Peters Township Residents Host Meeting to Oppose Home Rule Charter Amendment
Wednesday's meeting attracted residents from both sides of the issue.
Photos
Those walking into Rolling Hills Country Club Wednesday night to listen to speakers regarding flaws surrounding the amendment to the home rule charter being voted on Tuesday in Peters Township were greeted by the opposition with a hand out of their own.
Inside, more than 30 people—including supporters, opposition, commissioners and curious residents—attended the special informative meeting held by Peters Township resident Suzanne Kennedy and her husband Jimmy Moran.
According to Matt Carl and Leslie Peters, attorneys from Blumling and Gusky, LLP, hired by Kennedy to explain the issues with the amendment, voting for this change to go into effect will not stop drilling from happening in Peters.
“Once the referendum is passed it becomes effective and it rescinds any previously enacted inconsistent ordinances, which would include the drilling ordinance previously enacted by the township,” said Peters.
Peters claims that legal precedent shows that if this referendum passes, it will be appealed and most likely overturned. The referendum was written with the help of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, led by Tom Lindzey.
Peters stated that in every previous case that Lindzey has presented the same arguments regarding the limited rights of corporations included in this referendum, he has been denied by the court.
She also said the amendment is in direct contrast to both the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code and the Gas and Drilling Act. In addition, the way the amendment is worded it would prohibit the township from using brine to salt the roads in winter, and would prohibit gas lines to be running to homes for heating purposes or to gas stations.
“There is no gray area here. It is a violation. (Tom Lindzey) knows it is a violation, the group knows it is a violation. I’d just like to be sure the township and the residents of the township know it is a violation. I believe that the township solicitor knows what is going on,” said Peters.
Peters also stated that residents are leaving themselves open to more drilling with less regulations if the referendum passes. According to Peters, the current drilling ordinance would not be enforceable during the time that the amendment is in appeal.
During this time, she said drillers would be able to apply for site specific relief based on the assumption that ultimately the amendment will be found to be illegal.
According to Kennedy, she did not hire Peters because she wants to see drilling all over Peters. Rather she realizes the inevitability of drilling in the region and wants to be certain that if it must be allowed, it is done in the safest, most responsible way possible.
“I feel very strongly that drilling needs to be done properly. I think that ultimately all of this will be resolved federally, not at the state level. We really need to have watch dogs with all of this,” said Kennedy.
The points presented by Peters were not enough to dissuade those in attendance who support the referendum and who want Peters Township residents to make a statement against drilling by voting in favor of this amendment to the home rule charter.
“This is not a perfect process but I will never vote to allow drilling in Peters Township. I just won’t allow it,” said resident Carol Jaworski.
According to Carl, both sides have plenty of arguments they want to make for or against it, but ultimately, the best statement they can make is by heading to the polls Tuesday.
“The way you get your voice heard is by voting,” said Carl.
kathy
11:04 am on Thursday, November 3, 2011
The wording that will be on the ballot when we vote is misleading....some one needs to explain if you vote "yes" what exactly are you voting for and if you vote "no" exactly are you voting for.....the question is very misleading and I think people that vote "no" think they are voting to not change to change the home rule but the complete opposite.....???????????????????????????
Anthony Brown
11:23 am on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Go here: http://peters.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-a-detailed-look-into-the-peters-township-anti-drilling-referendum
A yes vote is For the ban amendment which will then replace the ordinance passed by council. The article walks you through the language of the ban amendment and how it possibly opens us up to a lot of potential legal actions and interpretations.
A NO vote keeps the ordinance approved by council in place which limits drilling.
Rodrick Fletcher
12:27 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Go to http://ptmsa.com/ for an opposing view and to find out why you should vote "YES" to the amendment of the Home Rule Charter.
suzanne kennedy
3:52 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Kathy, the best place for you to read the exact wording on the ballot is Peters Township municipal website. Click on the website, and then click on Home Rule CHarter AMendment. Then you will see a few items which you can click for further information.
The item "Ballot Question" has the exact wording which you'll see in the voter booth. booth. At the bottom, it explains what a YES vote will do, and what a NO vote will do.
There are also other items to click on which explain more about the amendment and its flaws.
Last night's meeting about this topic was filmed by our local Channel 7 station. It will be aired beginning sometime tonight or tomorrow, through election day. It is entitled "CHARTER AMENDMENT - FACT OR FICTION?" Watch this film, and you will learn about the illegal acts in the amendment, the strengths in our ordinance, and a step by step explanation of what can happen in PT if the amendment is passed - namely site specific relief (freedom for unregulated drilling) and hefty legal expenses.
You can get the airing schedule by visiting Channel 7's website ptct7.com
suzanne kennedy
4:33 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Last night's meeting was filmed by our local Channel 7 TV station. It is entitled CHARTER AMENDMENT - FACT OR FICTION? Watch it by accessing their website ptct7.com It will be an hour well spent.
Ms. Peters walked through the amendment step by step, pointing out the illegal acts. She discussed how ALL similar measures drafted by CELDF's Tom Linzey have been defeated in court - not one has prevailed. (Linzey drafted the proposed amendment and is PTMSA's advisor).
