, your attempt to limit our participation and input was rightly challenged.

Local law #2 now proposed is concerned more with promoting UPC success and their bottom profit line and in doing so subjecting the town to a long term commitment of questionable risk and little monetary return. Again in stark contrast, the board provides absolutely no means of lawful recourse in the proposed local law #2 enactment for the many home owners who will be adversely impacted by the industrial turbine’s installation for any significant home or property monetary depreciation caused by industrial turbine placement.

The board’s decision that the “Property Protection Devaluation Bond” was too vague and would not to be considered part of Local Law #2 was weak and disgraceful and left little doubt that your allegiance was with UPC and not the effected homeowners you should be representing without question upfront. There were many other controversial industrial turbine issues that were not addressed in a competent, fair and open manner by the board for our protection and/or benefit and a moratorium is needed now more than ever to provide a complete, objective and independent review. You, the board members are responsible for creating and ultimately sustaining this sad chapter to the Town Cohocton.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Power and Money by WATSON V. CHILDS

In "Profit and Loss on the Perimeter" (October 2006), David Sommerstein seems to have been blown down by more than a little hot air from the perimeter of the whole truth.

New wind-energy power generation receives a federal production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt of power generated. When the credit expires (currently set for the end of 2007), production costs at sites like Maple Ridge will likely increase twenty-five to fifty percent. Even with the subsidy, production costs are still two to four times that of nuclear power. Future wind-energy production costs (of newer designs) will decrease some, but not much, unless tower height is raised to six hundred or even eight hundred feet to allow unit capacity to be increased, or some significant wind-turbine design breakthrough occurs.

The article implies that Maple Ridge and other proposed sites in combination would displace the pollution of a coal-fired or nuclear power plant (and generate as much power). Displacing the pollution is pretty easy considering the amount of toxic gases and radioactivity released, but generating the same amount of power is pure fantasy. Sites like Maple Ridge will almost certainly have an annual capacity factor well under thirty percent, while nuclear plants had an annual capacity factor of almost ninety percent in 2005 and are expected to do slightly better in 2006.

Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements are just another subsidy- and a kind of legal corporate extortion. All of the other taxpayers have to pay more than they would if the owners of Maple Ridge actually paid their full and fair share. Payment of "hush money" to the neighbors is an even more despicable practice that should be stopped. Imagine the screaming if one of the six operating nuclear plants in New York State started paying hush money to its neighbors.

Suitable locations on Tug Hill—as well as in and around the Adirondack Park, and on the shores of Lake Ontario—should be considered for development of wind-power generation, and the taxpayers and consumers of electric power in the region should be provided with complete information regarding the costs and subsidies.


Friday, October 20, 2006

Sound Propagation Attenuation Comparisons by Rick Bolton


CWW informational meeting presentation by Bonnie Palmiter

As a mother, wife, educator, and Cohocton Taxpayer, I am appalled at the record of conduct of the Town of Cohocton Boards and UPC. The pattern and behavior of secrecy is indefensible and disgraceful. This should not be tolerated by our government officials nor should they go to such lengths to conceal crucial information from the public they are serving.

Cohocton Wind Watch has filed freedom of information forms for the resulting conclusions of the Bagdon Environmental firm on the proposed UPC project. Bagdon is supposed to be working to protect the best interest of Cohocton and was hired by the Town Board. Their fees are being paid by UPC money, so their independence is in question. One has to ask, what is wrong with our society when there is so much dishonesty, why is it that as elected officials it is so easy for you to be dishonest with the people you were elected to represent. The response to our FOIL is that the Bagdon information is CONFIDENTIAL. Why would there be a need to conceal this public information from Cohocton voters and taxpayers. This is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, yet what do they care, as usual the law apparently does not apply to them.

Also FOILED were the money payments that SCIDA, will pay your Town, School District and County governments from the P.I.L.O.T. scheme that UPC proposes. The response from the Town Board is, “ the details and dollar amount payment from the PILOT program is CONFIDENTIAL;” again voters and taxpayers of Cohocton are on a need to know basis so that we do not question or speak out against our government officials. As residents and property owners don’t you think you have the right to know ALL the details of ANY program that allows for reduced taxation? SCIDA is not even an official government agency, there are no elected representatives in the agency, yet they are the ones that are financially setting up the PILOT program, and you as residents of Cohocton are not privy to this information. Don’t you believe that as taxpayers of Cohocton you deserve to KNOW the exact dollar amount that UPC would derive from a PILOT subsidy vs. the industrial tax assessment they should pay? Don’t you agree that James Sherron should have had an open session with the Town Board and the public about this crucial information on the PILOT program and not in a Special Closed Executive session? Doesn’t this make you wonder why such crucial information is being restricted from you the public?

