What we have around here is wind. But the idealistic, pastoral vision we once might have had of Dutch boys playing along the dikes with wooden windmills churning in the background, or mountain ridges adorned with them for miles as if pickets in a giant fence, no longer exists. That vision has been corrupted by the realities of what those large-turbine contraptions mean for the people who live - or could live - near them.

In search of a buck, at the expense of the public, Bachler arbitrarily replaced the board's recommendation with one based on the developers' wishes. The new law is based not on public health, welfare and safety, but instead caves in to wind industry specifications, designed to maximize developers' profits.

Much of upstate New York, from north of Albany to Buffalo, from the Catskills to the Adirondacks, is in danger of being transformed beyond recognition by industrial wind parks. Some 50 of these wind parks are being planned and even built. All of this is being done in the name of clean energy and saving the planet. But it isn't clear that wind power is such a panacea in the battle against global warming that developers of these wind parks should be allowed to run roughshod over some of our loveliest land. What we need are statewide siting guidelines that take other environmental factors, including visual impacts, into consideration.

With all the emotion of the vote for the Stamford Town Local Law on Industrial Wind Turbines on May 16, I forgot to acknowledge a very important segment of our community - the newly formed "Concerned Residents of Township Valley." In three weeks, this group of people got together and epitomized the word "neighbors." In this short period of time organizers collected 125 signatures from valley residents and 77 signatures from friends; an incredible 90 percent of the Township area.

Wind energy is an important renewable energy source. However, it is important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York state, in order to avoid any negative impacts upon surrounding areas. I have recently introduced legislation, S.4608, which seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities. Additionally, this bill would place an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities, to enable the task force to complete its study and make recommendations.

To my knowledge there has yet to be a public debate involving the town board on this subject. Listening to comments allowed at the April 23 meeting was deeply troubling. Local residents were trying to come to terms with the prospect of living with these industrial turbines on their doorsteps with no explanation as to why they should have to.

Judge Marianne Furfure heard arguments today brought by Cohocton Wind Watch, an anti-windmill group that says the Town of Cohocton did not comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act when it changed its zoning regulations to make way for a project propsed by developer UPC Wind.

Governor Spitzer's energy team has drafted the language for Article X, which governs the siting of energy plants, including wind-turbine factories. Article X as drafted is seriously flawed and a betrayal of the governor's campaign promises.

Some T.I. residents will be saying goodbye to those quiet summer evenings. There are now two wind turbine noise reports submitted by developers along the Thousand Islands corridor. One by AES-Acciona Energy concludes their project in Cape Vincent would not "create a significant noise impact." PPM Atlantic Renewable, on the other hand, freely admits to Town of Clayton residents that their project "would be clearly audible." In both cases, developers ignored the biggest potential noise threat from wind farm development - atmospheric stability.

For some reason, the logical alternative - having New York City produce more of its own energy and avoiding transmission lines - is not encouraged in the new Spitzer dynamic. At the same time, more alternative energy - notably wind farms - would get an expedited process. There's where the governor mostly expects to meet his goal of 25 percent of our energy needs coming from renewable sources by 2013. It's funny about wind farms, and wind energy in general. Electricity produced from wind is clean, throws no carbon in the air and uses natural forces. But it is also very expensive to produce (it's heavily subsidized), and transmission costs are another costly hurdle. Plus, a landscape full of wind farms won't put a dent in our energy needs, and aesthetically, wind farms are not for everybody everywhere.

Contrary to popular belief - promoted by well-funded industrial wind turbine facility developers - wind turbines do not reduce the need for fossil fuel powered electric generators and do not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Even at sites known for their breeze, wind is intermittent, variable and undependable. As a result, utility companies must rely on dependable power sources, usually powered by fossil fuel.

