Faith, will you and the other "Vote Yes" proponents agree to cover any and all legal fees coming out of defending this referendum, if passed? If so, then I might consider voting with you. If, on the other hand, you expect me to pay, via higher taxes, to defend this can't-win proposition, I will be voting "No" and wish I could vote, "Hell, NO!"

This is a philosophy debate, its a vote on the future of Peters Township.

I will be voting "no" as well. The rhetoric from the "yes" side is like worn out shoe leather, hard, with cracks, and non-pliable. The real issues are ignored, and the questions are framed around irrelevant points.

When PTMSA started, I was sympathetic to the concerns expressed. But, soon it was apparent that a few eager-beavers took over and degraded the movement into a personal agenda. We now see that they are a puppet for others, and have become a mouthpiece. This is regrettable because legitimate issues surrounding the drilling industry need addressing. But, the strategy by the current "yes" is a failed one.

Why would the voters of Peters choose to follow a path that is sure to cost much money, and leave the drillers near free-reign on their work. The restrictions of decades-old regulations do not fit the current situation.

Vote "NO" on Tuesday on the referendum.

Roger, I agree 100%. You got it all right about how this charter ban amendment came to be.

There are legitimate health and environmental concerns regarding gas drilling. However, the ban amendment is not the method to address those issues. It will be overturned, cost PT $$ and result in unregulated drilling.

Our ordinance protects PT. If it is challenged, it will still be in place during the challenge, and govern requested drill permits. If parts of it are changed as a result of litigation, so be it. It is a defensible ordinance, and there is much case law to support it.

There is nothing to support the ban amendment. Every similar measure drafted by CELDF has been defeated in court. CELDF is a community environmental legal defense fund in Harrisburg. They drafted the current proposed amendment, and provided advise to PTMSA, local "eager beaver" group.

It is regrettable PTMSA did not ask CELDF hard questions before they began their quest for the charter amendment. It is even more regrettable CELDF did not inform them of their losing track record.

In any event, vote NO on Tuesday. A NO vote keeps our ordinance in place, and rejects the proposed amendment. The amendment will lose in court anyway, and cost $ and free drilling rights. Voting YES is a futile exercise which harms PT.

Gary, I agree regarding the philosophy. It is interesting and a worthy discussion. However, this proposed amendment is a LEGAL matter, not a philosophical one. Whatever PT does must remain within the LAW. Philosophy inspires good law making, but it does not replace law.

The proposed amendment is bad law in that all similar measures have been overturned in court. It violates state and federal law. It is a losing proposition, and will cost PT $ and free drilling in the process.

Here are more reasons to VOTE YES, these are this weeks stories:
PA house panel legislation - Local township ordinance rules for gas drilling would be null and void under the PA Marcellus Shale legislation.
Protect Peters by voting YES for the community bill of rights to ban drilling– the PA legislation if passed would make the PT council’s ordinance null and void.

This is a rural area not a populated area like Peters:
Natural gas compressor station fire forces evacs
Nov 03, 2011 8:06 AM EDT
ARTEMAS, Pa. (AP) - Officials say a fire at a natural gas compressor station forced the evacuation of dozens of homes in a rural western Pennsylvania community near the Mason-Dixon Line.

Bedford County 911 Coordinator Pam Corley says the fire was reported around 12:30 a.m. Thursday at a compressor station in Mann Township, about 90 miles west of Harrisburg. No injuries were reported.

Between 40 and 50 nearby homes were evacuated because of the fire. Corley says the blaze was put out around 5 a.m. and residents would be allowed to return home.

Corley says the compressor station is owned by Columbia Gas. A spokeswoman for Columbia Gas Transmission says workers at the station helped shut down the site.

Corley says more than a dozen fire crews from three states responded to the fire.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continued to the next comment.

