Editor:

Although I am not a resident of Orleans County, I reside in Somerset and have researched wind power extensively. Clean energy is the wave of the future. We can no longer depend on coal or oil, or even natural gas, if it means ruining the environment. I was excited to hear that Barre is considering a wind farm in Orleans County. The majestic turbines will be lovely for those driving along your country roads.

I have signed with Apex to allow wind turbines in my area. Apex had studied the existing wind permits and then approached Somerset residents. Anti-wind people began creating an uproar and demanded the town change its requirements. After Apex began getting signatures for those who want wind turbines, Somerset changed its law to thwart Apex. I found this as very unfair and an insult.

Wind and solar are the new green energies. We need both. All scientists say that we cannot continue with fossil fuels. Fracking sends methane gas into the atmosphere in addition to creating health hazards and causing earthquakes. Wind power uses fresh air to create power. Scientists study for years in college, and all the while they are working AS SCIENTISTS. Why do so many people doubt their findings? It makes no sense.

I am urging you to welcome the wind turbines and show that you can’t be swayed by a group of naysayers who do not have science degrees. I would be glad to share information I have researched with anyone who has doubts. I could meet them at Lighthouse Wind office in Barker.

I have signed on with Apex, not because I am money-hungry or any of the other things Save Ontario Shores (SOS) has accused us of. I have been hoping that wind power would come here for years. Now we’ve been offered this wonderful opportunity and people are trying to take it away. Please don’t do the same.

Thank you,

Avis Townsend
Appleton

Editor:

In reference to the article in the Orleans Hub on May 31, 2016 whereby H. David Belote, a retired Air Force colonel, writes in favor of Apex installing wind turbines in the Somerset-Yates area, it seems in the name of “transparency” that any and all compensation Apex is providing to this military person should be fully disclosed to the public.

Mr. Belote is giving his “expert testimony” that the wind turbines will not jeopardize in the least the Niagara Falls Air Base operations. Payment of large sums of money and gifts such as an automobile, credit card allowance for trips, etc., can influence “experts” to testify one way or another.

Apex has proven in the past to be a big lobbyist spending huge sums of money. I do not know Mr. Belote but I think his “testimony” should come along with full disclosure of any and all “compensation” by Apex.

Elizabeth Storch
Middleport

The Department of Defense is actively pursuing renewable energy projects, and while reducing carbon emissions and cost savings are considered important, the driving force for the military is energy security supporting mission accomplishment.

All four branches are progressing toward a cleaner, safer, and energy-independent future, with Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy recently signing the largest U.S. military renewable project to date with Apex Clean Energy: 65.8 Megawatts of off-base wind and on-base solar at Fort Hood, Texas.

Apex Clean Energy, the parent company for Lighthouse Wind, has been engaged in ongoing dialogues with the Department of Defense on commercial projects around the country. While these conversations are not always in the headlines, our nation’s Department of Defense has worked closely with Apex Clean Energy on multiple projects, several of which have included determining mitigation strategies to ensure the safety and viability of military operations centers. There is a process with DOD to ensure unhampered operations of their facilities on a case-by-case basis.

It was my pleasure to visit with various stakeholders in and around the Lighthouse Wind proposed project area last week to share information and clear up some misperceptions regarding the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.

As we described to multiple groups last week, the Department of Defense’s Siting Clearinghouse has stated in writing that the Lighthouse Wind project is “unlikely to impact” operations at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, and Apex Clean Energy will work shoulder to shoulder with DOD and the community to support the mission now and in the future.

Based on a thoughtful suggestion from a local Reservist, Lighthouse Wind will install night-vision-compatible lighting to facilitate low-altitude training for the life of the project. Take it from the retired colonel who oversaw close air support for the Battle of Fallujah:  you couldn’t find a better partner than Apex Clean Energy to both provide clean energy and support the local military mission.

