CAPE VINCENT ~ POLLS & PROPERTY VALUES BLOWING IN THE WIND

Recently, I did a post Regarding the Cape Vincent ZOGBY poll and how the pro wind faction would be exploiting the poll data for their purposes.

Coincidentally today a letter was posted on the Public Service Commission website doing just that.[1]   Not only does the writer cite the ZOGBY poll but they also included the data from the Jefferson County Community wide Poll of 2010, as proof positive that BP’s project is wanted by our community.

 The letter states, a poll taken by Jefferson Community College of Jefferson County showed 83.6% in favor of Wind Energy and 8.1% Opposed. [1]

 The results of the latest Jefferson County poll are somewhat different the 2012, JCC community poll reported that Wind farms continue to be perceived as important to the local economy by a majority of residents, but the level of support is in decline, from 83% in 2010 to 71% in 2012. [2]

 Perhaps as people become educated about the down side of wind development support is declining. Recent reports in the mainstream media suggest that controversy over wind turbines is widespread.

 Additionally, this letter also attempted to enforce the notion that property values are not affected by industrial wind turbines, by citing a study done by Mark Thayer, Mr. Thayer seems to be BP’s favorite property value expert. Thayer presented his “extensive research” at a BP wind forum held in Cape Vincent, August, 31 2011.

 (2009, Ben Hoen lead a property value study that Mark Thayer participated in. (The impact of Wind Projects on residential property values in the United States.) This study evaluated the effect wind turbines have on property values. They used a sample of 7,500 homes spread over 24 different regions across the country from Washington to Texas to New York that contain wind facilities and again found no significant effect. They looked at transactions within 10 miles of wind facilities and used a variety of approaches, including repeat sales. However, they limited themselves to discontinuous measures of proximity based on having turbines within 1mile, between 1 and 5 miles, or outside of 5 miles, or a similar set of measures of the impact on scenic view, and they again found no adverse impacts from wind turbines. [3]

 In addition, by including so many disparate regions within one sample they may be missing effects that would be significant in one region or another. [3]

 In 2011, Clarkson University did a study as well -
 The study, “Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities,” is based on the areas around three wind farms in Lewis, Clinton and Franklin counties.

 Clarkson assistant professor Martin D. Heintzelman and doctorate degree candidate Carrie M. Tuttle collected data from 11,331 residential and agricultural property transactions over nine years from Clinton, Franklin and Lewis counties. “Overall, the results of this study are mixed as regards the effect of wind turbines on property values,” the report said. “In Clinton and Franklin Counties proximity to turbines has a usually negative and often significant impact on property values, while, in Lewis County, turbines appear to have had little effect, and, in some specifications, a positive effect.” [3]
~~~~
 Cape Vincent’s Economic Committee produced a report concerning the impact Industrial wind would have on property values, Michael S. McCann, McCann Appraisal, LLC reviewed the report. McCann found that after completing his review of the subject location, it was clear that numerous homes in the Cape Vincent area will be adversely impacted, and the best available evidence indicates that value loss of 25% to 40% or more will occur to homes within approximately 2 miles of the turbines.
This impact is not expected to be uniform, and some losses may well be lower and others higher. [4]
~~~~
  The bottom line is , not all locations are created equal and there are many variables involved. Cape Vincent just is not suited for industrial development.

 Sources:

[1] Link here to the Public Service Commission to read the letter Re: Polls and Property Values

Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of WindPower Facilities

∗

[2] Link here to the 2012 Jefferson County Poll Conducted by JCC

[3] Link here to the Property value Study done by Clarkson University Values in the Wind 

[4] McCann’s  full report can be read at this link

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE OF WIND IN LITTLE APPALACHIA TRIESTE ASSOCIATES,INC

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE OF WIND WEBINAR
July 2, 2009
A few months ago  friend sent me a link to a webinar

The featured speaker on this webinar was Marion Trieste,Trieste Associates
wind facilitator and wind opposition buster.

