ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Judges should protect health, environment |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Judges should protect health, environment

| Friday, January 11, 2019 10:00 a.m

The protection of health and the environment that is guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution is being eroded. Every judge in Pennsylvania should live next to an active gas operation with the truck traffic, emissions, leaks, spills, risks to health and environment, and blight on the landscape before attesting to the residential or agricultural nature of the activity.

While other states and entire countries have banned fracking due to environmental and health risks, and although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decisively ruled that gas operations are an industrial activity, too many lower court Pennsylvania judges support industry’s claim to be a compatible use in residential or agricultural areas — the same zones where any other commercial or industrial activity, e.g., an auto parts store or a restaurant, are not legally permitted. Selective zoning for one industry?

The ramifications of some lower court rulings are appalling. These judges are destroying zoning. If the gas industry can power its way into residential and agricultural areas, zoning no longer protects those of us who selectively purchased our homes in clean, lovely, residentially zoned areas. Our property values are diminished, our health is at risk, our air is polluted.

There are hundreds of studies on increased cancer, respiratory and hematological risks, and the deleterious effects on babies and young children, including lowered Apgar and IQ scores, developmental effects, low birth weights, and higher mortality rates.

The purpose of zoning is to protect public health and welfare, not provide economic gain for a particular industry.

What is clouding the vision of Pennsylvania’s lower court judges?

Jan Milburn

Ligonier Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.