Editor

DPS Comments Assessment Regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project (14-F-0485) for Q3-2018

The table below shows the results of an empirical assessment of public comments made to the DPS website in relation to the Lighthouse Wind Project as proposed for the Towns of Yates and Somerset by Apex Clean Energy.

All comments made to the DPS site regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project were included in the assessment and cover the time period from January 1, 2015 through September 30, 2018. All comments were read fully in order to ascertain position regarding the industrial wind turbine project.  The positions were tabulated as in favor of or opposed to the project.

The results are as follows:

The overall results for the time-period January 2015 to June 30, 2018 are as follows:

Comments in favor of Lighthouse Wind Project =  289

Comments opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 1194

Percent of comments in favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 19%

Percent of comments opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 81%

Q3-2018 saw receipt of form letters in support of Lighthouse Wind.  A significant number of form letters were from outside of the Yates and Somerset area. To assist in understanding, the following assessment of local vs. non-local Q3 comments follows:

Q3-2018 results show that 39% of total comments in favor of Lighthouse Wind were written by residents. However, 91% of opposition comments were submitted by residents.

The nearly four-year opposition to Lighthouse Wind remains overwhelming.

Apex Clean Energy needs to pack up their Lighthouse Wind Project and leave Yates and Somerset.  Our towns desperately need to heal the wounds inflicted on us by Apex Clean Energy and Governor Cuomo’s Article 10 Process.

Thank you,

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Editor:

To me—in my opinion—Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth. That said, why does that matter?

I was a teen in the fifties and sixties. After college, I taught grades 9-12 for 34 years. I had a fairly close look at teenagers for nearly fifty years. All teens do not feel entitled to harass and assault females against their will. If assaulting females is the yardstick, the notion that, “Boys will be boys” is bunk from my experience.  At any rate, they do not need to assume they will never be held accountable.

What Dr. Ford came forward with took enormous courage. And accountability is an issue here.

Though different in many ways, beyond all of what we know is the type of damage likely to be done to females and males should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the Clarence Thomas fiasco, what standard of behavior—by males, toward females—would we be reinforcing in males by turning a blind eye to such disrespect?

When retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens weighs in on Kavanaugh’s fitness for office by saying he is lacking, we may need a time out—as Stevens says—“for the good of the Court.”

There are plenty of ostensibly pro-life justices who also believe the President is ultimately accountable on earth only to the impeachment process and separation of powers. Let someone familiar with the law—and less baggage—be chosen for the long-term good of the Republic.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

This letter is to get some information out to the residents of the Town of Yates. In April of this year, your/our Town Board passed a resolution that committed the Town of Yates to splitting the attorney fees 50/50 with the Town of Somerset to fight the turbines coming here. There was no limit stated as to how much the Town of Yates would be required to pay.

The Yates Town budget for attorneys this year is $19,000. Somerset has already spent almost $278,000 in attorney fees as of December 2017 to stop the turbines. When the board was asked if this would make the taxes go up in our town, we were told we would have to see when the budget came out!

This past week, the Yates Board and the Somerset Board filed a motion to stop Apex from having the public forum to release the preliminary layout of the project without first releasing it to the Town Boards. The forum was to give the communities (including the town boards) the  information about the project.

ALJ Sean Mullany’s ruling was that Lighthouse Wind has been and remains compliant with requirements under Article 10 and the motion was struck down.

So Yates residents, this is where some of our tax dollars are going that the Town Board agreed to share with Somerset on lawyer fees. We are paying fees for a lawyer to fight the release of information about the turbines! Where is the transparency? How much was spent to file this motion?

What are they afraid of?

True, verifiable facts should be made available to the public about this project. In my opinion the only reason to stop the forum was that the lies that have been being spread for years are going to be exposed as lies.

The Town Board is using our tax money to stop a project from coming here that will put money into our town that has the possibility to lower our tax burden, support our schools and breathe some air back into our dying economy.

This is our tax money they are wasting!

