Al Isselhard of Wolcott, NY reviews the JCC "Kevin and Addie Show."

Posted March 20, by Al Isselhard on Coalition on Article X:

March 20, 2012

Many COAX members attended the forum held Thursday (3/8/12) at Jefferson Community College (JCC) in Watertown, NY. Power NY Act of 2011 & Art. X co-author, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill was there to defend this law while area Assemblywoman Addie Russell took the position opposing the law – both are Democrats. A good-sized crowd of about 100 people also attended and the meeting was video taped as well by Steve Weed Productions. The forum was hosted by JCC’s Dr. Ray Petersen – an expert on NYS energy.

COAX provided 2-sided color flyers that were passed out to all who attended – flyers critical of the Power NY Act of 2011 & Art. X emphasizing the loss of municipal home rule.

Cahill spoke before Russell and I was shocked that not once did he mention “home rule” during his initial comments. He did say he thought Addie Russell’s main complaint about the Power NY Act would be the Article X reduction of the power threshold from 80 MW to 25 MW. Cahill also admitted he and other Kingston, NY residents fought a garbage to energy plant proposed for his area years ago that would burn waste. Does that make him a NIMBY? A hypocrite?


  1. Anonymous3/23/2012

    Finally , a down to earth, realistic overview of Russel and Cahill's message. I especially liked the phrase "you must believe in the tooth fairy if you believe Addie Russels's comment " about Article X not allowing turbines in our region.

    She really showed her colors as pro-wind by framing this comment to imply Article X is denying communities the right to have wind projects.

    Have to agree with Isselhard, their message was confusing and misleading.

  2. Anonymous3/23/2012


    If you say their message was confusing and misleading, how can you be so sure of what they said?

    Like it or not, Kevin Cahill did explain very well the legislature's thinking in regards to Article X. Localities like yours had better prepare and you best do it with the best people and the best scientific defenses you can and it better not be an unreasonable attempt to ban them without scientific definitions and well accepted setbacks, height limits, sound regulations, view shed and historical protections, and traditional recognitions of established scenic highways and economics based on a history of regional tourism. Then there is threat to endangered habitats and flyway. Just because a few don't like them and want a ban isn't going to cut it because the precedent has been set for many communities in the state to have them and they are already there. Best to write good laws that show scientific data without prejudice.

  3. Tomorrow, I will be posting the transcript of Kevin Cahill's explanation of Article X and it's impact on local law as he delivered it during the JCC forum and at other presentations he has made. I did not see anything confusing about that part of his message.