With all the long wall mining in SW PA and mine subsidence:
Did brine well trigger 6 Mahoning Valley earthquakes?
By Karl Henkel
khenkel@vindy.com
YOUNGSTOWN OH
Sun, October 30, 2011 @ 12:08 a.m.
The Mahoning Valley has experienced seven minor earthquakes since March — the only quakes ever recorded with epicenters in the Valley.
The sudden occurrences have experts now examining a brine- water injection well near Salt Springs Road and state Route 711. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is looking into the correlation between the 18-month-old well and the earthquakes.
Injection wells are a back-end process in the hydraulic-fracking industry. In the fracking process, water, chemicals and sand are blasted through pipes into rocks thousands of feet below the ground to unlock natural gas and oil. That liquid is returned to the surface as brine wastewater, which ultimately is flushed underground by injection wells.
Some wells, such as the one in Youngstown, go 9,000 feet below the earth’s surface.
Of the seven earthquakes, six had epicenters near the injection well on Youngstown’s West Side, just off the Salt Springs Road exit and Ohio Works Drive.
“There’s definitely a coincidence,” said Jeffrey Dick, geology department chairman at Youngstown State University.
“But whether or not there’s a link, nobody has enough data quite yet.”
For the rest of this article: http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/oct/30/did-brine-well-trigger--valley-earthquak/

For a detailed analysis of the proposed amendment and how it will fail in court, go to our local Channel 7 website ptct7.com Look for CHARTER AMENDMENT - FACT OR FICTION? It begins airing today and throughout the weekend.

Our attorney Leslie Peters walks through the amendment step by step, pointing out the illegal acts. She explains how all previous measures have failed in court. She explains the state law and federal law which preempt this proposed amendment.

It is about an hour presentation with Q&A, and it will be an hour well spent to watch it before you vote on election day.

Other areas which have experienced earthquakes in heavily drilled areas:
Arkansas had several more earthquakes in the same heavily drilled area. This time they had a 3 ...

Australia Gas; Canada ... of small earthquakes are occurring in Faulkner County, Arkansas. ... are the earthquakes compared to the depth of the drilling?

Cathy, if the proposed "preemption" legislation passes, it will make YOUR amendment null and void also.

You make my point. State law overrules local law. That is why your charter amendment is ridiculous and a waste of time. If it was harmless, that would be different. But it is harmful - it will cost PT $ to defend, and will result in free drilling in PT.

I vote No plain and simple, this is not legal and I refusee to vote to pay for a cause that rightfully shoud be fought at the state and federal level.

Let us remember that legal precedent is the general formula followed by the judicial system. To challenge legal precedent, the judicial system has a harrowing hallway of precedent as well, the system requires a full view of facts, facts take time to clarify and prove as such, the steps needed to pursue the type of change needed is not necessarily the proposed amendment and or its need to challenge the precedent set in our state judicial system. The change needed is to occur in our legislative representation, Peterstownship and the majority of its voting public must grasp this concept, and vote no on this referendum, and find the necessary legistlator to promote change to the oil and gas act.

Let's start by saving our township from plummeting property values, reduction of air and water quality, and loss of quality of living in the township, and vote YES! Our township surely carries insurance to deal with legal matters. Don't succumb to the scare tactics. NO drilling in residential Peters! Vote YES!

Absolutely untrue, the PA house legislation if passed will null and void zoning laws which is the PT councils ordinance. The Home Rule Charter amendment is not a zoning law, it's a commununity bill of rights amendment to prohibit gas drilling which will stand. If the amendment is challenged, what will happen, it will be appealed at no cost to the township because CELDF will defend it. No free drilling will take place, no $ to defend. I understand one of the lawyers at Rolling Hills confirmed these facts. These scare tactics are ludicrous.

The township will need to pay court costs and expenses. For Blaine, that amounted to a whopping $3600.00. I think that would amount to about a $0.20 increase in expendatures per resident.

What people keep missing is that the current mineral extraction ordinance is also facing eminent court challenges from either Ranger Resources, Chesapeake Energy or both. Why is nobody asking who is going to pay for that? Why, because it is expected that our township council will settle out of court; basically cave in under the slightest pressure. This will leave us a shell of an ordinance where it’s only value was that council was able to make an initial show of toughness against drilling. Voting in the amendment to our Home Rule Charter removes that possibility. We as citizens will have the right to intervene in any legal challenge and call in support from CELDF.

Cathy, the charter amendment violates 1) state law, 2) the state home rule charter provision that says towns must permit drilling, 3) the Municipal Planning Code which that says towns must permit drilling, and 4) the US Constitution. These violations are clear cut. ALL similar measures by CELDF have lost in court.

The town won't use CELDF to defend this ridiculous amendment. CELDF's bad advice to you folks at PTMSA, and your blind acceptance of it, is what caused this problem in the first place. Besides, CELDF's attorney Tom Linzey has lost EVERY similar measure in court. That's the guy you think the town will use? I don't think so.

