Editor:
To residents of Orleans County, please respect everyone’s right to post political signs regardless of affiliation.
In less than one week this election will be over. Be kind to one another.
Jeanne Crane
Orleans County Democratic Party chairwoman
Editor:
Many thanks to the Orleans Hub for kindly publishing my letter about my unresponsive Congressman. It is only fair that I provide this follow-up.
Shortly after my letter appeared, I received an e-mail communication from my Congressman. “Ah, the power of the press! He must have seen my letter in the Hub,” I thought. “Finally, he’s responding!”
But a quick review of the letter indicates that my Congressman did not actually read my original message because his response has little to do with what I wrote to him about. In fact, his letter seems to be praising me for agreeing with him, which is a 180-degree spin on my original letter. And, once again, he did not answer my question. Unresponsive, even on those rare occasions when he responds.
I will carry this experience with me when I cast my ballot on November 8th.
Rev. James Renfrew
Clarendon
Editor:
Detailed review of the Heritage Wind LLC Public Information Plan (PIP) as submitted to the New York State Department of Public Service by APEX Clean Energy has proven quite interesting in a very troubling way. The PIP can be found by clicking here.
Apex Clean Energy has proposed Heritage Wind, a 200.1 Mega Watt Industrial Wind Project, for the Town of Barre. On Sept. 23, 2016, Apex submitted its PIP, which included a very interesting and troubling set of maps.
These maps show not only the ground zero project area, but also the proposed study area. The study area is a buffer zone of 5 miles around ground zero in all directions. While the ground zero project area is within the Town of Barre, the buffer zone study area includes the following Towns and Villages:
Additionally, this project is in close and adjacent proximity to:
By comparison, Apex’s Lighthouse Wind Proposal includes the following Towns and Villages as a part of the original project and/or study area:
It is noted here that both Lighthouse and Heritage Wind PIP’s include language which indicates the study area potentially becoming part of the project area. Yates and Somerset have leaseholders with signed leases within the study area and beyond the ground zero project area. Additionally, the buildable areas for these two projects may very well involve land in six of Orleans County’s nine towns.
So, in one fell swoop, Apex has succeeded in pulling almost all of Orleans County into the Wind Turbine War via submission of these two project proposals.
For those who are potentially impacted and are hearing of the Heritage Wind Industrial Wind Turbine Project for the first time, you will hear and read many positions, on wildlife, environment, human health, quality of life, property value decline and promised tax reductions as the project moves forward. These positions will come from those representing both sides of this issue. When everyone has stated their positions, you will need to ask yourself one question:
“Am I willing to accept the potential risks to: wildlife, environment, my family’s health, quality of life and property values if this project is built”?
It is important to remember that turbines, once built, will not go away. They will not be torn down if you are negatively impacted by this proposed project.
This letter is not written to scare or upset. It is written to warn, inform and urge everyone in Orleans County to get educated and conversant on this project now. Much is at stake. Please heed the warning.
John Riggi James Simon
Councilman, Town of Yates Supervisor, Town of Yates
Editor:
In at least two speeches last summer, Donald Trump advised supporters to be “vigilant” this November, and there is certainly nothing wrong with vigilance.
In Altoona, Pa., Aug. 12, and again in Akron, Ohio on Aug. 22, the Republican nominee told large crowds of adoring followers, “You know what I am talking about. You need to go out and watch. We need the cops, off-duty law enforcement, the sheriffs, to go out and watch. You need to vote on the eighth, but then you need to go and watch and make sure people aren’t bussed in and vote five times. Because I know what is going on here, and we cannot lose unless they steal it from us.”
By himself he may not be able to bully those who support Clinton and/or disapprove of his candidacy into staying home on Nov. 8.
With the help of scowling supporters – some of whom have been seriously agitated by his angry rhetoric – hanging around polling places after voting, he may be able to depress turnout by intimidating would-be voters.
As he has said, “Hey, why don’t we just cancel the election and give it to Trump, right?”
Sincerely yours,
Gary Kent
Albion
Editor:
Every one tends to think in terms of Supreme Court Justices as politically “liberal” or “conservative”. The notion is often that those labels determine how a Judge will rule on particular issues.