Trieste works for top tier industrial wind companies such as BP and typically she is brought in to industrial wind targeted communities where the proposed development has become controversial. Trieste has a formula for making a project work for the developer. “Grassroots organization”


Trieste tells developers,

“we really have to invest in the public”. “you’re only going to increase your odds of success if you're investing in our host communities.”

In 2008 British Petroleum hired  Trieste to do "outreach work” and this is when and why she established Voters For Wind (VFW).

Trieste talks about her favorite group Voters for Wind, saying,

“they actually established themselves two years ago.
 “And I worked with them with a BP wind power project here.” “BP was - is the developer that I'm - I've been working with here.”

“it’s all - it's all about the messenger, right.”

 These groups work well because the developer may be seen as having other goals in mind such as profit
Trieste Creates a pro - wind coalition or network by holding small private gatherings with landowners, that are not open to the public , arming landowners with generic information about the development process ,crafted to debunk the myths about Property values. Birds, Sound etc.
At these gatherings they formulate their mission to go out and educate
people and to get them to show their support for the proposed wind development.

They promote the notion that they have altruistic motives in their desire to push a
developers project  and not because they are gaining financially from it;

“it just warms my heart to watch what's - what evolves with connecting people to each other in a community.”

Trieste tells the developers, to distance themselves, so they don’t taint the process,
people may think they are being used by the wind developers.

“At GEOS we call ourselves like a little buffer between the wind farm developer who's our client and those on the ground who are basically those most impacted in the local communities.”

“So we can do a lot more good out there if we are seen as independent and are and acting as independent individual grassroots organizations.”

Additionally Trieste stressed the importance of the economics of wind. Money is a method used to promote the project as well. “Money talks” this is where the host benefit packages come into play as she characterized our area as little Appalachia.

Trieste used the webinar as an opportunity to engage in exploitation of community division describing the typical industrial wind opponents, as
wealthy short term summer residents, retired Wall Street attorney types from
New Jersey and New York City that do not care about the community, jobs or
taxes.

“they just care about their viewshed”

In contrast to the characterization of the Anti- wind Trieste describes the pro wind, as the downtrodden silent majority, farmers struggling to survive .People who are invested in the community and have been invested in the land for generations and now their grandkids are never going to be able to live here because there’s nothing for them .

“they get it.”

Additionally, Trieste would like to educate our children about industrial wind as well.

“I can't emphasize enough that we need to be more and more in our schools.to get young people involved, Let's go and let's shame the older generation into doing this.”

Link here to the US DEPARTMENT of ENERGY website and Trieste's ~ transcript & webcast

A Question for BP's Chandler ~ which "landowners are getting the shaft..."

October 23, The Cape Vincent and Lyme board members met with BP’s Project developer Richard Chandler for the first time. This was an intense 2 hour meeting. Both boards did an exemplary job, not only asking Chandler many important questions but also telling Chandler that they would be protecting our community from BP.

However there is one question that was not asked of Chandler,

When former project developer Peter Gross announced that he was leaving BP he stated that he was not sure which "landowners are getting the shaft..." 

numerous homes in the Cape Vincent area will be adversely impacted by BP's Cape Vincent wind farm,

Michael S. McCann, McCann Appraisal, LLC reviewed the Cape Vincent wind economic committees report on the economic impacts a wind development would have on our community.
McCann found that after completing his review of the subject location, it was clear that numerous homes in the Cape Vincent area will be adversely impacted, and the best available evidence indicates that value loss of 25% to 40% or more will occur to homes within approximately 2 miles of the turbines. This impact is not expected to be uniform, and some losses may well be lower and others higher.

His full report can be read at this link

Michael McCann has kept abreast of the latest developments in Cape Vincent. The following is an email correspondence between Mr. McCann and a resident of Cape Vincent.

 From: Mike McCann

 I read the * linked article,  and a thought occurred to me that may be of some use to you.