The lawyers at my ROlling Hills meeting confirmed the following: Linzey lost all similar measures in court; the proposed amendment is illegal and will be lost as well; drillers will definitely file site plans for all their leases; when the amendment is overturned, they will ask the judge for site specific relief for those plans; the judge will award some or all of the site specific relief requests.

Wherever SSR is awarded, drilliners can do whatever they want on those sites, as long as they follow the state O&G Act. Our ordinance's strict provisions WILL NOT APPLY to those sites, because it was not in effect when the amendment was in effect and the plans were filed.

Oh Roddy...first of all, it's imminent, not eminant. And yes, the ordinance itself is problematic and likely just as illegal as your silly charter amendment. Second, as a resident, you have the right to call in whatever nutty group you like to try to bolster your case. But so do the drillers, the township, the other 99.9 percent of residents, business owners, etc. So don't start whining when they do so and defeat your notion of a socialist utopia. The bottom line is this--if you want to live in a ubble where nothing ever changes and the view from your living room is never altered, go to Montant, buy 10000 acres and put your house smack in the middle. Otherwise, stop wasting your time.

I can almost guarantee you that Peters Township has already spent as much money in a controversial campaign against our citizen’s initiative as it cost Blaine Township to defend their community rights ordinance (not a Home Rule Charter). We looked into individual mailings to residents. It’s not cheap. Of course, how much money that gas companies committed to this effort is unknown, but that only points to the obvious collusion between them.

Susan, you need to be clear which bill you’re talking about. SB 1100 only removes a municipality’s ability to receive impact fee money. If our amendment is voted in, we wouldn’t expect to receive impact money anyway. There would be no impact.

Faith - My apologies for my part in continuing the same conversation from other postings on this website. You did a beautiful job in explaining sections of the amendment that may be difficult to grasp by some readers.

Rod, I am talking about House Bill 1950 unveiled this week. This bill removes ALL local ordinances..............and ALL LOCAL ENACTMENTS which regulate local drilling. If it passes, EVERYTHING WILL BE VOIDED: our ordinance, the amendment if passed, EVERYTHING locally related to drilling. That is the point of this legislation.

I learned of it in February when my attorney Leslie Peters and I traveled to Harrisburg to meet the with director of a State Municipal Association to discuss local drilling regulations. I emailed the entire PTMSA group about it then.

The proposed amendment will not prevail in court if challenged because it directly violates state and federal law, and the MPC and State Home Rule Charter. It and our ordinance will be nullified if HB 1950 passes in the Senate (their own SB version of course), and if Corbett approves it.

HB 1100 is the impact fee legislation, married to a statewide model ordinance. It has been tabled for awhile, in light of the zoning preemption legislation in HB 1950. Here is a link to the details http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/11/01/house-measure-preempts-local-drilling-regulations/

HB 1950 is far more draconian than HB 1100. But there is been much support the last 1 1/2 years for some type of statewide preemption of all enactments which control drilling locally.

Judy, it is my belief that our township council always knew that they would be sued by the gas companies. I suspect a gentleman’s agreement between the drilling companies and council members that this would happen. Chesapeake and Range representatives dutifully presented letters for reading at the public hearing, indicating that subsequent legal challenges may be forthcoming. This served the council purpose of appeasing those opposed to drilling in Peters as a measure to show just how tough the ordinance is. A legal challenge will come from this, but it will be settled behind closed doors with take backs from the ordinance. That’s what I believe is the plan, anyway.

Along comes this amendment proposition and throws a wrench in the plans. No backroom negotiations now. This alarms both the gas companies and council, and is the motivation for their combined efforts against the amendment.

Rod, The amendment doesn't throw a wrench into anything but the budget. Nobody believes that the ban has any chance of sticking. It's for show. A CELDF guy said that it is to draw attention to the Oil and Gas Act. What does that do for PT? Nothing except cost us more money.

If we have a gentleman's agreement, we stand alone. Both South Fayette and Cecil appear to be heading to court. Some of our council speak openly about their stance against drilling.

Again let me state we need to pay more close attention to our local State Representatives, Range and Chessepeake certainly are?

