Few clouds
Few clouds
37.4 °F
December 28, 2014
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search

Petition says: ‘You Don’t Speak for Me’

August 14, 2012

Following a town board resolution in the Town of Delaware that supports the right of residents to lease their land for gas drilling, Delaware Concerned Citizens has sent a petition to approximately 1,300 taxpayers titled “You Don’t Speak for Me!”

The Delaware petition reads, “As a taxpayer in the Town of Delaware, I wish to reply to the town board’s resolution of June 20, 2012 inviting the gas industry to come to our town.

“1. You passed a resolution invoking ‘property rights’ which doesn’t include everyone’s property rights. People who want to lease and people who don’t want to lease have property rights that deserve to be respected and protected by local government.

“2. You do not make hydro-fracking “safe and responsible” by passing a resolution saying you want it to be.

“3. The resolution was hastily decided without notice to residents and an opportunity to be heard. “The resolution does not represent my views.”


1300 'taxpayers' signed this letter, yet only just over 800 vote. If they want someone to represent their view they should try voting for a candidate who does!

Inability to comprehend the written word?

The short notice by TRR reads: "Delaware Concerned Citizens has sent a petition to approximately 1,300 taxpayers titled “You Don’t Speak for Me!”". The operative word there is "sent", yet the reading-comprehension-challenged "Mr. Wythe", has changed "sent" to "signed".

I'm sure that Delaware Concerned Citizens would love it if every single taxpayer (however that is defined), who receives this petition, agrees to sign it, but somehow, I suspect they do not expect that to happen.

As to voting, I'm sure, since "Mr. Wythe" does not reside in Delaware Township, he is not eligible to vote. Indeed, is he eligible, anywhere, to vote under the name, "George Wythe"?

Which brings up a reference to the revolutionary era demand, "No taxation without representation"!

In Damascus Township, PA, as an example, 43%, minimum, of taxpaying landowners, who are not primary residents, are not permitted to vote for those who may represent Damascus Township.

That is a primary reason, why this abomination called "shale gas extraction", remains a very difficult industrial development to defeat.

Still, the smug, gas-hole supporters, would do well to tread, very carefully.

After all, they are a minority, they are a minority, they are a minority.

A first for everything!

How does it feel to be right for a change Barfy? This is a first for you, I'm sure. Admittedly, I skimmed through the article and took it to be saying 1300 residents were against drilling. What a ridiculous thought, almost as ridiculous as the letter itself, a bit of the foolishness must have rubbed off. I should have known better!

Here in the USA, a person must vote in the municipality in which they primarily reside. The majority of votes decides the election, it's really quite simple, even a fool should be able to understand it. To use your example, in Damascus Twp., the 43% must accept the will of the 57% who can vote there. That doesn't mean they aren't represented. They still enjoy all the public services the town provides, whatever they may be.
Of course they can create petitions and send letters, exercise their first amendment rights in any legal way they so choose. The elected official however, must support the views of the majority if they wish to remain in office. Again, pretty basic stuff Barfy.

I realize yours is an OZ-like reality, but no matter how many times you click your heels and repeat it, shale gas supporters are not a minority, we are the growing majority!
It won't get you to Kansas either, so get used to it.

A "Growing majority", or a cancer within the community?

The lessor, falsely named, "Wythe" guy, would like us to believe that his kind, in our area, is in the majority, and that the anti shale gas extraction people's beliefs are not based in reality, but rather, represent The Wizard of Kansas. I repeat, rather, it is he, like the lackey in the G.W. Bush Administration, who believes that "empires" (think oil & gas companies, and the lessors who support them) have the right to create their own, personal, reality, and that we all should just accept it.

As to his "majority", and our "minority", this is a link, and story, I posted 3 weeks ago, in response to his witless, words.
Perhaps, he should read it this time. He still may not be capable of comprehending the meaning, however.

I offer him my condolences.

I would also add, that when one combines the following findings in PA, with the compulsory integration that NYS forces upon it's citizen landowners, where if 60% of a given square mile unit wishes to drill, the other 40% would be compelled to participate, the PA findings numbers, that show a great injustice, would grow astronomically.

I'm sure this makes all the other, anonymous posters like Mr. Wythe, very happy.

So much for property rights in NYS.

Study Examines Ownership, Control of Land with Marcellus Shale Gas


July 18, 2012


















Barfy's gone off to see the wizard again!

We are not talking about land ownership here, the topic is VOTING residents. Try to get with the program will ya Barfy? The amout of acreage one owns has nothing to do with votes, any resident can vote even if they just rent. Primary residence, that's what determines who can vote.
Since you have brought up the subject of compulsory integration, let's just examine how terrible it really is. What it actually does is protect the non-participating landowner to insure they are paid for minerals extracted by nearby wells. It does not 'force' anyone to have a well drilled on their property or even allow any surface access to their land. It incurrs no liability associated with well development either, just collect your royalty check.
Ever heard the phrase “rule of capture”? As long as the Rule of Capture is the law of the land concerning oil and gas in New York State, Compulsory Integration, in one form or another, will continue to be necessary to protect the correlative rights of the landowners and to prevent the waste of a valuable and irreplaceable natural resource.