The truth is that so called “conservative” judges sometimes vote for so called “liberal” results and vice versa. Half of all cases are actually unanimous and split decisions do not follow a pattern.
Justice Scalia, for example, often voted against law enforcement and for defendants. (Google that if you have any doubt!) Many times they agree but for different reasons.
Since it is unethical for a Judge to say how they would rule on any particular issue the President and Senate look closely at their philosophy and hope it is a guide to what sort of decisions the nominee will make.
There are three major schools of judicial philosophy. None of them are perfect and judges frequently mix and match. Any one of them strictly applied can lead to ridiculous conclusions.
Judge Bork, a strict constructionist in the Scalia vein, wrote about this need to mix and match and also testified to the Senate about that when he was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.
Judicial philosophy is important because we are not a “civil law” country and do rig our judiciary. In civil law countries have comprehensive codes that regulate virtually everything in detail. As a rule of thumb in most of them when something is not specifically permitted the presumption is against the conduct.
Civil law courts hold if the code applies, but their decisions do not bind future courts. On the other hand under the “common law” countries, the common law by design is not static.
Courts consider principles of law, reasoning, and new combinations of fact(s) and law(s) all the time. The presumption is that conduct is probably permitted unless it is criminal, clearly regulated for a good and valid reason, or against “public policy” – for example, it may be against public policy to light a match in a crowded place.
Each decision binds future courts if the facts and law are the same. The bias in favor of peoples’ rights and the creep that is built into binding Judicial decisions as lubricant and stops Legislative overreaching.
An independent judiciary helps keep the system stable. Civil law countries have a harder time dealing with change – just look at France and all the various Republics it has had; England, the home of common law, dates back to 1215. (I do not mention systems in which the results are rigged; that’s typical in Banana Republics and Dictatorships which are inherently unstable.)
Justice Scalia tended, philosophically, to rely on “Textualizm.” He looked at the words and then tried to figure out what was, or would have been, in the writers’ minds at the time laws were written. This is an off shoot of the British School of “Legal Positivism” which is fairly recent – H.L. A. Hart “Concept of Law” 1948.
The shortcoming of this tool is that knowing what a person 200 years ago would feel about a problem they had never considered involves a lot of guess work and a Judge’s personal values. Another criticism is that is tends to push decisions with Constitutional dimensions onto the Legislatures which are supposed to be limited to passing statues.
The traditional American approach is called “Moral Reading”. Justice Kennedy, the swing Justice nowadays, looks at the words, looks at contemporaneous statements of what the writers intended, and when in doubt or confronted by answers that do not add up considers the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration holds that every person has “inalienable rights” which transcend both the whims of government and the laws of man. These rights specifically include “liberty”, “equality” and “human dignity”. The theory is that we cannot ignore the rights we fought a revolution to secure. The criticism is that guess work and individual values are still involved.
The so-called Liberal Judges tend rely on another American School of thought called “Legal Realism”. The theory is that guess work and a judges personal views minimized if a Judge expressly considers what an ordinary person living in today’s world would think about the issue.
This school of thought considers “good faith”, “honesty”, “reasonableness”, “need” , “fairness to all”, “protection of fundamental rights”, negative effects on the country as a whole”, and “workable results”.
Legal Realism is the theoretical framework for the laws which regulates commercial transactions in the United States; in that context it works extremely well. In fact these considerations sneak into practically every decision to one extent or the other but with liberal more regularly. The criticism is that Judicial creep tends to be less gradual. The retort is that if a person figures out a way to circumvent the intent of the law, the cheating is easier to catch and fix. Another criticism is that the decisions can jump forward rather than creep.
I hope this very limited review helps explain what the President is looking for and why, historically, people get surprised by the eventual results. The question is not whether or not there will be change, but rather if, how, and how far the Courts will go in any particular case.
Very truly yours,
Conrad F. Cropsey
Albion
Editor:
I have a problem. My Congressman is unresponsive. He appears to eagerly solicit my views on his web page. He even offers on his website a box for me to check if I would like a response from him. He has an elaborate log-in on his website to filter out non-constituents, so I provide my zip code to prove that I live in his district. But my Congressman is unresponsive. Month, after month, after month … nothing.