EC, you are right. We need to hound our state representatives and state senators about drilling matters, and ESPECIALLY about HB 1950. This legislation removes all local zoning ordinances, enactments, bills of rights, etc...which relate to gas drilling. It will take ALL control away from towns, even WHERE drills can be located.

Peters representatives are Rep. John Maher and Sen. John Pippy. Let them know you don't want towns to lose the little control they have over drilling matters. Harrisburg should not be dictating to every town in PA as to how best to locate drilling.

Zoning (i.e. locating where uses can go) has traditionally been the authority of each individual town. Now the industry has convinced many legislators that the measures passed in towns is too disparate and often violates the O&G Act. Throw into that mix the attempts to BAN drilling, which outright violate the O&G Act (among other violations). All drilling ban attempts have been overturned in PA when legally challenged. But the challenges cost the industry time and money, and they are clearly fed up. So the industry has convinced even more legislators that Harrisburg needs to control all drilling matters.

This will definitely be a fight - towns do not want to give up what little authority they have - but this preemption business has been in the works for quite awhile. Ban attempts have played right into the industry's hands on this one.

To clarify:

the PA preemption legislation unveiled this week is HB 1950. It will remove ALL measures in towns which control drilling, whatever they are: ordinances, amendments, community bills of rights, etc... It has to be approved in the Senate, and then Corbett must approve.

The impact fee legislation is HB 1100, Joe Scarnati's bill. This is the bill that ties a statewide model ordinance to towns receiving money from the impact fees. The model ordinance is very bland and offers almost no protection to towns. If towns don't use the model ordinance, they don't get any impact fee money.

HB 1100 has been set aside for awhile, because of the more drastic and draconian HB 1950 which many legislators support!

HB 1100 uses the carrot and stick approach to towns regarding impact fees.
HB 1950 uses a sledgehammer on ALL town enactments which control drilling.

HB 1950, Subchapter F, Miscellaneous Provisions:
Section 3272. Local ordinances.
(a) General rule. Except as provided under subsection (b)(flood plain management), this chapter and any other environmental law are of Statewide concern and occupy the entire field of regulation regarding oil and gas operations, to the exclusion of all local rules, regulations, codes, agreements, resolutions, ordinances and other local enactments. No local rule, regulation, code, agreement, resolution, ordinance or other local enactment of any municipality may regulate oil and gas operations. All local rules, regulations, codes, agreements, resolutions, ordinances and other local enactments that regulate oil and gas operations are hereby superseded and preempted.

Our ordinance will go bye bye. If the amendment is enacted by voters at the ballot, it too will go bye bye.

Faith, I very much enjoyed your response to Bill's editorial. To add on previous comments:
Here is Bill 1950: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/11/02/house-bill-1950/#document/p123/a36901

Here is the map of those PT lots for drilling: http://www.peterstownship.com/vertical/Sites/%7B3BE5B086-2A15-4083-A63D-16B3DD03C8DD%7D/uploads/Mineral_Extraction_Overlay_District_40AC(1).pdf.
Permits can be issued in highlighted areas, when the No Voters win; however, these may not be the only sites, as two companies are fighting those acreage limits.

Examining both sides of this, here is my conclusion:
YES voters are NOT for increased taxes and NOT against industry.
They ARE against the chemical used in fracking and the environments/health/social risks of drilling . They ARE against back door dealings. They say YES to adopting a new home rule charter which protects the environment and prohibits drilling in residential communities. CELDF is the backer. IF lawsuits follow, a judge is the only one that can decide. Anyone telling you how a judge will rule, is guessing.

The NO voters are:
NOT for the charter and NOT for changing any laws regarding drilling.
They DO see the benefits of drilling in PT
They DO negate any unethical lobbying between council and gas industry
They DO say a YES vote will increase taxes
They DO claim "higher property values with lower taxes" (note: usually they correspond with one another - both go up or both go down).

IIeen, you have tried to categorize the Yes and No voters into groups but it does not work. NO to the amendment folks also KNOW the amendment will be overturned. Many judges in PA and throughout the US have ruled on the issues in the amendment (O&G Act violations, corporate rights removal). Each judge has overturned any ordinances, amendments, bills of rights, etc....which contained the "corporate rights subordination/removal" language in the proposed amendment. Many of those cases involved CELDF measures. CELDF also drafted the proposed amendment. Many other cases involved different circumstances, but the decisions have all been the same: corporations have constitutional rights and they can't be negated or violated; towns are extensions of the state, and state law extends to them. Town laws can't violate state laws.

