32 °F
October 27, 2016
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search

Delaware residents argue against home rule

Several members of the audience explained that the legislation was not against gas drilling but aimed to give the town the right to control where drilling is done. Their attempts to explain their position were dismissed by many who viewed the law as a veiled attempt to stop drilling altogether.

Council member John Gain moved that the question should be tabled until more information could be obtained about the legislation. The rest of the board agreed.

The definition of Irony...

... is that MR. Van Swoel and friends fight against home rule when it comes to the ability of local government to regulate on a local level, while simultaneously arguing that property owners should have free reign to do as they please within their own fiefdom.

Not Wondering

Maybe we could reach a compromise here. If there were some language within the bill that stated landowners affected by drilling bans must be compensated by the town issueing the ban in the form of compensation for lost revenues or at least reduced taxes on land which is reduced in value as a consequence of such a ban, this bill would be more palatable. If you wish to impose a form of eminent domain, you must provide for just compensation. I would say I was just wondering, but that would be a lie.


IT makes no sense at all to argue for total control by a State agency over local activities that deeply involve people's lives and health unless it is also taken into consideration that the right of people to clean water, clean air, and clean fertile soil is also the mandate of that agency--------because the conclusion then is that if the proposed activity negatively affects the water, air, soil NO ONE has that right to cause harm.

If the DEP would do its mission to "protect the environment," they would already have ordered and begun a complete Environmental Impact Study before the issuance of any drilling permits, and they have not done or begun such a study.
Therefore the DEP is failing to do its mandate as an agency.

IF the DEP is NOT doing its primal mission to protect the environment (which includes the citizenry), and it isn't, then the necessary power of protection immediately transfers to the people affected, and those citizens have EVERY right to say "no" to an activity of questionable risk.

Profit for some is not in the equation----------health has primacy. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness implicitly implies health, and health implicitly implies a clean environment.

This is a no brainer.

Blind Ambition

Harold Roeder's comment is a good example of why he should not represent the people of the town of Delaware in any official capacity.

He is quoted thusly: "Those who want drilling should have the right to have it. A lot people here are against drilling.”

So, those residents of the Town of Delaware who want drilling should be given what they want, but the "lot (of) people" who are against drilling should not?

He should be removed from his official duties.