Every resident in the town should be asking our town board these questions at the next board meeting on Oct. 11 at 7 p.m. at the Yates Town Hall on Main Street in Lyndonville.

Susan Campbell

Co-leader of the local Mothers Out Front Team

Lyndonville

Editor:

I want to thank Lighthouse Wind for offering the towns so much information and transparency Tuesday night at LA Weber Middle School/High School.

Not only did Lighthouse Wind bring in experts who presented a wealth of information and then answered questions for over an hour, they videotaped and documented the evening and will post those and answers to remaining questions on the Lighthouse website within a month.

What many of us find so baffling is that the opposition continues to blast Lighthouse Wind for not doing enough outreach and then blasting them for having an info session.

The towns even went so far as to use our tax money to interfere with Tuesday night’s information session. This kind of action is making it clear that the opposition is not actually interested in facts. In fact, they are afraid of facts. They are obstructionists only.

Linda Fisk

Lyndonville

Editor:

Back several years ago, the Lyndonville School Board, envisioning declining population, made an attempt to discuss a school merger with Barker.

The Lyndonville School Board decided to let the voters make the choice to pursue a merger. Barker’s board rejected the merger without a public vote. I attended the public hearings, the common remark from the Barker meetings – “We are not here to subsidize the Lyndonville tax payer.”

Evidently they were unwilling to share in the revenues generated from the coal plant. Little did anyone realize at the time that Cuomo and Obama would declare war on coal and natural gas. We need to go green and subsidize unreliable wind and solar and raise the cost of electric.

The Somerset plant no longer produces the tax revenues it once did. The declaration of evil coal was within two years of that merger study. A merger sure would have made sense for both parties.

The question I have for our Yates Town Board: Why are we willing to subsidize the Somerset tax payers on the legal fight with a 50/50 split. The split should have been 80/20 at best. We are not hear to subsidize the Somerset tax payers.

Edward Urbanik

Lyndonville

Editor:

This letter is written in response to Mr. Joseph Rak’s letter to the editor dated October 4, 2018, in which Mr. Rak makes numerous conclusory statements about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh without offering an iota of substantiation besides emotional anecdote.

I, too, watched the entirety of not only the September 27, 2018-U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, but also the Committee’s hearings on September 4, 5, 6, and 7th, 2018. I also have my Juris Doctorate from the University at Buffalo School of Law, and I am currently pending admission to the Bar.

Mr. Rak’s synopsis of the events in question sorely misses the mark at every turn. First, Judge Kavanaugh did not display the requisite judicial temperament and impartiality to serve on this nation’s highest court. Don’t take it from me, take it from the more than 2,400 law professors from around the country, including 17 from the University at Buffalo, who have signed a letter stating exactly that.

Second, Judge Kavanaugh openly and repeatedly perjured himself under oath. “Boofing” does not refer to flatulence, it is a term used to describe the ingestion of illicit drugs or alcohol through the anus. The “devil’s triangle” is not a drinking game, it is a sexual threesome involving two men and a woman. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh testified that he did not partake in any way in the vetting of judges during his tenure with the George W. Bush administration. His own emails from his time in the Bush White House prove otherwise. There are many other well-documented instances of perjury that I will not go into here.

The rest of Mr. Rak’s regurgitation of conspiratorial talking points from Breitbart are without merit and do not warrant much of a response. Mr. Rak even mischaracterizes what Constitutional “originalism” is. An originalist falls into one of two camps: (1) original intent, which is when the jurist attempts to interpret the Constitution consistent with what was meant by the Founders; and (2) original meaning, which is when the jurist attempts to interpret the Constitution based on their view of what a reasonable person living at the time of the Constitution’s adoption would have understood the text’s ordinary meaning to be. Judge Kavanaugh is decidedly in the latter camp, like former Justice Antonin Scalia.

I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Nearly all of the psychological research indicates that normative misogyny and patriarchy provide a marked disincentive to those who have been the victims of sexual violence from coming forward. I believe that those who reject her allegations out of hand are perpetuating a rape culture all too prevalent in this country. There is no question that the controlled, scientific research in this arena unequivocally concludes that there are far, far (1,000:1, or more) more unreported victims of sexual violence than there are falsely accused individuals.