Are you a property owner in the Southern Tier? Do you enjoy a summer home, recreational property, fishing, hunting or just like to get away from it all? Your country abode may be threatened by projects that directly affect your country peace and solitude. The towns of Eagle, Centerville and Farmersville are being eyed for 200 of the 400-feet high-wind turbines. Ridge tops will be clear cut and access roads built. Scenic vistas will be obliterated by the industrial-sized machines, making the "Enchanted Mountains of Cattaraugus County" a thing of the past.

The Long Island Power Authority's proposal to build a grid of industrial-strength wind generators a few miles into the ocean off Jones Beach is adrift. It's too expensive, and it should remain at sea.

So why, apart from the well-intentioned New York state legislators, who want renewable energy but don't understand the costs and inefficiencies, should the beautiful Catskills await the new industrial rapists? The claim of new jobs doesn't stand any scrutiny, since teams of contractors will be brought into the area and taken out again after the turbines have gone up. No, the real reason that Goldman Sachs and other big mecantile financiers are backing the giant windmills are good old-fashioned tax breaks. The US government permits a triple depreciation for tax purposes on wind turbines, and those with enough capital can invest in tax shelters that use these depreciations to remove the tax on profits for other ventures. In the words of one Catskills campaigner: "If I had the ability to invest $1 million in a wind farm, I could avoid paying taxes on another $2 million in profits from some other venture. Yup, that would save me half a million in taxes. Hmmmmm". Maybe, when it comes to some of the solutions offered by well-intentioned environmentalists, it would be wise to examine the motivation of some of the lobbyists who profess to support them. It's still not too late for the Catskill Mountains.

I am writing in response to a letter from Roger Thurber in the February 19th edition of the Daily News. Among his praises for electric power, he refers to electricity as "the cheapest hired hand" that he could hire on the farm. Let's examine the wind power he favors so much in just those terms - as an employee, or "hired hand", of the electrical grid.

In addition to spending tens of millions in lobbying dollars, the wind industry has put together a very expensive and con­vincing marketing campaign that appeals to many noble motives of our citizenry. It really is a shame that much of what they claim does not pass objective review and analysis. For those hoping to make hundreds of millions in profits from the industrialization of our region, these certainly are inconvenient truths.

“Anti wind” groups such as Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. support renewable energy and wind power in the right locations, but believe there should be a more responsible approach in determining the best sources for renewable energy. Nuclear power is far more dependable and efficient than wind power, less invasive, 100 percent renewable and is currently producing approximately 29 percent of New York State’s electricity. Wind turbines will never generate more than one-half of 1 percent of our electricity in the U.S. and no fossil fuel electricity generating facilities have ever been shut down as a result of wind turbines being constructed. Wind turbines should not be built in residential areas. Everyone should support the groups and individuals fighting to keep these projects out of the towns.

At www.cohoctonfree.com we’re more interested in the facts about wind turbines than we are in politics. Will they really reduce CO2 emissions? Are they properly sited? Have the SDEIS and DEIS studies been done properly for SEQR? Is the community aware of the whole story? Are we rushing into something we’ll regret later? We’re confident that truth will eventually triumph over half-truths. Check out our “Updates” on the web and let us know what you think.

Anti-wind groups such as Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. support renewable energy and wind power in the right locations, but believe there should be a more responsible approach in determining the best sources for renewable energy.

Moresville Energy Center in Stamford (fronting for Invenergy LLC), encouraging placing industrial wind turbines, or IWTs, in the Catskills, is running advertisements promoting these 420-foot monsters as opportunities for children to experience “a cleaner tomorrow.” Its incentive comes from indecisiveness by town supervisors hesitating, even though their citizens have spoken out against IWTs. One supervisor stands out against a sea of poor leadership and courage: Tom Garretson of Cherry Valley. The Freeman’s Journal in Cooperstown, applauding Mr. Garretson’s efforts against Reunion Power, wrote: “A freshman town supervisor, he firmly and courteously followed the logic of facts in the face of resistance from his family, his political mentor and longtime friends and associates.” The battle continues today in Andes, Bovina, Roxbury, Stamford, Meredith and Walton. Will there be a town supervisor strong enough to listen to the people and follow Tom Garretson’s lead?