Dave Belote

Mr. Belote is a retired colonel with the U.S. Air Force, and is currently Senior Vice President of Cassidy & Associates in Washington, DC. Belote is a former F-16 pilot who earned two Bronze Stars during Operation Iraqi Freedom and is the former commander of Nellis Air Force Base. He is also working as a consultant for Apex.

Editor:

Please allow me to respond to today’s article regarding Apex and their upcoming proposal for wind turbines, and in particular to their claim that the military has no issue with their project.

I find fault with multiple points they’ve made, and I hope you’ll allow me to respond point by point by quoting the original article and then responding to that section:

Article Excerpt:
“Apex Clean Energy, developer for the project, [said] the proposed project would not harm the base’s mission or the future for other military training plans. “H. David Belote, a retired Air Force colonel, now works as a consultant for Apex. He met last week with local officials, Save Ontario Shores members, landowners and supporters of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. Belote showed them a March 16 letter from the Department of Defense, stating the DoD doesn’t see a negative impact on the base from Lighthouse Wind.”

My response:
We’re talking about a letter that was written to a consultant.a consultant who likely has friends at the DoD, seeing as he’s a retired officer of the Air Force. Not a letter, mind you, written to the community or to the local government. Big difference. The letterhead is real; however, that does not make it official in terms of how the community ought proceed.

Article Excerpt:
” ‘The project is unlikely to impact military testing and/or training operations in the area,’ Steven J. Sample, chief of the Military Evaluation Branch for the Department of Defense, wrote to Taylor Quarles, development manager for Apex.”

My response: Ladies and gentlemen, this is almost certainly what we English Teachers call a logical fallacy called “cherry picking” which means only saying the part that’s useful, instead of providing the whole scope of the quotation’s intent. Testing and traininghmm, okay. But what was the whole quote? What if it were, “We don’t know yet if the Base will be affected, seeing as we don’t have any firm numbers as to actual height, but we can say that the project is unlikely to impact military testing and/or training operations in the area. And hey presto! Great Quote!

Article Excerpt:
“The DoD did an informal review of the project, and is awaiting locations and heights of the turbines. The DoD, as well as the Federal Aviation Agency, will take a more thorough review of the project once the final application is submitted, which is expected this summer.”

My response: Yes, we’re all of us waiting. My guess? They’ll submit at the last possible minute so as to give people the least amount of time possible to research the application’s efficacy. (Best bet? Fourth of July weekend. Less people reading the paper! Perfect!)

Article Excerpt:
“Belote said the far western end of the turbines are about 25 miles from the base. “It’s not an impact,” he said in a phone interview.”

My response: Wait, who’s Belote? Oh, right. The consultant (fancy talk for person who gets lots of money to tell their employer what they want to hear and to encourage Congress to do the same; sometimes they even help write the legislation! Hooray for money! (I wish I were kidding. I am not.)

Article Excerpt:
The turbines won’t affect drone operations when those begin at the base, Belote said, and he doesn’t expect there will be issues with radar from the turbines, which could peak at more than 600 feet to the top of the spinning blades.

My response:
English time again. Let’s inspect that sentence more carefully: “when those begin at the base” Got it. Drones can launch just fine When They Begin at the Base. In Niagara Falls. Nothing on how they’ll do once they drift on over to Somerset.

Article Excerpt:
The radar issue will be reviewed by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, but that organization needs to know final locations and heights. Belote said he expects that review will be this summer or fall.

My response:
In other words, Belote is not the person in charge of giving us the answer, nor is his firm (of, ahem, consultants) responsible to even provide an answer yet. Seeing as they don’t know final locations and heights and such.

Article Excerpt:
“Belote served as the first director of the Pentagon office that approves or rejects wind and solar projects around military bases. He said in his current role as a consultant that he wouldn’t advocate for a turbine project if it would hurt a military operation.”