Not just in gas drilling matters, but in everything. This is how our form of government works. If you want the state law changed, you have to work directly on that state law; you can't change it by passing an illegal local law.

IIeen, you say Yes voters don't like back door dealings, implying No voters do.

First, there is no evidence of back door dealings in connection with Council, the ordinance, & the gas industry. People such as Rod can insinuate and allege all day long. Saying there must be collusion if 2 things with the same purpose happen at the same time is NOT FACT; it is speculation. It is irresponsible and unethical to insinuate "collusion" "gentlemen's agreement" "combined efforts" with no supporting facts. Anyone who believes unsupported insinuation had better hope they are never the target of the same.

Second, No voters dislike back door dealings. But voting NO on the charter amendment has nothing to do with back door dealings. It has to do with preventing a train crash, which will cost PT $ & unregulated drilling.

PT can avoid the crash by voting NO on the amendment. It does not protect PT & won't prevent drilling from coming here. It will just cost PT big legal fees before it gets here, & when it arrives it will cost PT by unregulated drilling.

Voting Yes makes no sense. There is no factual support to show it might win in court. There is no factual support to show it won't cost PT money. There is no factual support to show drillers NEVER ask for site specific relief in these situations.

The only facts I've found show the amendment will be overturned, will cost PT $$, & will result in unregulated drilling.

Peters Township Channel 7 website now has the film made of Wednesday night's meeting about the amendment. It is titled CHARTER AMENDMENT - FACT OR FICTION? You can access it at http://www.ptct7.com/

I hope the information in the film settles some of the issues being debated. Leslie Peters has been a real estate lawyer in PA for 16 years. Matt Carl has been a lawyer for 30 years and served as town solicitor for many years. They are both attorneys at Blumling & Gusky in downtown Pittsburgh.

Judy ,You seem to know alot about the Gas industry, can you enlighten me on the new improved technologies .

I don't believe in telling anyone how to vote, but do like to understand reasons behind the votes. My view and opinion above summarizes individual reasons I've heard/seen for voting yes or no. They are not meant as All YES' feel this way and ALL No's feel that way. You are correct, no one would support backdoor deals, unless they were privately participating. If I could edit, I would (patch needs one, or I need to know where to find it)

Judy I understand this is not a one size fits all. It was a compilation of different people's reasons on each side. For example, I too have beliefs that lie on both sides. I am not for bankrupting our community, or making anyone pay for a cause they don’t believe in. I am not against drilling either – just the chemicals used and their process. IF the industry comes up with a new and safer method, I could quit worrying so much (would still have concerns about property values and social effects but can live with that). Fracking is not family friendly. We need to our State to require the industry use a safer alternative before they come rushing in to our residential communities. The Gas Companies get their gas, the lease holders get their money, and we get to enjoy our township without the threat of toxic chemical explosion/spills. Don't you wish it were true?

I am not sure what any of these comments have to do with the letter but I just had to state my reasons for deciding to vote YES. As soon as I became aware of the drilling, I started to attend seminars and meetings. Drilling is bad for environment and our communities so what do we do? I was undecided until I attended the meeting at Rolling Hills. First I was surprised at the low turnout only about 14 people not counting the PTMSA people, myself and our council people. I was also surprised to see one of our council man asleep. I came to find out exactly in which case was there a financial reward given to a gas company. None and it is unlikely according to Leslie Peters co-counsel. So the only possible costs is the defense of the referendum. I believe that PTMSA has started to fundraise for those costs already. Actually, i attended their spaghetti dinner in order to get a feel for both sides of this issue. They are a group of self-funded Peters residents dedicated to saving our community. In part my decision to vote YES was cemented because of their openness as opposed to the negative and it seems to me mean spirited behavior of our council and their outrageous claims of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Based on Suzanne's meeting that seems highly unlikely. As to who would defend our community, I checked out the 3 attorneys in terms of awards, recognition by their peers etc. In order of accomplishments Loebels, Lindzey and Peters. I feel confident Peters will be in good hands

Ironically Lindzey and Peters seem to have attended the same law school. I am now also assured that the claims of bankrupt etc are bogus. My friend sent me an email she received in which a certain council person was claiming that PTMSA group are socialists. I really find this behavior to be totally unacceptable and suspicious. Then I received a flyer from a gas lobby group. Why are they so concerned about our vote? So based on what I have been able to find out about drilling I will be voting YES as will most of my family and friends. I just am very suspicious of people who make wild claims and name call. I wonder what motivates such behavior??