I hope that Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Rak’s rigid, regressive ideology are soundly defeated at the ballot box in November. Judge Kavanaugh is utterly bereft of the impartiality, open-mindedness, and temperament required to serve on this nation’s highest court; and I vociferously urge the U.S. Senate to reject his nomination.

Andrew Remley

Albion

Editor:

Last week I watched the deliberations in the US Senate chambers. This, of course, is the continuing drama of the Senate confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. He is, by all accounts, an excellent choice for Supreme Court Justice.

We all saw the accusation by Dr. Ford, of high school age sexual harassment by Judge Kavanaugh. We all saw Judge Kavanaugh defend himself with strength and righteous indignation! If you think you witnessed a search for justice, you are wrong! You also did not see a Democrat Party support a victim of sexual abuse.

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are both pawns in the attempt of the DNC to control the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is expected to be an originalist. A Supreme Court Justice who will interpret our Constitution as original in meaning. The Democrats are willing to use lies or any underhanded means destroy his reputation and stop his confirmation.

The American people have long lived under the threat of decisions made by activist judges. The issues of abortion, separation of church and state, same-sex marriage and Obama Care are all tainted by activism. Judge Kavanaugh must be confirmed. The Democrat Party must be defeated at the ballot box.

Joseph Rak

Lyndonville

Editor:

I wish to provide some clarification to your recent article regarding the Lighthouse Wind presentation at the Lyndonville School on October 2.

First, your article correctly states the nameplate rating of the facility at 197.4 megawatts (mW). Information regarding the actual output was conveniently omitted by Apex representatives.  Over the course of a year, output will average about 60 mW due to the variable nature of wind.  That’s about one tenth the capacity of the existing Somerset plant.  During the summer months, when wind speeds are generally lower, and when demand for electricity is highest, output will average 25 to 30 mW.  On those steamy calm summer days when you want to crank up your air conditioner and swimming pool pump, output will be near zero.

Mr. Williamson stated that the facility will make the towns “..a high value area to live and work.”  Hard to believe that people leaving a once quiet but now industrialized area would result in a high value area.

Mr. Williamson touted a 1.5 million dollar annual tax payment to the six taxing jurisdictions in the project area. That number is based on their proposed Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT).  Given the objections from the towns and counties affected by the project, it is highly unlikely that a PILOT arrangement will be accepted. More likely is the idea that the facility will be taxed as an industrial facility, which would result in 6 to 9 million dollars in annual revenue. That, at least, would result in some real benefit to the communities. You can be sure that Apex will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid that type of arrangement.

Apex advised that 200 to 300 construction jobs would be created over the course of 6 to 8 months of construction.  Conveniently missing from the discussion, although asked, was a response to a question regarding how many of those jobs would be from local workforces.  It is also worth asking whether those local jobs would be under prevailing wage agreements or at lowest possible wages.

The 41 studies that Apex must conduct as part of the Article X application are not all environmental studies.  In fact, only a few fit this category. Others deal with electrical production, construction and other unrelated areas.

Mr. Williamson pointed out at the beginning of the meeting that this public meeting was not part of the Article X process (read that as “we’re doing this out of the goodness of our hearts”) but at the conclusion of the meeting, stated that the notes from the meeting will be submitted to the DPS as part of their Article X requirements. Which one is it?

Finally, only a few questions were answered by the Apex panel of “experts” at the meeting.  No opportunity for public discussion was offered. The audience was advised that all (repeat all) unanswered questions will be answered on the Lighthouse Wind web site after November 2.  Anyone want to take a bet on that?

Steve Royce

Appleton

Editor:

Amazing! The Town Of Gaines Zoning Board of Appeals is recommending another solar energy moratorium. The previous one expired. Yet, they will allow commercial development and destruction of green space within the Historic District.