In Illinois, farm land values have shot up tremendously over the last several years, from around $3,500-$4,000 per acre to about $10,000 per acre currently. The reasons for this are the increased price of commodities and lower interest rates, which have made farming highly profitable and created more demand and competition for good quality AG dirt.
If this is also true in upstate New York, then all the farmers need to do is sell off a few acres to cover the “losses” that they claim from not getting a huge lease windfall income.
But, more importantly from a zoning/case law perspective, if farm values have increased there, then the land owners do not have a valid claim to “hardship” or financial plight that could be used (theoretically) to help justify a zoning variation or special use.
You know who to call to check local farm prices/sales, so I leave it to you to follow up. But let me know if I can be of any service.
P.S. I see my name and work is still being cited in the blogosphere. And I thought I just had tinnitus..Ha!
Regards,
Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
~~
 To: 'Mike McCann'
This link will take to the Town web site where the draft of Cape Vincent’s law is:

 http://townofcapevincent.org/docs/cat_view/14-miscellaneous.html

Click in the Down Load for “Draft Zoning Law 6-4-12”
The sections that you would be interested in are: 6.7 Noise, 7.16 Tall Structures Applications,
Setbacks:

9) To protect the health and safety of all Town residents from ice throw and potential rotor failure, each WECS shall be setback a minimum of:
[a] Six times the total height of the proposed WECS from the nearest residence.

[b] Six times the total height of the proposed WECS from the nearest project boundary or property line.

[c] Six times the total height of the proposed WECS from any road.

[d] 1.25 miles from any WECS to the boundaries of the Village of Cape Vincent and from the Hamlets of Rosiere, Millens Bay, and St. Lawrence Corners as shown on the “Large Scale WECS Exclusion Map,”
Appendix 9.

[e] 1.25 miles from schools. Appendix 9, Large Scale WECS Exclusion Map

[f] In order to ensure that residents of adjoining Towns of Lyme and Clayton are not negatively affected by any WECS proposed in the Town of Cape Vincent, any WECS near the Town’s boundaries shall comply with the Noise Standards in Section 6.7 and shall be no closer than six times the total height of the proposed WECS to that boundary.

10) A map entitled, “Large Scale WECS Exclusion Map,” is attached to this Law as Appendix 9 and it delineates the areas of the Town within which WECS are excluded in conformity with the setbacks established here in above.

The new law has been a six months effort (meeting twice a week for 3 hours time.  We had a committee of 10 people that really busted their hump.

