SCIDA on UPC Cohocton PILOT January 22, 2008 Letter by James Hall
January 22, 2008
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
PO Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
RE: SCIDA PILOT UPC Cohocton Wind Project
Dear SCIDA Board members:
Enclosed is a copy of the CWW letter to the Cohocton Planning Board that calls for the re-opening of SEQR on the UPC/CPP/CPPII project. Based upon the exclusion of the final transmission line as part of original SEQR process, it would be a total aberration of your responsibility to approval a PILOT at this time.
Part of the merits of the cases in the three Article 78 actions currently before Judge Furfure relates to this specific issue. The UPC project was issued “special use” permits based upon Clipper 2.5 Liberty turbines. The failure of these same turbines at Steel Winds Lackawanna, NY, and the need for their disassembly to replace gear box failure and blade defaults is monumental.
SCIDA has no rational justification for approving a PILOT under these circumstances. The overwhelming opposition at the SCIDA public hearing on January 18, 2008 must be heard. Douglas Malone was present, but no other SCIDA board member was in attendance. This fact alone demonstrates the intentional disregard of the rest of the SCIDA board member for legitimate public input. This is blatant disregard to taxpaying citizens affected by these projects.
At some point SCIDA will need to explain why the $4,400,000 per year payment amount in the UPC application for special tax exemption was rejected and a PILOT of minuscule proportions ($37,500 for the Wayland-Cohocton School District as represented by the Town of Cohocton) is ready for approval.
Several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information and evidence of suspected criminal conduct. The scope of potential charges and areas of violations include false claims and filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud. SCIDA members and employees are involved. Under these circumstances it would be lunacy to approve a final UPC PILOT that has yet not been released to the involved taxing jurisdictions or public review.
Could it be that persons connected with, working for or part of SCIDA have or will receive personal benefit from the developer for a sweet heart PILOT approval? If you approve this PILOT, defending your actions in court may prove impossible.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
cc: Governor Spitzer, AG Cuomo, Senator Winner, Assemblyman Bacalles
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
PO Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
RE: SCIDA PILOT UPC Cohocton Wind Project
Dear SCIDA Board members:
Enclosed is a copy of the CWW letter to the Cohocton Planning Board that calls for the re-opening of SEQR on the UPC/CPP/CPPII project. Based upon the exclusion of the final transmission line as part of original SEQR process, it would be a total aberration of your responsibility to approval a PILOT at this time.
Part of the merits of the cases in the three Article 78 actions currently before Judge Furfure relates to this specific issue. The UPC project was issued “special use” permits based upon Clipper 2.5 Liberty turbines. The failure of these same turbines at Steel Winds Lackawanna, NY, and the need for their disassembly to replace gear box failure and blade defaults is monumental.
SCIDA has no rational justification for approving a PILOT under these circumstances. The overwhelming opposition at the SCIDA public hearing on January 18, 2008 must be heard. Douglas Malone was present, but no other SCIDA board member was in attendance. This fact alone demonstrates the intentional disregard of the rest of the SCIDA board member for legitimate public input. This is blatant disregard to taxpaying citizens affected by these projects.
At some point SCIDA will need to explain why the $4,400,000 per year payment amount in the UPC application for special tax exemption was rejected and a PILOT of minuscule proportions ($37,500 for the Wayland-Cohocton School District as represented by the Town of Cohocton) is ready for approval.
Several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information and evidence of suspected criminal conduct. The scope of potential charges and areas of violations include false claims and filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud. SCIDA members and employees are involved. Under these circumstances it would be lunacy to approve a final UPC PILOT that has yet not been released to the involved taxing jurisdictions or public review.
Could it be that persons connected with, working for or part of SCIDA have or will receive personal benefit from the developer for a sweet heart PILOT approval? If you approve this PILOT, defending your actions in court may prove impossible.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
cc: Governor Spitzer, AG Cuomo, Senator Winner, Assemblyman Bacalles
posted by SARTRE at 2:48 PM - permanent link
del.icio.us
digg
reddit
newsvine
furl
hugg
mixx
diigo
netvouz
blink
CWW
CWW Feed Burner
add CWW to your Netvibes
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home