I along with Cohocton Wind Watch oppose any developer receiving special tax treatment, any industrial wind developer should have to pay full industrial property tax rates on the value of their project, Why is it that the Town Board doesn’t seem to be making this happen? Why is it that as taxpayers you aren’t demanding this for yourselves? Many of you think that you haven’t got a choice; choice is what you make it, if you choose to sit back and think that you have no say, and that your say isn’t important you’re in fact mistaken. Our first amendment states that we have certain freedoms, use them, stand up and let the Town Board know, stand up and demand the Town Board and UPC to be open with all the information pertaining to this project. If the Town Board and UPC do not listen, join in a united front and revolt against your government, you can’t sit back and think a few can change it all, we are trying, but you as taxpayers also have to help inform yourself. The rights and wrongs of your local government, the morals and ethics of your Boards is questionable, do you want what is best for the WHOLE town or just a few. If you think it is fair for just a few to get this information, remember you’re the ones that have to wake up and look in the mirror every day, you are the ones that will have to tell your children and grandchildren that you failed them, when this UPC wind industry comes in and takes away all the valuable reasons why we live here in Cohocton. If you think that letting UPC in here that your children and grandchildren’s lives will be much better for it, don’t do anything and wait until Cohocton becomes a ghost town where Wind industry is the only thing your community and children have, not the beautiful place your ancestors left for you.

Do you realize the UPC project keeps growing in size, if your not aware of it people, the original lease agreements started off with 1.5 MW to a DEIS for 2.0 MW, and now it is up to 2.5MW at a height of 423 feet. Phase II would be increased from 34MW to 40 MW plus or minus, depending on what UPC comes up with next. It has been told that eight turbines will be eliminated from Phase I. Who are the leaseholders that are losing their “Windfall”? This has already been told before all the challenges to each and every site location before special use permits can be issued, what’s next.

What might have looked to be a ‘good deal” from UPC is now being exposed to be nothing but Fraud. It sure looks like the UPC land leaseholders are being taken for a ride. Your yearly lease payments are some of the lowest in New York State. Peeling back the layers on this secret onion of collusion will ultimately expose you to the loss of your own land, liability risks and continuous legal actions. Reread your agreements and examine in detail the clauses that expose your land to eminent domain and condemnation. “Right of First Refusal” means your children will not simply inherit your property, UPC may have other plans, what your grandfathers, and fathers passed down to you could likely be taken from you and you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves. As long as you retain title to the land that erects a “Monster Machine” for industrial use, you will be at Risk. Are you really willing to take that risk, for pennies? Those leases are not private, but are subject to New York State Law. It appears that the manner they were negotiated may very well have violated N.Y State real estate laws. Do you really believe that such leases will not be challenged? You may very well become a party to New York State investigations that focus upon UPC’s suspect business practices along with your own Town Board Members government actions.

While I still vigorously oppose any industrial turbines for our town, I have to say that Empire told this community much more as to what they could do for this whole town not just a handful. They stepped up to the plate and told all that Local Law 2 had too many holes in it to protect the community and taxpayers. Empire Wind Energy is concerned that the Town of Cohocton is in a rush to destroy themselves, and feels we should slow down.

I will listen and keep an open mind, an open mind to how the whole town can benefit, this is no way says that I am for Empire Wind, just that I will listen to what they have to offer the community as a whole. Information is a valuable tool, I am asking that you take this tool and use it, keep an open mind.

Leaseholders, I am asking you to open your minds as well and examine your options. Windmill Local Law 2 will be contested as the law is now written. You should educate yourselves to this Law; Wayne Hunt stated at the Empire public presentation on October 11th, that Wind Mill Law 2 is already decided, even before the public hearing to be held October 24th. This is an ethical violation and a public insult to every citizen of Cohocton.

If the Empire community based model is adopted, property tax rates can be reduced by more than 50% for ALL property owners. That means everyone in Cohocton could benefit from there financial payouts. Why does UPC need a ridiculous PILOT program to build their project and one that is kept confidential from the public?

Yes Wind Advocates, you now have a new option. Floating around is a sound bite- “a bird in the hand….” Check out what is left in your hand when the bird decides to fly away. Bird droppings won’t pay your property taxes. But full industrial tax assessments will cut your tax bill in half, doesn’t this sound better than what has been proposed from your employer UPC? Are you really for clean alternative energy or are you just married to the UPC project because a family or friend has a UPC lease?