When the idea of a moratorium on commercial development in the Historic District was proposed, it was met with resistance from the Town. This isn’t “apples and oranges.” It’s a valid question as to where our priorities are.

It looks like corporate dollars are more important than historical and environmental protection. “Money talks, nature walks.” Why have a Historic District when anyone can wreck the surroundings and construct a cheese-box of a store we don’t need?

It is my hope that the town’s quest for “regulations” pertaining to solar energy isn’t a veiled attempt to outlaw solar farms in Gaines and keep us dependent on polluting fossil fuels.

Al Capurso

Gaines

Editor:

Hurrah For Apex!

Tuesday evening’s forum conducted by Apex Clean Energy was a real winner for proponents of the New York’s Article 10 process. The Virginia developer certainly has kept its first stringers on board to see this project through. The forum at Lyndonville School’s public auditorium was a welcome relief from the stridency and boorish behavior that usually prevails when two or more S.O.S. types congregate.

Unveiling for the first time the proposed locations of the wind turbines, the presentation was a model for how public meetings should be conducted. Embarrassing rants by local politicians and assorted clean energy opponents were nowhere to be heard at this meeting. Just honest, rational assessments of the advantages and the disadvantages of completing this ambitious project.

The reduction in the number of wind mills from the original 70 or 80 to the current 47 is overwhelming good news for the entire Yates and Somerset communities. The doomsday scenarios painted by S.O.S. are quickly fading.

As a Yates taxpayer, I’m hoping the current Yates board will renegotiate the ill-conceived blank check given to the Supervisor to pay 50 percent of burgeoning legal bills aimed at killing the project. If he can’t get Yates’ share down to less than 20 percent, the Yates board should kill the deal outright. It’s clear that Somerset, with its fat coffers from the coal-fired power plant taxes era, is in a better position to pick up the entire tab.

Hopeful citizen,

Ralph E. Smith

Lyndonville

Editor:

Thankfully, we have survived the yearly nightmare of finding correct supplies for our children to start school. When I had children in school, the list was logical and doable. Now students are expected to bring (among 20-plus other things) Kleenex, batteries and maybe 20 glue sticks.

I was helping a family of 7 children, and started going bat crazy finding the stuff on the lists.  There is no way I could do it right, so I gave up. I was told to “go to Ministry of Concern.” Really?

Like they need to shop for color-coded folders on top of the zillion other things they do? My Niagara County friends donated a ton of things that their kids never used so I sent that stuff to the schools. Not one person I shared my frustration with disagreed with me. All said that this is just outrageous.

If the district can spend millions on a new access road to the middle school, air conditioning for 2 months  a year, and sports, then Tissues, soap and crayons (not “dollar store” and don’t forget the brand name scissors… ) should be in the budget.

I was a department head at a school and school supplies were in my budget. Kids purchased some spiral notebooks and pens. We had a class set of scientific calculators that lasted for years.

Come on boards of education, do the right thing. This whole thing contributes to bullying (“ I brought  brand name stuff, not like your crap”) and anxiety … and wouldn’t it be nice to eliminate some of it. We can. Demand a change. I made my call to the superintendent.

Debby Rodrigues

Medina

Grandmother for 7 children

Editor:

It has been 3 1/2 years now since Apex Clean Energy held its first and only public information meeting at the Barker Fire Hall on April 1, 2015. Since that day there has been no divulging of Lighthouse Wind project details released to the public. What residents have learned, however, is that Apex’s employs slick and deceptive practices.

• Apex’s own January 2015 Public Involvement Plan filed on the Department of Public Service website called for multiple information sessions on such topics as the Grid, Turbine Technology, and more. Apex’s elaborate descriptions included “local workshops on turbine technology,” “a review of the specifications of models proposed for this project currently,” and “interactive sessions on what the community will see during and after construction.” To be clear, these or any other information sessions were never offered or publicized at any time.

• Apex’s own Preliminary Scoping Statement filed in November 2016 was deemed “deficient” by the DPS, but never resubmitted for corrections or omissions.  Responses to public questions about their PSS were glossed over or completely ignored.