She discussed our ordinance and they case law which supports it.
Most importantly, she walked through site specific relief if the amendment passes. Ms. Peters has been a real estate lawyer for 16 years; Mr. Carl has been in real estate law since the early 1980's. They know what they are talking about.
Regarding financial implications if the amendment is passed: If PT has to defend the ordinance, town insurance will cover legal fees because the ordinance is "legal" on its face.
If PT has to defend the amendment if passed, town insurance will not cover legal fees because all insurance policies have clauses which relieve them of their obligations if illegal acts are involved. The amendment is illegal on its face. Legal fees can easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including any monetary damages awarded.
The choice is clear to me - I'll keep our ordinance and vote NO on the illegal proposed amendment.
suzanne kennedy
4:42 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Ms. Peters and Councilman Lewis also discussed the state "zoning preemption law" recently approved by the PA House. If it is passed, every amendment/ordinance in PA towns will be preempted. However, passing it may take time, and in the interim PT should be as protected as possible.
Our ordinance provides PT protection and regulates drilling to the extent law allows.
The amendment offers no protection as the ordinance is nullified immediately if and when the amendment passes. It will definitely be challenged and overturned. All drilling site plans filed in the interim will be awarded site specific relief, and our ordinance's protections cannot be applied to those sites.
Voting yes to the amendment simply removes all of PT's protections. The amendment will definitely be overturned, and unregulated drilling will be in PT. Let's keep our ordinance, vote NO to the amendment, and regulate drilling for as long as possible.
If you are unhappy with the idea of the state controlling local zoning and drilling, contact you state representative and state senator. For Peters, that's Rep. Maher and Senator Pippy.
Rodrick Fletcher
5:41 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
No CELDF drafted Home Rule Charter or Amendment of an existing Home Rule Charter has ever been challenged or defeated in court
No court challenged CELDF drafted Community Rights ordinance has resulted in cash awards to the plaintiff or in site-specific relief to a driller.
History doesn't back up the assertions of Kennedy or her lawyer, Bill Merrel or the township council.
Vote "Yes" to protect your families and properties from and industry that fits nowhere in our residential areas.
suzanne kennedy
6:14 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Rod, you are playing slick word games. Ms. Peters explained last night:
Tom Linzey, CELDF's attorney/founder, wrote many ordinances/amendments/ measures. ALL of those documents with with corporate rights subordination/removal language were overturned. If it had corporate rights subordination/removal language, it lost.
You say "no CELDF HR Charter/Amendment.....has been challenged or defeated." Maybe that's because no CELDF drafted HR Charter/Amendment with corporate rights language was ever ENACTED.
You say "no court challenged CELDF CR ordinance has resulted in cash awards.....or site specific....." Has ANY court challenged CELDF CR ordinance won? NO! If it had the corporate rights language, it lost.
Courts award what the plaintiff asks for. If the plaintiff just asked for a ruling on the ordinance/amendment, that's what they got. In all cases where CELDF measures with corporate rights language were challenged, they lost.
Regarding cash and site specific relief, well, there's always a first time. Maybe PT will be the first time the plaintiff asks for cash or site specific relief. And maybe it will be the first time it's awarded.
One thing is certain: the amendment will be overturned, & the legal challenge will cost $$. Insurance won't cover it due to the illegal acts. So PT will be stuck paying for it.
suzanne kennedy
6:21 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
The devil's in the details Rod. Ask Mr. Linzey if any CELDF HR Charter/Amendment with corporate rights language has ever passed! Ask him if any CELDF CR ordinance was upheld in court! The answer to both of these in NO. Mr. Linzey knows it. He just feeds you slick wording to avoid the truth.
The proposed amendment includes the same corporate rights subordination/removal language as ALL CELDF's drafted measures which lost in court. This one will also lose. It will expose PT to $$ and site specific relief.
Voting YES protects no one; voting NO keeps our ordinance in place, which protects PT as much as possible WITHIN THE LAW.
It's those last 3 words, WITHIN THE LAW, which give you and other PTMSA members so much trouble. From the first day I met you and a few other PTMSA pro ban members, you have ignored WITHIN THE LAW. You did not want to hear "no", so you blindly followed Mr. Linzey's advice. You didn't even do your homework. I doubt you knew all Linzey's corporate rights language measures lost in court. You never visted Blaine, where 3 CELDF measures were defeated, and spoke with residents there.
You and other PTMSA pro ban leaders were so zealous in pursuing CELDF's "people's rights" measure that you lost sight of the entire PT community. It's called the River of Denial.
Rodrick Fletcher
7:21 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
I never said that a CELDF drafted Home Rule Charter has been voted in, or approved by a municipal council. Home Rule Charters offer much more of an equal standing with other existing state laws than do conventional ordinances. Visit CELDF’s page on home rule here: http://www.celdf.org/section.php?id=40 You and L. Peters lumping all community rights actions together is inaccurate if not intentionally dishonest. That’s why I have to keep bringing that error to your attention. I also have to keep reminding your audience that predictions of crippling lawsuits that will bankrupt the township is purely wild speculation on the part of council, Bill Johnson and Leslie Peters. No such actions have ever taken place as a result of a community rights ordinance.
suzanne kennedy
10:24 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
Rod, you say "no CELDF Home Rule Charter has never been challenged or defeated". That's because none has ever been voted in or approved in the first place! It's a word game.