An open letter to the members of the Cohocton N Y, town board and other citizens in the proposed wind turbine area

I am a property owner and taxpayer on land in Cohocton but live outside of the Cohocton area. With the disadvantage of being removed from the wind turbine meetings I would like to have my comments heard. I have a few questions which every resident should ask themselves as well as the town planning board, and the wind turbine developers.

It is my understanding that the supplemental energy from the turbines is supposed to help maintain the grid (which we all know benefits NYC more than anyone). What if any the developers plans to implement 400 foot wind turbines on the skyscrapers of NYC (where the ocean winds blow constant) - and why are they not in place right now if the turbines are in fact the way of the future?

Would it not seem prudent for all area folks to consider just why Cohocton has become the chosen land for wind turbine development? I've lived in the area far too long to know that the area winds do not blow constantly - so what is the real reason? Can we say easy target?

Is it perhaps simply that the wind turbine developers have honed in on depressed rural areas who are desperate to take in any revenue at the expense of all of its residents - with the exception of those few who will benefit by leasing their property to the developers and are obviously for it (but who can blame them it's income!)?

Is there any one person in the Cohocton area who can honestly say that hilltops covered with 400 foot metallic windmills will enhance the presently pristine beauty of the scenic rolling hills? Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that - each wind turbine will (by law) have to have flashing night lights and what impact will that have on the night sky?

Shouldn't the town board be more focused on bringing in new industry which will really benefit the area by creating many jobs, not just a few temporary ones, and strive to regenerate what is at best an antiquated and non progressive town?

And what are the boards answers to the following excerpts taken from website: www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?id=2013

Quote: Meanwhile, the wind does not blow on demand and it generally cannot be economically stored. That's why wind farms have to be backed up by conventional power plants to ensure that electricity will be available when needed. That duplication of capacity not only diminishes the environmental benefits of wind, critics say, but it also increases the cost of wind power while adding an extra burden on the transmission system.

Icing and aerodynamic imbalance could have serious implications on the life of wind turbines, says a report titled Wind Power Production in Cold Climates, which is now circulating in Wisconsin where the public service commission was forced to relocate homeowners living close to utility-owned turbines because of noise.

Those conference papers, say that the life of such turbines could be reduced from 50-90 percent. Despite the risks, 400 wind turbines totaling 500 megawatts have been installed at hostile sites around the world, critics say. It's not just a theoretical hazard:

Three wind farms in the United Kingdom were reportedly closed in 2000 for safety reasons, all of which were tied to cold weather that resulted in metal fatigue in the turbine towers, they add.

Has everyone forgotten that things don't work so well in winter?? Has no one taken into account that winters are harsh and things freeze up? No one wants to remember any of our past ice storms but the reality is that there will be more in the future. To put it in perspective: Isn't there a reason for de-icing airplane wings in winter? It is a fact that any rotating blade will pick up ice under the right conditions. Are the proposed wind turbine blades going to be de-iced??

Obviously someone has done some research:

Ice detector and deicing system for wind turbines

Juhani MŠkinen
Labko Ice Detection Oy
Labkotie 1, FIN-36240 Kangasala
tel. +358 3 285 5111
telefax +358 3 285 5310

From my perspective:

It's not going to be a pretty picture for the future vistas of Cohocton valley residents when the wind turbines of today become obsolete - - which is inevitable as evidenced by all other progressive technology. Has the town board or wind turbine committee come up with a figure as to how much it will cost the taxpayers to have the wind turbines removed when that time comes or will they remain as a stagnant rusting reminder to others that the best hyped schemes are not all that they seem??

Thanks for listening,

Gloria Wilkins
Fajardo, PR. 00738

Shifting Winds BY JACK JONES - The Naples Record


Golisano, once opposed to wind farm, now in mind power business

The organizer of a local citizens group opposed to an industrial wind farm project on the Cohocton hilltops surrounding Naples said last week that an alternative plan being advanced by Victor billionaire B. Thomas Golisano would be more environmentally acceptable and financially attractive.

Golisano's startup Empire Wind Energy LLC "has expressed a willingness to put up towers that are more in line with what the community desires - towers that would be about 200 feet high instead of the 423-foot tall towers" proposed by a competing, out-of-state-based UPC Technologies wind power corporation, said Jim Hall, former owner of the Naples Hotel and organizer of the Cohocton Wind Watch group. "The sort of wind farms being proposed by Empire would not have the adverse effect on property values and on tourism around the Canandaigua Lake and Naples and Finger Lakes area that the UPC plan would cause."

If the UPC project now being considered by town officials goes through, Cohocton could find its hilltops lined with from 50 to more than 100 towers, each taller than Rochester's Xerox Building and with overhead power lines connecting the monoliths, said Hall.