Jess, I don't know about any emails claiming PTMSA is a socialist group, but I can tell you this:

PTMSA has been throwing mud at our councilmembers and municipal staff for months. Rod Fletcher, Mr. PTMSA, regularly insinuates council is in collusion with the gas industry. He alleges they have undisclosed ties to the industry. He alleges they've engaged in closed door dealings.

Rod/PTMSA alleges our town manager and staff engaged in illegal conduct with the vote NO mailing and PT website info. He asserts they should be fired. He likens those opposed to the amendment to "good Germans" following the law during the Nazi regime. He has called almost everyone opposed to the amendment liars.

Rod and PTMSA have done all this mud slinging publicly - not in an email intended for a smaller audience. He is PTMSA's leadership, along with a few others, and their behavior and tactics are reprehensible.

Instead of presenting specific case law which supports the amendment, and showing examples of other similar measures which have won in court, Rod/PTMSA chooses to attack their opponents.

Our Council and municipal staff have acted professionally and responsibly throughout this situation.

PTMSA has been foolish, angry, accusatory, and defensive throughout this matter, particularly in the last few weeks as the heat increases.

PTMSA's tactics alone should cause serious concern to those considering a Yes vote on the amendment.

“PTMSA has been throwing mud at our councilmembers and municipal staff for months. Rod Fletcher, Mr. PTMSA, regularly insinuates council is in collusion with the gas industry. He alleges they have undisclosed ties to the industry. He alleges they've engaged in closed door dealings. “

Everyone in Peters Township has received a glossy professional full page campaign add from Consumer Energy Alliance, an Astroturf-roots organization. See: http://www.thedeets.com/2008/09/15/consumer-energy-alliance-fake-grassroots-organization/ Do you want the smoking gun of collusion? There you have it. Exactly the same words and same hype used by our town council against their citizens. They have also conducted phone “surveys” in the township that are really just lightly-veiled propaganda producing the same messages as the mailers.

At the same time, if you want evidence of the true effectiveness of our amendment, look to how much the gas industry is spending to make sure it doesn’t happen. Why would they work so hard against us if they could simply sue the township and make millions while bankrupting Peters Township? Vote “YES” for this amendment, simply because the gas companies don’t want you to. We couldn’t have a better endorsement!

“Rod/PTMSA alleges our town manager and staff engaged in illegal conduct with the vote NO mailing and PT website info. He asserts they should be fired.”

The language of our Home Rule Charter is clear: Section 8.02. Prohibitions:
A. No employee of the township shall take any active part in political campaigns or in political management, including the solicitation of political contributions, except with respect to the candidacy of himself or of a member of his immediate family.

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group. Michael Silvestri also used Township money to campaign against our proposal. By the written law, Michael Silvestri should be fired.

“He likens those opposed to the amendment to "good Germans" following the law during the Nazi regime.”

I make no apologies for this statement. The more I work and research what’s going on with this industry and their manipulation of the politics in our state, our country and even our township, the more concerned I’ve become that corporatism has arrived in force. The “good Germans” analogy expresses my fear that we will continue to play by the rules (laws) set down by the gas industry and the politicians they own. As a firm believer in American capitalism, I’m afraid of the eventual backlash that could send our country into economic chaos. We are seeing the seeds in the various “occupy” movements.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini.

Let’s not let it get to this point. Take on the gas companies and their enabling puppets in the state legislature right now by voting “Yes” to the amendment.

“Instead of presenting specific case law which supports the amendment, and showing examples of other similar measures which have won in court, Rod/PTMSA chooses to attack their opponents.”

There is no case law regarding the possible outcome of a Community Rights Amendment to a Home Rule Charter. There is no history. We will be making history if this is amendment is voted in. We attack our opponents, like you, for presenting worst case scenarios predicting dire financial consequence that have never occurred. You promised to provide these specific circumstances after Ms. Peters’ presentation, where are they? You continue to predict large cash settlements and site-specific relief for challengers to our amendment, but have no case law to back you up.

