Archive: Opinions

In August of 2013 I wrote an editorial arguing that New York State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, who represents Lansing in Albany, had figuratively torpedoed the Town of Lansing.  Lifton had spoken at a Public Service Commission hearing on whether or not to repower the Cayuga Power Plant, urging its closing in favor of renewable energy alternatives.  My point was that while she represents plenty of other communities that spoke out against repowering the plant, she is also supposed to represent Lansing.  Given the economic disaster Lansing can expect if the plant closes (and given that the community has already suffered a chunk of that as the plant has lost $100 million of assessed value in the past seven years) it didn't sit well with me that someone who represents us should publicly take that stand.

This week Lifton took it upon herself to lead a coalition of state legislators in an effort to close all coal-powered plants starting with the Lansing plant.  I am not naive enough to be surprised.  But I am shocked.  Because, despite vague recommendations for transitional community assistance, Lansing is looking at a disaster.  And while I wouldn't characterize Lansing as the most forward-looking community in the state, it is the fastest growing one in Tompkins County, as well as a leader in agriculture here.  So I don't get how urging the annihilation of Lansing's largest taxpayer is something a representative of the town could responsibly advocate.

When I wrote that editorial in 2003 Lifton responded in a 'letter to the editor' in which she said she would "I will work to try to bring RGGI or other state funding in to compensate for the possible lost revenues if the PSC closes the plant."

"Just to clarify, in my comments, I made very clear that I support keeping the Lansing plant open, and asked the PSC to do a feasibility study for a waste-to-energy plant here," she said. "I referenced the new Jacobson/Howarth’s Renewable New York 2030 Plan which, while urging we go renewable as soon as possible, allows for some biomass – for about 20 years -- as we transition to full renewables. I said that this is the perfect place for such a project, given the abundant farmland in our region and the likely need for greater capacity Upstate, as Climate Change makes our coastal areas less livable.  A biomass plant would retain jobs and help Lansing Schools and other municipalities."

I haven't heard a single supporter of the repowering plan say that they want to use fossil fuel forever.  Everyone from Upstate New York Power Producers (UNYPP) Chief Operating Officer Jerry Goodenough to NYS Senator Mike Nozzolio to U.S. Congressman Tom Reed has characterized the repowering plan as an interim solution that will allow renewable energy technology to catch up and become economically and scientifically feasible so that they can ultimately replace all fossil fuel solutions.

I don't have any beef with people like County Legislator Carol Chock taking a leadership role in opposing the plant repowering.  She doesn't directly represent Lansing, and has strong personal views on the role of renewable energy.  It's a free country, and I respect her for standing up for her beliefs.

But it strikes me as inappropriate for Lifton to advocate such a disastrous plan for one of the communities she represents.  Again, I respect her for standing up for what she believes, but it should be coupled with a solid plan for keeping Lansing economically viable, relieving already overburdened property taxpayers, a solid and serious proposal for job transition, and a push backed by legislation and funding to make up the revenue loss, not just tax revenue, but local spending that will vanish if the plant is closed.

Without that piece I don't see how she is representing Lansing at all.  Lifton is faced with a huge division in the desires and needs of her various constituent communities on this issue, at least.  Lansing's neighbors, also represented by Lifton, have been quite vocal in their opposition to the plant, and plan to be again Saturday at a rally at 1pm in Dewitt Park to which Lifton has been invited.  I get that.

But supposedly she represents Lansing as well.  I would expect my representative not to take sides, much less put together a large coalition, but rather to try to find areas of agreement among all her constituents and try to get legislation passed that would serve those things without causing great harm to one of her constituent communities.

Never mind the taxpayers who are impacted by this.  Has Lifton reached out to plant employees to hear what the impact of her letter will have on them?  I know some of these employees.  They are intelligent, hard-working people who -- at least the ones I know -- give quite a lot to the community in tangible ways on their own time and/or expense to help their fellow citizens.  They don't ask for credit, and -- in my experience -- are embarrassed when they get it.  These are real people, not just part of some idealistic or philisophical idea.  They also pay taxes and vote.  Aren't these the very people we want to be represented in Albany?

We call our elected officials representatives for a reason.  Leadership and representation are not mutually exclusive.  True leadership means positive outcomes for all constituents, not just some.  We don't know whether the plant will be closed or not, but Lifton's letter certainly looks like a huge coffin nail for Lansing.  

v11i25