In contrast to the town-favored UPC project, Hall said he and others in the community were favorably impressed by a presentation that Golisano and his business partner, Keith Pittman, gave on their alternative wind farming project last week at Cohocton Elementary School. An estimated 200 area residents attended the presentation, and some - citing Golisano's past criticism of electricity-generating wind turbine projects earlier proposed for Italy, Prattsburgh, Cohocton and other communities - said they were skeptical of his intent.

Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, who has supported wind turbine projects, did not return a reporter's phone calls.

Pittman said last week the plan that he and Golisano are advancing around the state is one that would also return more money to local property owners and town governments than those being touted by UPC and another wind farm group, Ecogen, in Prattsburgh, Italy and other locations.

Pittman said that after their presentation in Cohocton last week, he and Golisano "have received a tremendous outpouring of support from the community" and also received expressions of interest from some town board members who in the past have supported the UPC project.

James Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which has incurred the ire of wind turbine opponents by offering incentives to corporations for wind farm development, said he and other county officials also are open to doing business with Empire if they can prove their project superior to those advanced by out-of-state developers.

"We would support any project that would create jobs and support capital investment in our region," Sherron said. "As long as they're talking about renewable energy sources, we are very interested in supporting it."

Sherron said SCIDA is "working as the lead agency in the SEQR (environmental review) process for Prattsburgh and a number of other windmill projects," and offering assistance and incentives such as payments in lieu of taxes.

Although the Cohocton Wind Watch Group and others say that the sheltered Finger Lakes and Southern Tier regions of Upstate New York are not subject to consistent winds patterns powerful enough to generate electricity at levels that would make regional wind farms cost-effective, Sherron said studies have disproved that contention.

"It's pretty conclusive," that sufficient wind is available year-round to spin the giant rotor blades and generate electricity, said Sherron. "There are all sorts of maps showing that the region has sufficient wind resources, and they've placed (test) towers to measure them."

Although the Golisano project "sounds like a good idea," Sherron said, he would like "to see the mechanics of how it would work." And if the project proves feasible and superior to other proposals "We would support such an effort if it comes to fruition."

Pittman said Empire's approach is being better received than proposals by UPC and Ecogen, which have divided the residents of Italy, Prattsburgh and Cohocton into bitter pro-and anti-wind turbine camps. Unlike other wind power developers, Pittmann said "We are making an effort to design a project around what community stakeholders feel is important."

While the other companies have threatened lawsuits and approached town officials and property owners individually to line obtain leases and line up deals without o"overal! community approval, "Ours is more of a peer-partner approach," Pittman said. "We really want to be more of a partner, and we're kind-of leaving it up to the communities to tell us what they think would work best for them and what they want."

Pittman said that in addition to assuring that potentially disruptive wind turbines be sited and built in accordance with community concerns about safety, noise and visual pollution, the Empire project would return a whopping 10 times the economic payoff to area communities than that being offered by government-subsidized, out-of-town - and out-of-country - parent corporations behind other regional turbine projects.

Pittman charged that the main objective of many of those touting turbine projects involve cashing in on government subsidies being offered by state and federal legislators and officials stampeded by high oil and energy prices into pumping tax dollars into alternative energy projects - regardless whether those alternative sources have proven viable.

"What we've been seeing is that of the profits and dollars that stand to be generated, something like 95 percent of those benefits are ending up somewhere else - not in New York State and some not even in our country. Our feeling is that it would be best to capture as much of this benefit and profit as can be kept right in a local community," said Pittman, an engineer and former power plant operator who has served as a consultant on energy and power generation projects around the state.

Building projects that are approved by communities and return the lion's share of any profits to those communities that host the potentially disruptive turbines "just seems to us like a common sense approach," he said.

Although Empire "is not opposed to large wind farm projects if that's what a community wants ... There's just no reason to go large if it turns out you can get the same benefit by building something smaller," said Pittman. "A smaller project that produces a larger benefit and is less intrusive, less visually disruptive, more environmentally friendly - it's just a more efficient way to go. It's a better idea than what has been proposed for some of these communities."

Golisano was unavailable for comment last week, but Pittman said the billionaire Paychex founder and former wind farm critic decided to get involved in the new business venture as a means of "going beyond criticism and using his resources to provide a more constructive solution to a problem."

"It's true that Tom was anti-wind power and now he's in the wind power business... Rather than just criticizing, Tom said 'Maybe I can do something,' and he started doing his homework that led him to the realization that it would be a tremendous opportunity for New York State to have these projects done in this fashion."

Before the emergence of the Empire alternative, "Communities didn't have a whole lot of options," said Pittman. "All the developers had the same message: We will come in and make a fortune for ourselves and leave you with something that may or may not turn out to be significant."