“Our Council and municipal staff have acted professionally and responsibly throughout this situation.”

They make the same predictions that you and your lawyer have made that are not based on case history for any CELDF drafted Community Rights Ordinance. They are using the weight of their offices and township resources to attack a citizen group’s initiative, rather than leaving this as a matter to be settled between the residents of Peters Township.

“Rod and PTMSA have done all this mud slinging publicly - not in an email intended for a smaller audience. He is PTMSA's leadership, along with a few others, and their behavior and tactics are reprehensible.
PTMSA has been foolish, angry, accusatory, and defensive throughout this matter, particularly in the last few weeks as the heat increases.
PTMSA's tactics alone should cause serious concern to those considering a Yes vote on the amendment.”

I know the truth can be really painful for you to hear, it probably feels like we are screaming at you here in these pages, but that’s all it is… just the truth.

I disagree with you pegging me as the leader, or one of the leaders of PTMSA. We all lead each other. We’re completely democratic and all decisions have been reached by group votes. Everyone in the group is a strong independent thinker. I do know that we all agree that the Amendment to the Home Rule Charter is our best shot at stopping an industry that is completely incompatible with residential living in Peters Township. Vote Yes!

Go ahead Rod, if you think Mike Silvestri violated the law and should be fired, then get your attorney to formally request that. Get your attorney, whoever you are listening to these days, and have him/her file a complaint wherever it should go.

You've made one heck of an allegation Rod. Follow through. Walk the walk. You owe it to PT to do something about this egregious, possibly criminal behavior you say our township staff has committed.

Regarding Council "leaving this as a matter to be settled between the residents of PT", they certainly are doing that. They also have a right to their opinion. They have a right to make their opinion public. They are PT residents also.

Council was also elected to manage PT in a lawful, fiscally sound manner. They strongly believe supporting this amendment will cause fiscal harm to PT. They believe it will lead to unregulated drilling in PT. They are UNIFIED in this belief, and they are informing PT.

If they supported the amendment, and wanted people to vote yes, and sent mailings urging people to vote yes, would you be so upset? Would you claim Silvestri should be fired?

I doubt it. You and PTMSA are annoyed that Council does not approve of the amendment.

There may be no specific case law regarding a Community Rights Amendment to a PA Home Rule Charter. But there is PLENTY of case law regarding any town measure which purports to subordinate/remove corporate rights, and ban drilling. And that case law shows those measures lost. They did not prevail in court. They were illegal in trying to ban drilling and subordinate corporate rights. ALL of CELDF's measures which tried to do that lost.

There is nothing about the proposed Community Rights Amendment to our Home Rule Charter to indicate the court outcome will be different. It violates the law, just like all the other losing CELDF measures did, and it will be overturned just like all the other losing CELDF measures did.

During our brief meeting with Leslie Peters back in January, you said you and PTMSA were not interested in getting anymore of the same advice you'd already received - namely that banning drilling in PA is illegal. Well, you've obviously stuck to that principle. You & PTMSA have refused to listen to any legal advice. Why? Because you don't want to hear that banning drilling in PA is illegal.

That is not responsible to all of PT. The measure you propose will not prevail and you've basically conceded to that - that it won't stop drilling. Now you & PTMSA just quibble about the possible harm it will cause.

I'd have more respect for you and PTMSA if you simply said to the public:

"Look, we know this proposed amendment will crash and burn. All legal indications are that it will be overturned. It will probably cost PT some money. It will probbly cost PT unregulated drilling if drillers ask for it. But vote Yes anyway. Make a statement. Sometimes making the statement is worth all the bad consequences."

If you folks said that, at least it would be intellectually honest. But you AREN'T saying that. You continue to delude yourselves and try to delude the public into thinking the amendment will prevail; won't cost more than a few thousand dollars to litigate, and won't result in unregulated drilling. That is intentionally ignoring the facts.

Do yourselves a favor and ask the public to come crash and burn WITH the amendment. At least you'd be completely honest about what you are asking them to do by voting Yes.

Hehehehehe...backroom deals, collusion with the council, shady organizations with their glossy mailers...sssshhhh....nobody tell Rod but it's all a conspiracy. Hey--someone call Josh Fox!! Maybe he can make another schlockumentary!...Nice to see Rod os back to the nazi references. That'll surely win some votes for the CELDF folks. (Rod, I'm not sure if you know this but the Nazis were actually yhe bad guys during the war...) I would strongly urge anyone living in PT to visit the July 18 council meeting video. Watch the whole thing and then tell me these activists are the people you want representing Peter's. Nuff said.

