New York town sued for banning 'frack' talk at meetings
ALBANY, N.Y. — Two environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday against an upstate New York town, claiming it violated residents' right to free speech by banning discussion of natural gas drilling at town board meetings.
The town board in Sanford, about 100 miles southwest of Albany in Broome County, passed a resolution in September saying there already had been hours of public comment for and against gas drilling and that no further discussion would be allowed during board meetings, although residents could still submit comments in writing.
"If people are silenced by their own elected representatives, how can they trust them to act in their best interests?" said Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Kate Sinding as her group announced the U.S. District Court lawsuit. NRDC and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy filed the lawsuit on behalf of town residents who are members of their groups.
Herbert Kline, a Binghamton attorney who represents Sanford, said Tuesday that the resolution was supported by an opinion from the state Committee on Open Government. He said he hadn't seen the lawsuit yet.
"People who were against fracking had, in the minds of the town board, monopolized discussion in the public participation portion of prior meetings to the extent that very little other business could be accomplished," Kline said in explaining what led to the resolution.
Natural gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a major political issue in the state, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo expected to decide soon whether to lift a 4.5-year-old moratorium on it. Residents for and against development have packed town board meetings for months, with opponents succeeding in persuading boards in dozens of towns to enact bans or moratoriums.
Supporters of drilling, including landowners who hope to sign lucrative leases with gas companies, have persuaded many other towns to pass resolutions supporting the state Department of Environmental Conservation in whatever decision it makes on regulating drilling.
The Sanford town board has passed several resolutions in favor of gas drilling. Town Supervisor Dewey Decker also sent a letter to Cuomo in September urging him to move forward as soon as possible with shale gas development.
The town is in the southern part of the state near the Pennsylvania border, where the gas-rich rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale is most likely to see the first drilling activity if the ban is lifted.
"They shut down public speaking," said Susan Bishop, a Sanford resident who said there had been a lot of confrontation at meetings over the issue. "I feel it is an absolute violation of our rights. It can't be allowed to stand."
Mike Musante, a fracking opponent, said people on both sides of the issue walked out of the meeting when the resolution was passed, "because there was no point in being there."
Before gas drilling became an issue, only a handful of people would attend board meetings, Musante said. But recently there have been about 40 people on each side of the issue speaking out.
"It's extremely divisive," he said. "There are some well-placed families, including our town supervisor, who have signed leases with signing bonuses in the millions of dollars. And there are smaller landowners who are opposed."
The lawsuit is seeking to have the speaking ban lifted and to recover legal fees related to the court action.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Predators winger Neal caught ‘blindsided’ by trade from Penguins
- Doctor couldn’t figure out what made Klein so sick
- Rossi: Middling Steelers must make a statement
- Arrest made in connection with Rostraver home invasion
- Murder charge held against Laurel Mountain man
- Counterfeit credit card ring falls for failure to remember birth date on fake ID
- Monsour hospital properties sold at free-and-clear sale
- Steelers’ Adams delivers in pinch against Texans
- TLC cancels its ‘Honey Boo Boo’ series
- Steelers free safety Mitchell is still settling into role on defense
- Nationwide drug ring was centered in Homewood, prosecutor says