• Apex held onto landowner leases keeping them under wraps, sometimes for many months, before they were publicly registered at Niagara or Orleans County offices.

• Apex had to be publicly pressured for much of 2015 to actually sign New York State’s Wind Code of Conduct, which was done in March 2016. Municipal employees with Apex contracts had not been publicly disclosed as per this state requirement.

• Apex sued the Town of Somerset Planning Board over met tower placement, forcing the town to spend funds for legal defense.

• An Apex paid lobbyist Bo Shuff presented false information about Save Ontario Shores and town residents in a presentation to the Buffalo Sierra Club. Three individuals present from Somerset subsequently filed affidavits to Attorney General Schneiderman regarding the false statements made.

• Another lobbyist and former Apex executive Dave Belote was portrayed as a military spokesman who endorsed the coexistence of industrial wind turbines and the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. Belote had actually worked for DC lobby firm Cassidy and Associates.

• In a surprise move Apex forced the Town of Somerset to relocate a public hearing because they had imported union members from Buffalo to occupy the limited seats for residents.

• Apex’s Taylor Quarles was a no-show to present info on met tower inspection data to Somerset Planning Board, as required by the special use permit.

• At a Yates/Carlton Sportsmen’s Club event, when directly questioned, Apex biologist Dave Phillips denied a May 2015 letter addressed to him from US Fish & Wildlife Service about the service’s recommended industrial wind turbine setbacks from Lake Ontario shoreline.

• Apex has used questionable methods to get reluctant landowners to sign leases.

• Apex CEO Goodwin has failed even to acknowledge letters from Somerset Supervisor Engert and Yates Supervisor Simon requesting a meeting.

• Apex spokesman Williamson gave incorrect information to Yates Town Supervisor Simon that Apex “was denied” access to Barker or Lyndonville venues for this upcoming October 2 “Forum,” his rationale for originally having the event scheduled in the Town of Ridgeway. (Apex’s forum was hastily relocated to Lyndonville school.)

• Apex has failed to divulge critical project details from the general public for over four years. In fact, it looks as if the public will be getting more of the same, because in their forum scheduled on October 2 in Lyndonville, Apex promises to reveal the turbine array, but the format of this event is highly unusual. Apex will not allow questions from the audience directly to their “panel of experts”; questions must be submitted to a moderator who will then present them to the panel to be answered after the presentation. “Questions that may go unanswered due to time constraints will be answered and posted to lighthousewind.com after November 2.”  Thus, Apex will be controlling what information they choose to reveal, and what will likely still remain under wraps—omitted from the program.

Is it any wonder, then, that this developer has no credibility? How much will we learn about this project? Why so secretive? We have seen and heard enough misinformation and obfuscation from Apex Clean Energy and want no part of its industrial wind turbines in Somerset and Yates.   And that’s the truth.

Christine Bronson

Councilwoman,

Town of Somerset

Editor:

We have received yet another mailing from Lighthouse Wind (ie: Apex Clean Energy). This time it is regarding an Oct. 2 “Community Forum.” The banner reads as such:

“LIGHTHOUSE WIND Presents Community Forum: Site Plans, Expert Panel and Community Q&A”

And:

“Mark your calendar: Lighthouse Wind will host a community forum on Tuesday, October 2.  We will share the proposed project layout, hear from a panel of experts, and hold a community Q&A session.”

It is interesting that Apex Clean Energy would term this event a “forum.” By definition, a forum is:

1. a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

2. a court or tribunal

In order for there to be a forum, each party to the forum must be fully informed of the material to be discussed. Only then can there be a free exchange of ideas. Apex Clean Energy has shared none of the forum subject information. In fact, Apex Clean Energy has held this information very close to the vest. They have shared this information with no one … except their representatives. In addition, a true forum empanels experts from both sides of an issue. Clearly not Apex’s plan.