You also assert that HR Charters offer more of an "equal standing with other state laws". Not if they violate state law. Your proposed amendment is NOT on equal standing with state law. It does not matter how a local law is enacted - Council or voter approved - if it violates state law it's done.
Ms. Peters researched Linzey's litigated cases. Every one of his measures with the "corporate rights" lingo, regardless of its title or approval method, has FAILED in court. Doesn't that tell you something?
The wording in your proposed amendment is the same as all these failed measures. Your amendment will fail in court. Linzey knows that. Did he tell you? Did he tell you he had a ZERO track record with his "corporate rights" lingo so far? I doubt it. Somehow I don't think you would have pursued this ban amendment so zealously if you knew he lost all his other similar cases.
Regarding the financial impact, all legal fees will be paid by PT to defend the amendment. The insurance company won't cover it due to its illegal acts. So if 20 lawsuits are filed, 20 will have to be litigated or settled. That costs money. It may not bankrupt the town but it will definitely cost money - likely in the hundreds of thousand when all is finished. For what? The amendment won't prevail anyway.
suzanne kennedy
10:30 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
The site specific relief is the more worrisome prospect than the financial aspect. SSR will be the equivalent of unregulated drilling, and it is VERY likely drillers will request it when the amendment is challenged in court. Drillers have hundreds of leases here in PT. They are obviously interested in drilling here, and the ban amendment is clearly illegal. If the amendment is approved it could take quite awhile before it is overturned. Why wouldn't they ask for SSR? They have every legal right to ask for that, and the judge has it within his/her power to grant it.
Somehow I don't think Linzey explained the possibility of site specific relief in connection with real estate/land use cases. Maybe none of his failed cases results in it, but that does not mean it won't happen here. It is definitely a form of relief courts award when requested. He's a lawyer; he should have given you an overview of possibilities.
Either he didn't tell you about the negative potential of this amendment, or he did and you folks ignored it. Either way, approving the amendment is a big mistake and will cause PT some amount of harm. Keeping our ordinance is the better choice. Drilling is coming to PT whether we like it or not. Accept reality and work the situation wisely.
Rodrick Fletcher
7:21 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
You keep throwing up the “but it’s illegal” rant as if serious legality questions weren’t also involved with the Mineral Extraction ordinance - your ordinance. Both Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy have indicated they will challenge the ordinance, and William Johnson, our township solicitor, has already admitted that it could end up “slightly tattered.” There’s no wiggle room there. If at all tattered, I’m wondering what possible use it will be over and above the Oil & Gas act regulations. It really doesn’t make it for you to say your preferred method of protecting Peters Township citizens is LESS illegal than ours.
Rodrick Fletcher
7:22 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
It was the people of Blaine themselves that voted against the proposed Home Rule Charter, it didn’t fail in court. The community rights ordinances that were written for Blaine were requested by the township to prevent long-wall mining. Ironically, the Home Rule Charter was voted against because of the promise of Marcellus Shale extraction in Blaine Township that started two years ago. The demographics of that community are vastly different than ours in Peters Township. Very large parcels to relatively few residents, making Marcellus gas extraction a much more lucrative proposition to the average lease holder than in Peters Township. The cost of property damage and loss of property values are not nearly same there as here. At that time, there was also very little information out about the possible harms to health and environment. No wonder the community voted down the Home Rule Charter.
Rodrick Fletcher
7:53 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
I do agree with Suzanne on one of her recent postings here. SB 1100 is a bad deal.
“SB 1100 is an amendment to Title 58 (Oil and Gas) Act. It forces local governments to choose between receiving revenues such as Impact Fees and adopting protective measures, and “punishes those that choose protective measures.” In other words by coming up with zoning ordinances to protect the municipality and the citizens of that municipality from the impact of Fracking, and the chemicals used in that practice they will cut themselves off from the funding of the impact fees.” See more: http://americanbadass607.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/870/
Please write Senator Pippy and ask that he not support this bill.
Sen. John Pippy
Senate Box 203037
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3037
Room: 281 Main Capitol
Rodrick Fletcher
8:06 pm on Thursday, November 3, 2011
The threat of the enactment of SB 1100 also further loosens the ground beneath our Mineral Extraction Ordinance. If William Johnson and our township council don’t immediately buckle under the threat of a lawsuit from Chesapeake or Range Resources, they most definitely will when the impact fees are withheld for their somewhat restrictive ordinance. Take this opportunity away from them. Vote “Yes” for the Home Rule Charter Amendment. Remember – No drilling, no need for an impact allowance from the state.
Anthony Brown
12:08 pm on Monday, November 7, 2011
http://www.peterstownship.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={DBB651D0-4028-441C-ABC8-F62B7EA14667}&DE={2518D414-62A5-4690-8C38-F05077605E9F}