 Thanks for your continued interest in our Town
~~~
From: Mike McCann
I read 6.7 and 7.16 now. Looks pretty solid. Any idea if BP will challenge it legally?
~~~
To: 'Mike McCann'
The Town received a letter from BP stating that the new Z/L prohibits siting turbines in the town.
They intend to take it to the Article 10 Siting Board as being “unreasonably brudensone”
We will see!
~~~~
From: Mike McCann
Burdensome? How reasonable is it to dump their burden on 96% of property owners in Cape Vincent? (Rhetorical question, of course).

Keep me in mind if any supporting testimony is needed at an Article 10 hearing (?)

Michael S. McCann

Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting

* Linked article referred to by Mr McCann ~ The fight over wind farms continues in Cape Vincent

BP Will be Using Data from the Cape Vincent ZOGBY Poll to Demonstrate Community Support for their Project

 Cape Vincent - October 23, During the course of a meeting Between BP and the Town and Planning Boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme , BP Representative Richard Chandler stated numerous times that the community supports  BP’s  Cape Vincent Wind project.

  To  promote this idea, BP's wind facilitator Marion Trieste and Project Developer  Richard Chandler will both be using the results of the ZOGBY poll as proof that the majority of the community supports BP's project. 

 They will do this by focusing on the numbers from the ZOGBY Poll e.g. 47% support wind versus 41% opposed to wind.  This data is all they have to support their claim that this project is wanted by the community at large. 

  The updated Comprehensive plan examines the ZOGBY Poll and details how the figures  at face value can be misleading.   Additionally, the  polling questions were formulated under the watchful eye of two conflicted board members. The question of conflicts of interest was not addressed in this survey, nor were respondents asked if they or any of their relatives have wind leases.

 From the Updated Comprehensive plan

 The ZOGBY Community Vision Poll, 2011.

This phone poll was conducted by the Zogby Group at the request of the Town Board. It was a sample of 300 seasonal and year-round residents. The object of the poll was to gain an insight into community support for two wind projects that were proposed for Cape Vincent. 

The results showed that:

a. 82% had a favorable opinion toward Cape Vincent (Q:3

b. 79% were positive about the quality of life, but 66% were negative about the economy (Q:4-5).

c. 59% said the biggest issue facing the Town was industrial wind (Q:6).

d.47% supported industrial wind projects and 41% were opposed (Q: 7).

e. For those supportive of wind, the biggest collective reason for their support was economic - 40% listed money and economy as a reason (Q: 8).

f. The biggest reason for opposition was view, scenic and natural beauty (20%, Q: 8).

g. Although 47% of respondents supported industrial wind, they qualified their support:

   i. 47% said wind turbines would decrease tourism (Q: 10) and 89% said  tourism was very important in Cape Vincent(Q:14-16

ii.Only6% thought wind turbines would increase tourism (Q: 10)

 iii.57% believed wind turbines would decrease land values and 7%said land values would increase (Q: 11).

Summary of the Wind Issue: The ZOGBY poll in 2011 clearly showed that industrial wind was the biggest issue and challenge that faced Cape Vincent and its municipal leadership; that view remains unchanged today. In 2007 the survey done by the Cape Vincent LDC showed 60% support for industrial wind projects, but in 2011 ZOGBY reported that support declined to 47%, compared to 41% who were opposed. It could be argued that from 2007 to 2011 Cape residents became better educated about potential wind impacts and part of that education process included installation and operation of the Wolfe Island Wind Project directly across the St. Lawrence River from the Village of Cape Vincent. Moreover, if both surveys are studied carefully then support for wind is seen as qualified; not unequivocal support.

 ZOGBY showed the principal reason for supporting industrial wind was because people believed it would help the local economy, and a majority of respondents (66%) believed the local economy needed help. But, most respondents also believed tourism, recreation and land values are important too, and that industrial wind development would, at the same time, have a detrimental impact on these factors.

 Although the Cape Vincent Local Development Corporation(CVLDC reported a majority of support for industrial wind projects, they also reported industrial wind would negatively affect Cape Vincent’s character (51%negative versus 22% positive), quality of life (45% negative versus 29% positive), and natural beauty (57% negative versus 13% positive). Similar qualifiers existed in Zogby’s  data as well – 47% said tourism would decrease (6% increase) and 57% believed land values would diminish (7% increase).

These other surveys of community attitudes collectively help us understand the apparent contradiction in attitudes toward industrial wind. The potential benefit of industrial wind is purely economic for some Cape Vincent residents. But, the economic potential provided by industrial wind would not come without some economic loss and damage to our community. The listing of strategies in the 1992 and 2007 surveys showed very strong support for using Cape Vincent’s historic and cultural resources and making the best use of our unique natural resource gifts - the lake and river. Furthermore, in both these surveys strategies that focused on industrial development were low on the Cape’s list of development alternatives.

 The best way to sum community attitude toward industrial wind in 2012 is to go back to1992 in a concluding statement in “Shaping the Future,“They (Cape Vincent residents) would like to see improved job opportunities and services, but not at the expense or sacrifice of the very qualities that make Cape Vincent so appealing – its beauty, history and small town atmosphere.”

 The results of the Cape Vincent ZOGBY poll clearly indicated that three out of five surveyed want the Cape Vincent Town Board to impose a moratorium on wind turbines. In addition, (59%) said that they wanted the wind moratorium to allow time to amend the zoning law to address industrial and individual wind turbines. In accordance to the wishes of the community as indicated by the ZOGBY, poll. 

[ZOGBY results here]

Comprehensive plan link

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95594438/Town-and-Village-of-Cape-Vincent-FINAL-Joint-Comprehensive-Plan-August-1-2012

Facts about What BP Will Really Bring To Our Community

BP Has Started An Article X Pre- Application with Inaccurate Information about Their Outreach To The Entire Community . Remember Our Past Town & Planning Boards Consisted Of Conflicted Leaseholders

Cape Vincent's Unethical Black Hole ~

This is a press release that outlines the conflicts of interests created by BP$ Acciona


 

An open letter concerning the Public meeting between the boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme

  Sorry we haven't yet met but I’m a outspoken anti-wind energy activist from eastern Wayne County.  I was in CV for the Oct 23.  .

My wife and I got started fighting terrestrial wind several years ago here in Wayne Co. and our battle eventually included offshore wind factories with NYPA. We have lots of anti-wind contacts across NYS. We are also highly against fracking and feel fracking is actually far worse than wind factories. Thanks for your efforts with Pandora's Box of Rock and keep up the excellent work.