Pittman said Empire has been invited to present its alternative wind power proposals for residents and officials in the town of Italy, and hopes for a chance to meet with the Prattsburgh community.

"There are those in these communities who say 'It's all set, we've got a wind power developer down here and we don't need your help thank you very much,'" he acknowledged.

In Cohocton, "We've invited town officials to sit down at the table with us and try to work out' some kind of arrangement, and we're hopeful that will happen. I think it helped that we took the time to go down there and dispel a lot of the myths and rumors regarding Tom's being perceived as anti-wind power in some circles."

CWW response to Jeff Miller inquiry - reporter from the Genesee County Express


Genesee Country Express

Mr. Miller,

From the outset the Cohocton Wind Watch web site has listed our purpose and mission statement.

Citizens, Residents and Neighbors concerned about ill conceived wind turbine projects in the Town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York.

Cohocton Wind Watch is a community citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life in Cohocton, NY and in surrounding townships. Neighbors committed to public service in order to achieve a reasonable vision for a Finger Lakes region worthy of future generations.

As you will read above the operative phrase is ill-conceived wind turbine projects. Many CWW members define industrial 400’ + size units as unsuited for Cohocton and our Finger Lakes Region. This has been and still is the consistent position of Cohocton Wind Watch.

The facts are that UPC has submitted a DEIS for their Cohocton Phrase I and has proposed an additional Phrase II project. As you are aware the original UPC lease agreements were based upon 1.5 MW turbines. The latest status for both UPC projects are now up to 2.5 MW and the total capacity for generation has increased from 84 and 34 to 90 and 40 + or - MW's.

Cohocton Wind Watch emphatically opposes the UPC proposal.

As you are also aware, Empire State Wind Energy has announced publicly that any proposed project that they might develop can consist of smaller sized turbines both in height, MW’s and numbers. Also Empire has indicated that their site locations could be developed within an industrial zone and would pay full industrial rate property tax.

Since Empire has not yet submitted a site specific public plan, it would be imprudent and counterproductive to simply oppose a non proposed project. When specific details are presented for an Empire project, Cohocton Wind Watch will analyze the merits of that project. CWW will base its judgment on any future developer proposal based upon the same public safety standards and environmental considerations that have been used in opposing the UPC projects.

Cohocton Wind Watch is not motivated by the promise of a developer’s money offer. However, the promise of UPC payments to leaseholders is the primary drive for support of their program from landholders and YES advocates. The fact that the SCIDA PILOT amount to be paid by UPC to municipality governments is not being released, indicates that such payments will be much lower than full industrial tax rates. Feedback from the general Cohocton public has overwhelming demonstrated their preference for any developer to pay property tax rates based upon the entire assessed value of the project.

Since the Cohocton Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing on Windmill Local Law #2, CWW is gearing up to challenge this over friendly to the developer legislation. Cohocton Wind Watch favors a moratorium on the passage of any industrial wind turbine zoning that is inconsistent with the Cohocton Comprehensive Plan.

CWW is not supporting, endorsing or opposing an Empire proposal because one is not yet publicly presented. Several of the announced intentions from Empire are a distinct improvement from the UPC method. No doubt all Cohocton property owners would benefit from a reduced tax rate if a developer would pay their full share on an industrial project vs. a PILOT amount. The correct question is not why CWW is opposing Empire’s non disclosed project, but why are the Town of Cohocton and YES advocates not demanding that UPC pay full industrial tax rates on their ever expanding industrial project?

Cohocton Wind Watch would be the first to rejoice if no project was developed in Cohocton, Prattsburgh and in any NYS location where the consistent wind velocity has not been empirically substantiated. However, CWW does not legislate local laws and the prospects that some or many wind developments may come to our township is plausible.

Based upon the prospects that industrial wind turbines may be approved, it is natural that affective individuals will seek to diminish the negative and adverse consequences to their own circumstance. Conceptually the outline presented from Empire may appeal to distressed property owners who understand the severe impact of the UPC project. It might even be possible that UPC could revise their “ill conceived wind turbine projects” to confirm with the protective modifications that Empire has announced. Protective site locations, insuring real health, safety, property and public road setbacks, size and number of units have always been the core issues. WLL #2 ignore all these risks.

Mr. Miller you are missing the opportunity to cover the major news significance in the Cohocton wind saga. If Empire proposed the same destructive industrial turbine project that UPC has already submitted, CWW would use every means to oppose that development. You are basing your questions on an assumption that is not proven and may well be false. The essential issue is why are you not asking UPC and YES (especially if YES champions the “so called” clean alternative energy generation), the reasons they are not endorsing the community based concepts that Empire has publicized and why doesn’t UPC revise their projects to include and accept meaningful public safety modifications?