My response:
Hmm, wonder what would happen if I google Mr. Belote? Why look at that: A website for Virginia Democrat Dave Belote, retired Air Force Colonel, looking for donations to support his run for Congress. And there’s more: Quote from the website: “After retiring from the military, Dave wrote energy policy for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, then was vice president of a Virginia-based wind and solar developer.
Now, Dave assists businesses with energy projects that relate to national security
and the military.” (Want to see for yourself? http://www.votebelote.com/dave-belote/)

My response:
I Wonder If It’s The Same Guy? I’m thinkingthe odds are in his favor!

I will admit I put that one sentence in bolder type. I thought it was relevant. And distressing. I feel like he used his military credentials to convince and to build his credibility, but I have to say, it had quite the opposite effect, on me at least. He is a man who, once he retired from the military, made money on wind turbines, and who now works for the same kind of folks at Apex.

Read between the lines, neighbors, and you’ll find the same things I do: People from other places trying to wreck what we have here and using any means necessary, including deceit. Also, I’ve got to say: While I might have some sympathy for a real homeowner who lives lake side and might even need to make a little money, I’ve got a lot less sympathy for some politician from Virginia who’s got no real stake in this. It’s not his home. And if we lose this battle? What does he care? He just got another Wind Energy Paycheck, desecrated countryside or not.

We need to keep on keeping on, neighbors. It’s ours. Lake Ontario and all her gorgeous shores. Oak Orchard River. The Wildlife Refuge. They are ours, and some of Western New York’s greatest and most valuable assets. I’d like my children’s children and theirs to know the same wonders that I do.

Respectfully,

Karen L. Jones
Shelby

Editor:

I have just finished reading the article about State Senator Robert Ortt’s ethics reform packageI commend him for this.

While there is still much more that can be done to clean up Albany, this package is a step in the right direction. Yes, Senator Ortt is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but we are New Yorkers first, and New Yorkers deserve better than what Albany is giving us.

Sincerely,

James C. White
Gaines

Editor:

In Somerset and Yates, residents have seen the words transparency and robust used in many statements prepared by Apex Clean Energy. The wind developer wants to put 70 turbines with spinning blades that are taller than the highest building in the City of Buffalo into our rural communities.

In response, the affected towns, and Erie, Niagara, and Orleans counties, have studied the issues and said “no” to this project. The counties and the majority of the affected towns’ citizens have recognized that such structures in a rural/residential/tourist area are not appropriate for the region that already sends excess renewable hydro power throughout the state.

Apex has regularly declared that they operate in a transparent manner and plan to prepare robust studies to address the issues surrounding the proposed placement of industrial turbines in our communities. But questions surround that vocabulary.

How is it possible to be fully transparent when records readily available on the Internet show hundreds of thousands of dollars spent each year by Apex in order to reach influential federal and state officials who can advance their business goals and generate large profits for their management?

For example, the American Wind Energy Association website shows that this spring Apex will spend $50,000 alone at the upcoming AWEA conference for name badges (lanyards).  Spending this kind of money for publicity at a trade association event clearly demonstrates the unequal balance of power between mega million-dollar wind developers and the small towns they seek out. To a small town, $50,000 can mean the difference between maintaining or discontinuing a town service.

The AWEA conference Facebook page states that attendees at Windpower 2016 will learn how to be a player in Washington, which is not something rural communities or average citizens have the money to do.  This is the kind of tactic that voters across the country – whatever their politics – are rejecting.

For research to be valid, it must ask the right questions, be done in an unbiased manner, and contain accurate data. Further, all aspects of the studies must be open and available to all. When the health and wellbeing of communities are at stake, nothing should be secret or declared by a company to be proprietary.

Robust studies cannot be conducted when representatives of the affected communities are excluded from meetings discussing aspects of those studies. To exclude representatives of the affected towns is to present government officials with only the wind developer’s point of view. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that under New York State’s Article 10, towns have lost home rule and wind projects can be ordered sited by the state.

The project that Apex wants to impose upon citizens demands true transparency and truly robust, independent studies.  To do less is unfair to everyone in the region.