 ~~~~~

 We attended the Cape Vincent wind workshop meeting Tuesday evening - (Oct 23)

  between British Petroleum and the town boards & planning boards of CV and neighboring Lyme as well as the anti-wind project protest march earlier in the day in Cape Vincent village. 

The protest march started about 4 pm in a town park across the street from the BP wind office. Shortly the march ended directly in front of BP’s CV office with about 20 people participating. Horns from passing cars approved the action and chanting, signs were available for those that may have not brought their own and news media videoed the activity too.

Eventually, the protesters moved several blocks to the meeting location at the CV

community recreation center - a nice new building. Seating for 200 people was available but those arriving late found standing room only. As this was designed to be a workshop meeting – the boards would NOT be taking questions or comments from the floor and this was well understood beforehand.

Richard Chandler, British Petroleum’s project manager for the proposed wind project in the town, represented BP. Chandler was the only one seated at the table reserved for BP and appeared to be young, clean cut, well spoken, knowledgeable college grad type.

Richard Chandler

There were at least 3 dozen wind supporters attending as they came dressed in their bright green t-shirts and they all sat together in one part of the room.

Wind supporters in green shirts

 The police were outside in the parking lot if needed but fortunately there was no call for them as everyone was civil in contrast to past CV wind meetings where behavior sometimes was anything but civil.

Protesters outside

Following Chandler’s comments – each TB and PB member from both towns was individually allowed to make their own comments on this project and virtually none of them supported the project. (note – the town of Lyme would be where the turbine transmission line would pass through but no turbines are planned to be located there in this project) Chandler was reminded that BP officials and wind supporters were given numerous chances to come before numerous CV public meetings on the wind issue under the new TB – but not one person supporting wind ever did attend even one of the meetings – especially the meetings developing the zoning laws. One CV TB member made the best comments of the evening – that NYS elected officials failed the state and its people. (meaning the taking away of home rule from the people of NYS)

After all comments were given – questions from the TB and PB members were asked of Chandler. Some questions he answered but many he gave no answer or an evasive answer, which elicited a negative response from many in the crowd. The change in NYS law last year, creating a new Article X, was monumental as it took away home rule and the way the law was passed is so very disgusting and defines Gov. Cuomo as the scoundrel he is. Chandler did everything but take the Fifth Amendment. The whole 2-hour meeting was video recorded and is available to view at Steve Weed productions - http://www.steveweedproductions.com/ right now.

 Both CV and Lyme town boards & zoning boards left no doubt in anyone's mind, especially Chandler's mind,  they would pursue the town zoning laws as far as necessary - the zoning laws prevent BP’s wind factory. Lyme would host the transmission line but no turbines yet. I interpret this attitude to mean that both towns will pursue the matter through the NYS courts system to the highest level, if necessary, to keep the wind factory from being developed – and this is what should happen. This whole matter is extremely important as its likely to become the first case considered by the unelected 5 bureaucrats in Albany to decide yea or nay for BP's wind factory in CV as a result of the disgusting Article X section of the Power NY Law of 2011.