Cohocton Wind Watch has remained consistent, credible and correct. Maybe now is the time to do some serious investigative reporting into the conflict of interests, collusion and corruption that exists among officials of the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developers.

Also read - Take Time and Compare by Gary & Pat Struck

You are authorized to publish this response in the Genesee County Express ONLY if you print the entire letter, as written.


Jeff Miller email to CWW

Hey guys,

I've been having this nagging question haunt me for some time. I haven't found a way of asking it, so I thought that since writing is my strong point, I would write the question. Here goes: It's difficult to tell what¹s going on here.

The members of Cohocton Wind Watch say that they do not support wind development within the town of Cohocton. It began several months ago at town and planning board meetings when CWW members began accusing the town board of railroading and poor planning of local laws in regards to the wind tower project.

CWW has also declared that wind towers are dangerous and a nuisance to the community.

Suddenly, along came Empire State Wind Energy with a proposal to offer more money. Cohocton Wind Watch is not opposing them. Empire State Wind Energy is telling the town board that they can have whatever scale project they want. CWW is not upset.

Empire State Wind has the potential for the same tower height as UPC. CWW is not upset.

Keith Pitman and Tom Golisano have both stated that they will not come into a town without the townspeople's approval. CWW is not telling them Get out. We don't want wind power development in Cohocton. My simple question is why? I don't get it. Are towers dangerous or not? Do you want to see towers spread throughout the hills of Cohocton or not? Empire State Wind Energy has been welcomed by CWW. Why? They offer a wind turbine project that has the potential of equaling UPC. Why be angry at one and not the other? I don't get it.

Jeff Miller

Genesee Country Express

Robert Strasburg CWW Presentation on October 19, 2006


Thursday, October 19, 2006

Wind power isn't reliable enough to satisfy electricity needs

California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning.

The record-breaking demand for electricity this summer taxed California's razor-thin, peak-load electrical generating capacity. Power failures were narrowly averted when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state agencies to reduce electricity consumption by 25 percent and many large industries and businesses agreed to voluntarily shut down.

If there is a benefit to emerge from California's escape from rolling blackouts, it is the growing recognition that we need to bring back the only source of energy that can provide large amounts of reliable electricity without polluting the air or contributing to global warming: nuclear power.

But before that happens, we will have to start embarrassing politicians who succeeded in shutting down California's Rancho Seco and San Onofre 1 nuclear power plants. Those two plants, which were closed prematurely more than a decade ago, had a combined generating capacity of 1,350 megawatts. If they were still operating, there would not have been an electricity emergency. Instead of nuclear energy, because of the political correctness of many politicians, the state has been relying more heavily on "renewable" energy sources, especially wind energy.

California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning. By comparison, the average capacity factor (plant actual operating time at full power vs. scheduled operating time) of nuclear power plants last year was 90 percent.

Wind energy has many virtues. It's clean. And the fuel is free. But no matter how you slice it, our complex society of millions of households, offices and businesses cannot rely heavily on wind farms to provide the electricity they need to keep air conditioners and factories running or, especially, their computers operating. They require virtually 100 percent reliability.

The Achilles' heel of wind power is its intermittence. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it doesn't. And on the hottest days, when air conditioning is most important, it usually doesn't. This fundamental flaw limits both wind energy's capacity value and its impact on reducing airborne emissions. If California, with all of its wind turbines, can't depend on wind energy, what state can?

Despite a massive investment in wind turbines — abetted by generous federal subsidies and mandates in 21 states that require a certain percentage of electricity to be provided by renewables — wind energy contributes only marginally to our nation's energy supplies. About 1 percent of all electricity in the United States comes from wind.

Wind energy is far more expensive and less reliable than its promoters claim. That's why opposition to new wind projects is growing — not just in California but in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Michigan, Kansas and New Jersey. Producing large amounts of wind energy is relatively costly, in part because it requires a vast amount of land and back-up power from fossil fuels on days when the wind is not blowing. Another problem is that wind turbines blight the view of landscapes and seashores. The latest models are twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty.

There is a role for wind energy in the United States. It can provide clean power when the wind is blowing and reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we have to burn. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that it can be counted on for the massive amounts of around-the-clock reliable power that makes our economy work. For that, we need energy technologies such as nuclear power and possibly clean coal that are proven sources of the industrial-size power that we require for our cities and factories. And in a heavily populated, industrial state like New Jersey, that need is particularly clear. We must act forcefully to head off a California-type crisis — and not just be blown by the wind.