Peg Schwabel
Somerset

Editor:

After four months of debate the Town of Murray has finally acknowledged it is over-taxing its water districts. I would like to thank Supervisor John Morriss for confronting this issue and reaffirming the looming fact that our water department is losing money. We have come a long way since I first raised the issue and now that we are in agreement hopefully we can work towards a solution.

As acknowledged by Supervisor Morriss, the Town of Murray has been taxing water district residents in excess of the bond principal and interest payments for the loan residents agreed to borrow for installation of water line infrastructure. Your special district tax on your property is to pay back that loan not operation and maintenance. According to the original engineer’s report, “The cost for operation and maintenance is included in the water rate charged to each user of the system.”

Now begins the real work: fixing the issue. Councilman Paul Hendel suggested comparing our water rates to neighboring towns possibly raising the rates. Our water rates are in line with other municipalities. Lets’ not throw more good hard-earned money after bad. Other water departments can sustain themselves at rates and costs similar to Murray’s. So why can’t Murray be self- sustaining as well? The answer must lie in the operation of the water system itself. Instead of increasing taxes let’s investigate definitively what our problem is. Excessive salaries, too muck pork, water loss or all of the above?

Now that the Town of Murray has hired a new CPA book keeping firm, the Town Board and Water Superintendent should schedule a public work meeting to address this crisis and identify the root cause of the problem, suggest possible solutions, implement a plan and monitor the department’s performance going forward.

The Town of Murray admits we’ve been over taxed for years and our water department is still in the red. The Town owes water district residents an explanation of how we got here and how the problem will be fixed. It’s time to roll up our sleeves, dig deep and address the root cause of the problem.

Joe Sidonio
Town of Murray

Editor:

On May 10, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state in what was billed as an attempt to protect farm workers.

Unfortunately, as is often the case in Albany, once we look beyond this rosy portrayal – exercising common sense, deploying reason, and researching the facts – an entirely different beast emerges. This destructive, special-interest agenda could very well spell the end of the agriculture industry across Upstate New York.

This latest round of politically-driven theatrics from downstate progressives stems from legislation, the Farmworkers Bill of Rights, they’ve been pushing for years. It would essentially mandate costly overtime and time off provisions and encourage farm workers to unionize.

The proposed legislation would be bad for workers facing layoffs, bad for small family farms operating at the margins, and bad for a regional economy that relies on agriculture to create jobs, spur tourism, and deliver affordable and fresh food to local markets.

What may work in one industry doesn’t easily translate to the agriculture industry. This liberal labor movement is well-funded and well-organized. So perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised that they find so many allies among New York City lawmakers. Many of them, unfortunately, do not understand how agriculture – or Upstate New York for that matter – actually works.

I’ve sat down with dozens of farmers and have visited their properties throughout my 62nd Senate District. This proposed legislation is something our farmers – and many of their workers – vehemently oppose. New York State has a very short growing season with many specific crops that require intensive labor, or specific skill sets.

Farmers face extraordinarily high expenses inherent to the industry such as grain, feed, seed, transportation, and equipment. Further compounding those are the typically worst-in-the-nation costs of doing business with additional expenses, taxes, and regulations. Unemployment insurance, workers compensation, property taxes, and energy taxes put a near fatal burden on our small family farms. And this is before the minimum wage is scheduled to increase in the coming years.

Without the flexibility they currently have when it comes to their workforce, many farmers will definitely see labor costs skyrocket and delays in getting their products to markets and consumers. They could also face potential strikes and lost harvests. Unfortunately, the Governor is ignoring his constitutional and elected duties by stating that he will not defend the state against such an outrageous lawsuit. Once again, he’s circumventing the legislature and ignoring separation of powers that require legislative input prior to massive policy changes.

Our farms aren’t giant corporations. They’re universally small family operations that already face one of the nation’s worst tax and regulatory climates. Working on a farm requires flexibility; it requires commitment; and most of all, it requires heart.