Believing Apex Clean Energy’s statements on commitment to public outreach and in order to prepare for the “forum,” I contacted Apex Clean Energy at both local and toll-free numbers to obtain a copy of the planned presentation materials. At the time of this writing, no response.  So much for public outreach.

Without full dissemination of information, there can be no free and clear exchange of ideas. As such, this “event” is not a “forum” in the primary definition. That is: “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged’, but more of the secondary definition: “a court or tribunal.”

If you do not prefer the secondary definition, then think of this event as more of a lecture and not in the educational sense. Think of it as more of a lecture in the disciplinary sense. That is, Apex presenting their project and the panel of experts at the ready to expound on how wonderful this project will be and how uneducated and in-the-dark is the opposition.

Unfortunately for Apex, the communities of Yates and Somerset have made their decisions via:

1. Multiple elections

2. Town laws

3. Multiple surveys

4. Statements of support from Boards of Health, County Legislatures and Multiple National, State and County Organization

Of course, Apex Clean Energy will attempt to “astroturf” this tribunal with outsiders that stand to profit from the project as this is their standard operating procedure. However, our towns have taken our position and it is against Apex Clean Energy and the destructive Lighthouse Wind Industrial Wind Turbine Project.

I expect the Apex-sponsored tribunal and their panel of experts will not newly convince anyone in Yates or Somerset of the positives/benefits of Lighthouse Wind.

The only thing that Apex will accomplish will be to further convince Yates and Somerset that Apex should just pack up and take Lighthouse Wind with them.

Wonder what Governor Cuomo is thinking about all of this.

Thank you,

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Return to top

Editor:

In 1969, I served in the military and fought in Vietnam with the infantry; I put my life on the line for my country’s honor. During that time I did not feel that the values and institutions of our democracy were at risk.

Now, however I am very worried about the values that define our republic. The President’s assaults on the free press combined with the complacency of the majority party undermine the institution of a free press.

In addition, the assault on the FBI and the Department of the Justice by the President and the Republican Party is undermining confidence in our rule of law. The President’s and GOP’s refusal to investigate foreign interference in our election is undermining confidence in our elections.

Mr. Trump’s cabinet members, Tom Price and Scott Pruitt, mishandled funds. Other members – Ryan Zinke, Ben Carson, Steve Mnuchin and Wilber Ross – are under suspicion of graft. The GOP shrugs. There are a number of Mr. Trump’s team that have met secretly with Russians and lied about doing so. The Republican Party is either complacent or complicit in the destruction of these American values and institutions.

My congressman in the 27th district endorses these assaults on our institutions and democratic values. He just released a xenophobic, racist political ad that he endorsed in which he lied about his opponent.

We need to return to values of Truth and Justice in our political system. Vote for Democrats. Vote for Nate McMurray.

Thank you.

William Fine

Brockport

Editor:

Recently I attended the OCALS Learning Services 12th Annual Dinner Meeting and saw my long-time friend, Virginia Kropf and her husband, Al, in attendance.

It brought great warmth to my heart because she was one of the first people to help the OCALS organization get started through her promotional/publicity and writing skills and also supported us as a board member of Eastern & Orleans United Way. She knew of the crisis of illiteracy in Orleans County and the lack of services being provided.

Thankfully, she attended all annual dinner meetings and wrote outstanding articles, including photos which helped to validate the work being done by OCALS.

When Virginia, better known as Ginny to her friends, said she’d attend an activity of OCALS…she didn’t fail us. Our organization appeared several times in the Batavia Daily News and also the Medina Journal-Register.

When I learned that Ginny became a reporter for the Orleans Hub … there aren’t sufficient words to express my happiness and gratitude to those responsible for adding Ginny to their staff.

We saw the beautiful article written on OCALS 12th annual dinner meeting that included outstanding colored photos of various people in attendance, highlighting everything of importance to our organization.

I am very grateful to Ginny for the terrific article she wrote about the annual dinner meeting, and to your wonderful online newsletter for helping OCALS promote its work and the cause of literacy.

Sincerely,

Rosemarie Ruck,

Founder of OCALS

Byron