James McGovern, Ocean Township, has been a consultant to government and industry on energy issues.

Legislature Provides for Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) Requests by E-Mail

Effective August 14, 2006 (Chapter 182 of the laws of 2006) the Public Officers Law, which governs FOIL requests, has been amended at section 89 (3) by adding (b) “All entities shall, provided such entity has reasonable means available, accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail, using forms, to the extent practicable, consistent with the form or forms developed by the committee on open government pursuant to subdivision one of this section and provided that the written requests do not seek a response in some other form.” Section 89(1) has also been amended to require development of forms for e-mail requests.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

A few suggestions for a Brandon letter to non-residents by Jim Price

The town board of Brandon has recently passed a 6-month moratorium to stop the rush to develop Brandon into an industrial turbine factory town with the construction of 67 massive 400-feet high wind turbines towering above our mountain ridges.

Many of the residents of Brandon are very concerned that the health and safety of our families, our property market values, and our peaceful lifestyle are being seriously threatened. The effects of prolonged exposure to low frequency noise and infrasound are grim: cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and renal pathology and systems are called vibro-acoustic disease.

According to recent medical research, blade shadow flicker and the strobing reflection of sunlight can cause seizures, headaches, migraines, loss of balance, nausea, sleeplessness, stress, anxiety, depression, and disorientation to those living a mile or more from the turbines' cacophony.

The Department of Trade and Industry and others have warned that the turbines carry the risk of electrocution, that centrifugal force can throw shards of ice (and even the blades themselves) up to 1600 feet, and that the turbines each contain 200 gallons of combustible fluids which when ignited from lightning, or over-heating, and carried by high winds can inflame hundred of acres of virgin surrounding forest lands.

The massive 100 tons of slicing blades and the nacelle's internal oil-bathed gears, generators, computers, pumps, and motors, sit perched on top of a 250-foot high pylon that continually swivels, shakes, and vibrates as it rotates into the wind. Blinding strobe lights flash day and night and are visible for 40 miles.

The cacophony of noises and lights scare away virtually all wild life such as deer, moose, elk, rabbits, turkey, black bears--all except the wild dogs and wolves that feed on the abundant bird kill lying at the turbine bases. Thousands of hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, bats, ducks, geese, songbirds, swans, and cranes are destroyed by these cuisinarts-in-the-air. In addition the massive 130-foot long rotating blades chop and reflect radar beams, microwaves, and cell phone and TV transmissions.

Industrial wind factories destroy serene mountain vistas and the market values of nearby properties for recreation, hunting, camping, hiking, snowmobile riding, and any future development. Real estate sales people know that once prospects realize that a property is in the vicinity of wind turbines, the potential buyer won't even look at it.

Landowners that have leased their land to the wind turbine promoters are reduced to being little more than caretakers for the wind factories' massive machines and their privileges and rights stop where their neighbor's rights start. Non-leasing property owners have a bundle of rights which include the right of quiet enjoyment from an encroachment or unauthorized trespass of loud noise, bright lights, flying shards of ice, interference with TV and cell phone reception, strobe flicker, and all the other hurtful health and safety issues.

"But we now have a situation where speculators are staking claim to some of our most scenic areas and erecting these monstrosities that produce little energy and are made possible only by a tax credit."--Rep. Alan Mollohan, US Congressman.

"At a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power...Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers' moneyto destroy the American landscape... Wholesale destruction of the American landscape is not an incidental concern."--Senator Lamar Alexander in an address to Congress, 13 May 2005.

Perry Wind Farm Noise Analysis by Rick Bolton


Perry Wind Farm - Rick Bolton

Last night we went to Perry to present results of a detailed noise analysis I completed for the Dairy Hills Wind Farm west of Perry. A pdf of that report is attached, please use it as you wish.

This is the 3rd town's public comment meeting I've attended as part of the SEQR mandatory hearings - Prattsburgh, Cohocton and now Perry.

There is a common and strong theme among the towns, and probably common to all of NY and the Northeast, if not the U.S. and worldwide:

1) The wind companies are accused of "coming in the back door" and doing back-room deals before the public becomes aware. If wind turbines are so good why is this so?

2) The wind company gets the Town to pass a windmill zoning law to permit industrial turbines. In the law is a 50 dBA noise limit at the property line, or residence.

3) SEQR review is required prior to enacting this local town law and should require an EIS, but either the Town does not do a SEQR at all (Cohocton Law #1 and also Perry, Law #1 for 2006) or declares "No Environmental Harm" and no EIS is required. Nothing is ever submitted to show the derivation of the 50 dBA noise number. Actually this noise level is widely found in urban areas and is much to high for rural areas (source: EPA).

