Politics & Government

Letter to the Editor: PTMSA Speaks Out

'Who decides? Outsider corporations or the citizens of Peters Township?'

You’ve got to ask yourself:

If someone tells me I shouldn’t vote for a Community Bill of Rights and a ban on fracking, what do they gain by my voting against my own best interests? Why are they trying to scare me from voting to protect my rights? And why did some try to stop me from even seeing the ballot question, and when that failed, why did they try to confuse the intent of the ballot question?

What strange times we live in.

Find out what's happening in Peterswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

All these things happened right here in Peters Township, and now it seems that government, politics and industry continue to interfere with the right of the people to decide our community’s fate.

Who would ever have thought we would see the day when our own town council would become meddlers against democracy? It’s hard to believe a group of citizens can go through all the proper channels and procedures to get an issue on our township ballot, only to have their local representatives attempt to deny township citizens their right to decide for themselves.

Find out what's happening in Peterswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

When the council’s request for an injunction went to court, Mr. Johnson, the township’s solicitor, was taken to school by Pitt law professor Jules Lobel. The case and the argument made by Mr. Johnson were weak and unpersuasive. The judge ruled against Mr. Johnson’s threshold issue, on whether or not the court has jurisdiction to pre-judge a charter amendment before the people have a chance to vote. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Preamble to our 1973 Peters Township Home Rule Charter states:

“The system of government set forth in this charter is designed to be both representative of and responsive to its citizens.”

(Councilman Arcuri, our councilman, attempted to interrupt me)

Was council’s attempt to block voters from seeing a legally petitioned charter amendment proposal being “representative of, and responsive to, its citizens?”

We think not.

That Preamble further states:

“It is our express purpose to establish an open government with the necessary flexibility to provide for orderly development of this community and protect the physical environment that we share.”

Isn’t this ballot referendum specifically about “protecting the physical environment that we share?”

We believe it is.

In the Oct/Nov 2011 issue of “In Peters Township,” our township manager outlines his flawed interpretation of this proposed home rule charter amendment.

Mr. Silvestri presents the measure as a zoning issue, when it is actually a police powers issue, since it is designed to assert legitimate governing authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.

To be balanced, the township manager should have stated that this ballot initiative is a Community Bill of Rights and included a copy of the amendment in the magazine.

Check PTMSA.com where you can find the full text for your review.

Council has expressed fear of getting sued over the charter amendment when it is adopted. Ironically, council was already threatened with legal action in chamber, and in writing, by representatives from Chesapeake Energy and Range Resources over their new Mineral Extraction ordinance, which surrenders the right of township residents to prohibit activities that threaten our health, safety and welfare.

Even more ironic, council spent public monies to sue the Board of Elections in a failed attempt to keep the ballot question from the voters. Apparently, some on council are more afraid of the voters than of the frackers.

Restrictions like the “40-acre-rule” are the ones that will land the township in court.

Communities like South Fayette, Mt. Pleasant and Cecil have tried to regulate drilling, and have gotten sued. You can’t cut a deal with the devil and expect not to get burned. There is a clear legal distinction between prohibiting fracking and attempting to regulate it.

The Oil & Gas Act and the Municipalities Planning Code prohibit stricter regulation than the state’s, but there is no regulation of an activity that is prohibited for the protection of the community.

To date, none of the local communities that have passed this same Community Bill of Rights, including the City of Pittsburgh, have been sued.

Given all the above, it’s fair to ask if the Peters Township Council is representing its citizenry or is it representing some other interest? Under some pretense of fiscal conservancy, is it possible they may be enabling and promoting industry interests above those of their community? Have they forgotten the oath they took to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community?

Similar questions might be asked of those in positions of influence who have taken up the cause of defeating the Community Bill of Rights.

Carefully consider their actions and decide for yourself—who stands to gain by defeating this measure? Make it a priority to vote on Nov. 8th, and when you do, take a stand for your rights by voting YES to the Peters Township Community Bill of Rights.

Say YES to local self-government and community rights.

- Peters Township Marcellus Shale Awareness & Action 


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here