New York State farm workers trudge on and persist in unpredictable weather and under strenuous conditions, because farming is in their blood and it’s in their souls. It’s a shame that the Governor and New York City special interests overlook this. They do a tremendous disservice to the thousands of farmers who make our economy, our communities, and our state so great.

State Sen. Robert Ortt
North Tonawanda

(Ortt represents the 62nd Senate District, which includes all of Orleans and Niagara, and the towns of Sweden and Ogden in Monroe County.)

Editor:

The Orleans County Conservative Party has Endorsed Rocco L. Sidari for Coroner. That is the only candidate this year to receive that honor. We had others seek our endorsement but the committee decided to decline and here’s why.

The Orleans County Conservative Party Strongly believes in term limits. We pushed petitions for term limits along with the State Conservative Party. They went nowhere with the politicians in Albany.

The Founders never intended for a person to go into elected public service and make a life-time career out of it. Our committee strongly believes that the problems we have in this country are the direct result of career politicians that never know when to leave and will never vote to fix this problem.

Therefore, the Orleans County Conservative Committee will no longer endorse anyone who has held a current elected office for more than three terms. The people have demanded this for years and we as a committee are taking this step in hopes that other committees will follow and help to eliminate this problem of the self-important career politician.

Paul Lauricella Jr.
Vice Chairman Orleans County Conservative Party

Editor:

This is an open Invitation to members of siting board regarding Lighthouse Wind Project. We are writing in reference to the proposed Apex Clean Energy wind turbine project in the Towns of Yates and Somerset. As you know, this project will bring 70 industrial wind turbines to the rural area not too far from Lake Ontario.

We are opposed to this project, for many reasons, as we are property owners of a lake cottage near Lyndonville (Town of Yates). Our cottage is rented by tourists from all of the country and from Europe during the months May through November. We have been doing this for nine years now, and our renters rave about the tranquil setting and local attractions.

Many visit the Falls but prefer to stay in the rural area along the lake. Our renters take advantage of local stores, restaurants, the Niagara Wine Trail, and area attractions, which help local businesses. We are proud of the reviews we receive and are happy that visitors enjoy the serenity and beautiful sunsets. We feel that the addition of wind turbines just south of our lake area will deter some, if not many, tourists from staying there, as well as lower property values.

Have you ever visited the Lake Ontario area that will be impacted by this project? If not, we cordially invite you to spend a night or two at our lake cottage at no cost. You will see how peaceful and serene the setting really is, enjoy a camp fire at night, look up to the heavens to see the beautiful sky.

You can watch the ducks and possibly swans in the lake, maybe catch sight of an eagle or osprey. Then pay a visit to the nearby Thirty Mile Point Lighthouse in Golden Hill State Park, climb to the top to view the flat and beautiful farmlands and scenery that surrounds you. Notice the many homes dispersed in the area, along with the homes and cottages along the lake shore.

Now, visualize how massively this will change with the addition of seventy industrial wind turbines 570 feet tall. Ask yourself, “Is this really the right location for such a project?” We feel strongly that it is NOT.

We are frustrated that NYS would pass Article 10 legislation to approve and issue certificates for major electric generation facilities such as the Lighthouse Wind project with no home rule from the affected towns. To put a decision that impacts a rural community in the hands of a siting board that will not have to LIVE and ENDURE the lasting effects of such a project is absolutely WRONG.

Sincerely,

Deb and Tom Arlington
Yates

Editor:

I have been involved in Orleans County as the Clarendon Historian for over 10 years. I always enjoy attending events in other towns and villages.

Yesterday I attended the rededication ceremony for the historical marker for the Elisha Wright home. The story goes like this: One day Al Capurso told me about a marker that had been out of circulation for several years. It had been struck and broke in half. I grabbed it and with help from Bruce Hovey and Gerry Bradt, it was welded back together. I then repainted the sign over the winter.