When I write to my Congressman I express my opinions, but I always conclude with a question for which I would like an answer. I can only conclude that my questions are not important in the lofty halls of the US Congress.
Two years ago I wrote my Congressman a letter and many months later he answered with a form letter that did not address the question I asked. The last time I received a response from him, a year ago it was the exact same form letter that I had received the previous year. Again, he did not answer my question.
The world constantly changes; war, injustice, climate change, politics, and the economy, but my Congressman’s form letter remains the same. My Congressman is unresponsive even on those rare occasions when he responds!
To be sure, I have written my Congressman many times, so it’s possible that he won’t get to every question I have asked. But the truth is that when I receive no response I feel an urgency to write even more messages to him, hoping that one of them will finally get his attention. But not one, not once in the last six months. My Congressman is unresponsive.
I have watched in vain for announcements about meetings with constituents in my town. Nothing. There was a candidates’ forum in Geneseo last month. He was a no-show.
I have many opinions that the Congressman probably disagrees with. I can deal with that. It would be a rare day that my elected representatives (of any party!) agree with all of my opinions, but most of them have had the decency to respond when I ask a question. My Congressman is unresponsive.
Accountability to constituents is cornerstone of our democracy. Our unresponsive Congressman has demonstrated that he needs to be replaced. At this point I have no use for him at all, so I am happy to reveal what I will do in the voting booth on Nov. 8. I will be voting for Diana Kastenbaum of Batavia to be our representative in the US Congress for the 27th Congressional District of New York.
And, Ms. Kastenbaum, just to warn you, I am planning to write you a few letters after your election, and I am counting on you to be responsive!
Rev. James Renfrew
Clarendon
Editor:
I write because the fine people who staff our election office and man our polling places have been put into the cross hairs of this nasty election.
The United States of America is the finest democracy in the world and our elections set the standard by which all others are judged. Anyone who says otherwise has been dragged into the gutter by people who thrive on hysteria – the ever lurking and insidious enemy of democracy.
Take a smidgen here, a smidgen there, mix in some fairy dust and, don’t you know, your proved that the world is flat. It may be reality TV but it’s not what the United States of America and our elections are about. The fact is that world is not flat and Democrats and Republican alike are in every precinct across the county working diligently to ensure that our election is honest and the tally accurate.
There are enough dangers in this world that we can not waste time on made-up ones. When confronted with wild eyed hysteria (Oh, my the roof is falling) we must be clear eyed and stout. We must reject unproven accusations that only serve to advance political passions whenever and wherever they appear.
Anyone who tries to harass or intimidate any election official, poll worker, or voter should be arrested and, after conviction, stripped of their rights as citizens. The people entrusted with our election are “your”, “my”, “our” friends and neighbors. They serve our democracy well and deserve no less.
Very truly yours,
Conrad F. Cropsey
Albion
Editor:
The table below shows the results of an analysis of public comments made to the New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) website in relation to the Lighthouse Wind Project as proposed for the Towns of Yates and Somerset by APEX Energy. A total of 855 comments submitted were assessed by quarter with comments tabulated and organized by support (in-favor) and opposition (opposed) to the project.
All comments made to the NYSDPS site regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project were included in the assessment and as stated, cover the time period from Q1-2015 through Q3-2016. All comments were read fully in order to ascertain position regarding the wind project. The positions were tabulated as in-favor or opposed to the project.
The results are as follows:
| Date | Comments In-favor | Comments Opposed | % In-favor | % Opposed |
| Q1-2015 | 0 | 44 | 0% | 100% |
| Q2-2015 | 0 | 98 | 0% | 100% |
| Q3-2015 | 36 | 160 | 19% | 82% |
| Q4-2015 | 56 | 140 | 29% | 72% |
| Q1-2016 | 31 | 165 | 16% | 84% |
| Q2-2016 | 3 | 33 | 8% | 92% |
| Q3-2016 | 21 | 67 | 24% | 76% |
| Total | 148 | 707 | 17% | 83% |
The overall results for this time period are as follows
Comments In-Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 148
Comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 707
% of Comments In-Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 17%
% of Comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 83%
These results show a clear, ongoing and massive opposition to this project. Interestingly, these results show a greater level of opposition than have all of the previous surveys performed by:
The Town of Somerset
Save Ontario Shores (SOS)
The Town of Yates
The Buffalo News
The Batavia Daily News
Buffalo Business First Magazine
These surveys averaged an approximately 70% Opposed/30% In-Favor breakdown of survey results.