4) The public wants to have town referendums and don't want it left to the Town Boards to decide the fate of the Town.

5) Environmental concerns are largely centered on a) Noise b) Aesthetics c)bird injuries.
Some environmental effects are unknown at this time - the extent of bird injuries in specific migratory zones, unique to each town; noise and/or flicker effects on dairy cattle and long-term human health.

6)PILOT payments are vaguely calculated, underpaid and probably not sustainable.

7) Pro-wind speakers almost always have not done any research of their own but merely repeat the prevailing propaganda.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Clipper Windpower to Deliver 125 MW of Liberty Wind Turbines

Carpinteria, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Clipper Windpower Plc signed a contract with a subsidiary of UPC Wind to deliver 50 2.5 megawatt (MW) Clipper Liberty wind turbines -- including their installation supervision -- and will provide operations and maintenance services for five years.

Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.

The wind turbines are to be used by UPC Wind for projects the company plans to develop in the northeastern U.S. during 2007.

This transaction represents firm commitments of 495 MW of Liberty wind turbines, with opportunity for a further 160 MW of Liberty wind turbines to be deployed into near-term Clipper development projects, and 2,165 MW of early stage projects.

Earlier this year, Clipper Windpower announced a strategic alliance for project development and wind turbine sales with BP Alternative Energy, a wind turbine sales agreement with Edison Mission Energy, and a wind turbine sales agreement with UPC Wind. (UPC Wind is currently developing more than 3,000 MWs of wind power projects.)

Clipper wind turbines are produced at Clipper's assembly facilities in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty machine is the largest wind turbine assembled in the U.S. and is the first to deploy a unique distributed powertrain.

In other news, Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Invite to the next CWW information meeting

Cohocton Wind Watch
Informational Meeting October 19, 2006

7:00 PM Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave., Cohocton, NY

Now that Empire State Wind Energy has announced an alternative Wind Development Proposal that will pay out as much as ten times the money of the UPC scheme, why is the Town Board of Cohocton refusing to jump at the chance of receiving millions of dollars?

Isn’t it about time that the proponents of “so called” clean energy demand that Cohocton develop the best project that pays out the most money and will share the revenue with all property owners?

Do YES advocates and members really support wind power or are they just on the UPC payroll pushing a plan that will pay out PEANUTS?

The “NUTS” of Councilman Wayne Hunt are the empty shells of the Cohocton Tax payers. Why is he and Supervisor Zigenfus so hostile towards the Empire proposal? Could it be that more then mere collusion with UPC and actual corruption is the motivating factor?

Cohocton is not Jack’s and Wayne’s world. It is the home of all the residents. Now that Empire has committed to develop a community based project that would benefit all the citizens, not just a few UPC leaseholders, why is the Cohocton Town Board so determined to pass the UPC written and paid for Windmill Local Law #2?

Support a six month MORATORIUM on any wind mill law NOW!

Support Cohocton Wind Watch by attending our social gathering at the Redwood Restaurant on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM, $10.00 per person.

(585) 534-5581

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Take Time and Compare

We are totally baffled. After attending the Empire State Wind Energy informational meeting, we cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to hearing more about their proposal.

It seems to us that both Mr. Golisano and Mr. Pitman were very honest and upfront with their ideas and intentions of how their project could be so much more lucrative for our area. When the question of the possibility of a moratorium was raised so that we slow this process down and take our time to see what was best for all citizens of Cohocton, Mr. Hunt categorically stated he would never recommend such an action and that the board has been working with UPC for over 3 years to make this a reality. Why is it then that most of us non-lease holders only heard about this at the beginning of this year and after the fact that contracts had already been signed?

It was stated by Mr. Golisano that these lease holders would most likely have 1st chance to get the same "deal" and possibly a much better offer - so why do they not want to hear about this proposal that certainly would be a better choice for ALL land holders of Cohocton?

A few weeks ago, a letter was written that said "I am glad the members of the CWW now realize that wind power is right for Cohocton". Sir, you couldn't be further from the truth. CWW does not favor wind turbines and we personally wish they were never invented, but they were and it looks like they will be coming to our hills in spite of much opposition. If this is the case, then our elective officials have a duty and obligation to look at all offers. They need to negotiate the best deal possible. One that will benefit all property owners, not just a few!

We ask you folks that did not attend the October 11th meeting to please talk to those that were in attendance and obtain information that was stated to us. Real reduction in our taxes, lower electricity bills, a "bigger piece of the pie" in revenue for our town! General information about Empire State Wind Energy can be found at:

It is so important that we all take the time to compare what each proposition will do for us personally and as a whole for our community.

Gary & Pat Struck