Adrienne Daniels, the town of Barre historian, put together the program yesterday and it was very well attended. She had a program to hand out with information about Elisha & Nancy Wright. Mark Chamberlain, the Barre town supervisor, spoke regarding Wright and his importance to Barre in farming and with its church. The current owners of the home and their children and grandchildren, as well as some members of the Mathes family, led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

A reception took place afterwards at the West Barre United Methodist Church. I was especially impressed with the church as it retains much of its original contents. The stained glass windows and photographs of early members were very impressive.

Most of all, I enjoyed speaking to Judy Durrant, the church historian who has painstakingly over a number of years taken a collection of historical documents and photographs and cataloged them in chronological order and they are neatly organized in more than ten binders.

It was amazing to see the amount of information on hand and available. I only managed to look through one binder from the earliest history but the information Judy had in her head and shared with me as I was looking was the best! I urge anyone who has the time, to try and visit this beautiful church and speak to Judy. She is a wonderful asset.

Sincerely,

Melissa Ierlan
Clarendon

Editor:

When a divisive issue arises within our community, one should get curious. Over the last several weeks I’ve delved into the matter of wind turbines – and for the record I’m completely neutral on this issue.

I vetted my research to eliminate extremist viewpoints on either side. I also required non-affiliated corroborating information because one viewpoint does not make a case. I looked into most of the talking points and here’s what I discovered.

Flicker. Yes, it does occur. However, the nationwide average a dwelling or structure is subjected to flicker is just 22-to-100 minutes a year – or a maximum of about 30-seconds a day. A quick solution here might be to just close the window blinds and wait a minute.

Bird strikes. Yes. They do occur. Nationwide estimates are as high as 375,000 birds dying as a result of hitting or being hit by a wind turbine blade. On the other hand, it is established that housecats kill about 2.8-billion (yes, with a “b”) birds annually. Some put this figure at nearly double that. The second largest bird killer? Windows. Another 500-to-900 million birds are killed by flying into windows. The third biggest bird killer is agricultural pesticide. In this context, bird-lovers are grasping at straws to think wind turbines are of major concern.

Wildlife and sportsman have also entered the discussion so I looked into it. What I found were hundreds of photos of grouse hunters, deer hunters and varmint hunters participating in their chosen sport not just on the fringes of, but smack in the middle, of large wind farms. Photos don’t lie.

Noise levels? Yes again, wind turbines make noise. Large turbines require a minimum 1,000-foot setback from an established dwelling. At that distance the noise levels were rated at 40-decibals. Most homes located near large wind turbines had interior noise levels of 30db. How noisy is 40db? There’s an easy way to find out. Stand next to the refrigerator in your home. It puts out about 40db of noise.

Some folks have thrown the Niagara Air Station into the discussion. For years the Niagara air base has been on the Base Relocation And Closure (BRAC) list. So too nearly every base in the country. BRAC is a fiscal issue pure and simple. And quite candidly – if members of the most powerful air force on the planet say they will have trouble negotiating wind turbines this opens up a whole series of other questions, doesn’t it?

A big argument surrounds property values. Yes, some will go down. The stated average decline is 11-percent. What I never found in my research was any law that said property values must go up – or even remain constant. Practically speaking – any real decrease in property values comes about only when you sell. But what if you’re not selling? A reduced property assessment might lead to a reduction in property taxes.

Lastly – wind and solar power are the only two “native” sources of energy. What that means is the power they generate is created directly at the source. Compare that with mountain-top removal and strip mining for coal which forever lays waste to the landscape. And beyond that- Consider the trucks and trains burning millions of gallons of diesel fuel annually to deliver their energy cargo and doing so on our already quickly deteriorating infrastructure.

Which brings this down, I think, to a single question: “Do you want to see them?” Even this requires some perspective (and some tricky math.) It’s entirely possible that from as little as 4-miles distance, these large turbines will not be visible on our generally flat landscape.

I’m not taking sides here. Like I said earlier, I’m completely neutral. What I’m not neutral on are crazy claims and no empirical evidence.

Darren D. Wilson
Lyndonville