As a private citizen, it is clear to me that DPS comments and multiple surveys show the truth. The will of the people is clear. APEX’s Lighthouse Wind Project must not move forward. In addition and just as importantly, Article 10 must not be allowed to suppress the Home-Rule will of the people.
Thank you.
John B. Riggi
Councilman, Town of Yates
Editor:
No one selects a community to settle in that has towering wind turbines surrounding it. Proponents of Lighthouse Wind see this as a cure-all for all the economic woes, as some all-embracing savior that somehow transforms Lyndonville to Williamsville.
Lyndonville will be literally surrounded by 650-foot (or higher, as Apex’s Dan Fitzgerald had mentioned this summer) wind turbines. We have flat terrain here, so there won’t be any hills to hide these. What is desirable about that?
Don’t you read about the 20 percent of people who have many detrimental health effects from these? Do you feel that you, your family, and friends will not be among that one in five persons who will experience at least one of these?
Are you so willing to gamble that you plug your ears to all the negatives of industrial wind turbines that you will sacrifice the peace and beauty of your town for money?
The rest of us who do not want industrial wind turbines here have read about the Ontario’s stopping all future wind turbine construction. We have read about the World Health Organization’s new health guidelines regarding harmful infrasound.
As a result of the increasing height of new turbines, setbacks are now advised in miles rather than feet. Why would you keep advocating to bring these on and, worse, to malign the group—your own neighbors—who want you to see the problems these things cause?
You cannot plug your ears and keep hoping for the piles of money that are promised by Apex, whose job it is to get these projects started, leaving residents to cope with the permanent destruction that is incentivized by federal tax credits.
You have allowed Apex “folks” (salesmen) to be your personal advisors. Of course their job is to get you to ignore all the realities and to allow Apex to build here. Wake up and see what the rest of the world is now experiencing about industrial wind turbines.
Christine Bronson
Barker
Editor:
A concern is now being clearly voiced by Town of Yates residents regarding the potential negative impact of the Lighthouse Wind Industrial Wind Turbine project on economic development in the Town, should this project be approved.
Clearly, Yates is in need of continued and ongoing economic development and it will come from taking advantage of appropriate economic development opportunities as they arise. However, in order to take advantage of these opportunities, Yates needs to be ready to market itself to those that might choose Yates as a place to reside or locate businesses. The more residents and businesses we can attract to Yates, the healthier the Town is now and into the future.
More residents moving to Yates means a full school enrollment and the need for businesses to service those residents. This is all possible via appropriate economic development. The key phrase here, however, is “appropriate economic development.”
The risks to town growth come from many directions and are very real. Not the least of which is anything that could upset the delicate balance between agricultural and residential areas, as well as the environment, wildlife and human quality of life. An economic opportunity that would endanger that balance is simply the wrong economic opportunity.
When considering a Wind Turbine Project as a potential economic opportunity, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those considering relocating family or business to Yates and ask, “Would I want to live north of Ridge Road and in the Town of Yates, amongst those turbines?
I believe the answer for most potential residents or business owners might be a resounding NO. The looming view of a wind turbine project as they crest Ridge Road driving north may give them pause. Whether or not they were for or against wind turbines, they might not choose to buy property or locate their family and/or business in and amongst the Yates turbine field.
Given this scenario, there is a probability that a Wind Turbine Project in the Town of Yates could effectively backstop any significant economic development at Ridge Road. Result: The Town of Yates receives no economic benefit from projects such as Pride Pak in Medina, the STAMP Project in Alabama or others to follow. People won’t move to town, the schools won’t fill up and businesses would see no benefit in initial or increased investment in the Town of Yates.
Economic development would remain unattainable in the Town of Yates and that would be a travesty.
Thank you,
John B. Riggi
Councilman, Town of Yates