Suzanne - You wrote that after the seminar with Ms. Peters that you would provide details of the cash and site-specific relief awards to the gas companies or any challengers to CELDF Community Rights ordinances. That’s all you have to do to provide any substance behind the fear that you, council or anyone else are trying to press on our residents concerning our proposed amendment. Still waiting…

"Wasn't your group at Suzanne's meeting? Why were you there?"
"Why do they put so much effort into hiding and secrecy?"
You are suggesting that we had our last secret meeting at Suzanne's seminar?
Hiding in plain sight?

Bigrig and Anthony - you are right. Enough has been debated here. Voters should view Council's July 18, 2011 Gas drilling public hearing on http://blip.tv/ptct/peters-township-council-mineral-extraction-gas-drilling-public-hearing-july-18-2011-part-2-5403204

They should also view the Nov. 2, 2011 meeting where attorneys Leslie Peters and Matt Carl discuss the Charter Amendment - Fact or Fiction? ptct7.com

A YES vote to the amendment nullifies our ordinance, will be overturned in court, and doesn't protect PT from drilling applications while it is effective.

A NO to the proposed amendment keeps our ordinance in place. If our ordinance is later challenged in court, it remains in place during court proceedings, offering PT protection.

All of PT Council and many voters in PT are opposed to the proposed amendment, and will vote NO on election day.

I trust the majority of PT voters will evaluate the facts and make the best long term choice for PT - NO to the amendment.

I did not correctly post the Channel 7 link - here it is -

ptct7.com

The film "Charter Amendment - Fact or Fiction?" is available to watch on your computer screen anytime, or during specific listed hours on TV.

Good balanced article in the Post-Gazette this morning on the issues and Suzanne’s seminar. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11310/1187866-58.stm

In that article, Councilman David Ball indicated that there were 700 signed leases in Peters Township. According to the Peters Township Chamber of Commerce there are 7,619 households here in Peters. So, for the dubious benefit of less than 10% of the people of Peters the rest of us will need to put up with heightened health risks, safety problems, huge traffic increases and the plain overall nuisance this industry brings along with it. Keep in mind that we know there are numerous folks that have leases here and are now against any drilling. I’d be one of those, because I did almost sign a lease over a year ago.

Vote "Yes" for the amendment. This will also let our state legislature know that acceptance of drilling as a way of life in this state is not universal.

Dear Faith,
While I appreciate your assertion that my initial letter seemed a little vague, it was because I was trying to get my hands around what this all meant. I understand that the second half of this document was against drilling in the township and, as has been done in many, many comments has been demonstrated is totally illegal and against more documents that I have time to reiterate again.
While I think your view is one that could be discussed at length, using that view to explain this document is, I believe, painting with a very wide brush and was certainly not in place when this was conceived. My question may have seemed far reaching to some but I wrote that on a day when the PETA organization filed an action in a court in San Diego charging that Sea World “Enslaved” whales and were in violation of the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Taking this action to its logical conclusion, if some crazy CA judge finds to have merit, every fish tank in the country can reasonably be held to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the “masters”/ owners can be held liable for damages. (Continued)

(Continued)
No one, as far as I have seen (did not read those comments today) has explained those areas that raised question about what “inalienable rights” for the ecosystem actually mean. I see that you are using an electronic device to submit your letter and I am assuming that you own and drive a car. How do those activities align with your philosophical stand with Leopold’s sense of “land ethic” (I am sure he probably owned a car also) on man’s connection to the ecosystem? Or is your destruction of the universe Ok, but it is mine that has to be curtailed?
The wording of this referendum will require that those activities will have to be stopped since both pollute the air and ecosystem in which we live. While I do not question our requirement to care for the land and air that we depend on for life. I do question those that want to take away the rights of others for their personal viewpoint without understanding the consequences of their actions (and especially those that have yet to be able to explain what this document means).
Bill Merrell

http://www.peterstownship.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={DBB651D0-4028-441C-ABC8-F62B7EA14667}&DE={2518D414-62A5-4690-8C38-F05077605E9F}