I have attached a few photos from the day’s activities – Chandler is in the blue shirt, no tie. Please note many people at the meeting holding up BP GO HOME signs. People in neon-green shirts are the greedy wind zealots.

I’ll end this with a little BP history. BP blowout in Gulf of Mexico, Deep Horizon; 11 workers killed. BP officials said they expect the company to pay out approximately $7.8 billion as a settlement with more than 100,000 plaintiffs who are suing the oil giant and others for their role in the spill. This does not include the settlement with the US government which is expected to be between $18B and $21B. BP’s board appears to be the stubborn ones; they want a $15 billion settlement. BP may be very worst polluter in history - with a record like this who could possibly want them doing business in their community?

 Al Isselhard 

Wolcott, New York

Great Lakes Concerned Citizens

Great Lakes Wind Truth

Coalition On Article X

BP ~ Quietly ~ announces Cape Vincent Wind Farm Project Open House

Please join the BP Team to learn more about the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project at an open house on Saturday, November 10, 2012 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Cape Vincent Recreational Park

Story Published: Nov 2, 2012 at 2:55 PM EST

Event Details

Date(s) & Time(s)::

November 10, 2012

Location: Cape Vincent Recreational Park 602 South James St. Cape Vincent, NY

Phone: 315-654-2181

Event Description

Please join the BP Team to learn more about the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project at an open house on Saturday, November 10, 2012 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Cape Vincent Recreational Park

Link here to original source

In the Video below ~  BP Project Developer Chandler  announced October 23  that BP will have a project website established next week , and that the file containing the project map will be available for download .  Check out this link  Site address ~ capevincentwindfarm.com 

BP/ PIP~ Advertisements:   advertisements describing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm(CVWF) and the benefits to the local and regional stakeholders will be placed in the Watertown Daily Times and the thousand Islands Sun (the most widely circulated local publications) on a periodic basis during the pre-application process.

 Link here to BP/PIP

                                                                                                                                                       

Government at its best ~ Protecting our communities

Tuesday evening, Oct. 23, in Cape Vincent, at the municipal hall offered an opportunity for north country voters to see some of the best that local elected officials from the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, along with their appointed planning boards, have to offer residents in the north country.

The occasion coincided with British Petroleum’s (BP) pursuing an approval process under Article X allowing a state siting board to overrule what it (the siting board) considers to be unreasonable local laws as pertains to siting of industrial wind projects. BP has chosen to expedite the siting process by going to Article X as opposed to dealing with the locally effected municipalities directly.

What is important in my opinion is that these elected and appointed board members were articulate, incredibly well informed, and doggedly consistent in their concern for protecting the health and safety of their constituents and the communities they represent. In an era when it appears that government officials are shameless, and that any behavior that is not illegal is acceptable, Tuesday night’s performance was a true exception. It was a shining example of how local municipal government, when it has representatives who have integrity and are striving to do what is in the best interest of their communities, speak in a common voice. Any municipal government would welcome the level of participation and professionalism these individuals portrayed on Tuesday evening. They serve their communities well.

Residents of Cape Vincent and Lyme should be proud of each and every one of them. County legislators should take note of the example set. State representatives should recognize the caliber of constituents these folks represent. Their ethical and contemplative responses make a strong argument for keeping local siting authority with the municipalities affected by proposed developments.

The state’s efforts to grab that responsibility, arguing that local municipalities are unable to make such decisions, or worse, that local municipalities are for sale, appears to be motivated by a willingness, not only to streamline the process, but far more cynically, to allow industry to drive the state policy and control the siting process for their own financial gain. Sadly, it is presented as a “green energy policy” but it is not green, and it is driven by production tax credits. Ultimately it has removed all critical siting responsibilities from the municipalities that will be at ground zero, and has put those decisions in the hands of an unelected board in Albany.

The Cape Vincent and Lyme boards showed an informed professionalism that calls into question the state’s claim to decide local siting criteria for industrial wind facilities. These board members are far more capable than Albany to make those evaluations. They are not for sale. They are at ground zero.

David Duff

Macomb