Paglia said. “If it’s passed, there are segments in it that say the entire law can’t be struck down."
This is a complete misunderstanding of the Bill.The CBR contains the severability clause which clearly ALLOWS a court to "sever" any part of Section 122, but without striking down the entire Section:
"Section 122-4 The provisions of this Section are severable. If any court of competent jurisdiction decides that any sub-section, clause, sentence, part, or provision of this section is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sub-sections, clauses, sentences, parts, or provisions of this Bill of Rights and its prohibitions. "
October 17, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
Once again, the Vindicator coughs up enough oil & gas industry pocket lint to clog a fracked well.
First off, the "study" cited by the Vindy was not conducted by the NAS, it was, in fact, sponsored by NINE oil and natgas corporations +1 questionable "Big Green" org, and carried out by University of Texas researchers - yes, the same institution that was forced to withdraw an earlier fracking study due to conflict of interest:
"In Wake of Scathing Review of Fracking Report, University of Texas Revises Conflict of Interest Policies"
"UT-Austin has released the Steering Committee roster for the study. It consists of lead author David Allen, two EDF employees, and nine oil industry representatives, including lobbyists and PR staff from ExxonMobil, Shell, Southwestern Energy and more."
"One of the report's co-authors currently works as a consultant for the oil and gas industry, while another formerly worked as a petroleum engineer before entering academia."
(...it appears UT is back to its old ways.)
Not only that, but the study's findings do not differ that much from the findings of critics, and even concludes that toxic emissions from fracking are equal to or HIGHER in some instances than USEPA's conclusions:
"The study also found that leaks in other parts of the process — pneumatic pumps, controllers and other equipment — was either equal to or higher than the EPA previously estimated. Ultimately, this meant that total emissions came pretty close to the EPA's estimates."
"The report concludes .42% of fracked gas - based on samples taken from 190 production sites - is emitted into the air at the well pad. This is a full 2%-4% lower than well pad emissions estimated by Cornell University professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea in their ground-breaking April 2011 study now simply known as the 'Cornell Study.'"
Let's hope the Vindy editorial board can take some lessons on investigative journalism from some of its fine reporters before it pens another deceptive editorial...
September 25, 2013 at 9:16 p.m.
Doth Mr. Franko Protest too Much?
The reason why the Vindicators' coverage of the shale industry is being questioned isn't because the paper manages to publish an occasional espose' of the industry. There isn't a legitimately objective media outlet in existence that can ignore the negative impacts of this industry, since these impacts are growing by the day in shale communities around the country.
No, the reason the Vindy's coverage is being questioned is because of the stance the editorial board has taken - a clear and unambiguous and highly biased attack on the efforts of local citizens to restore local control over this industry, which, in many people's minds, is a de facto endorsement of the oil and gas industry. For every Vindicator article "critical" of the industry, there are 2 touting its economic "benefits." This may be "balance" to Mr. Franko, but when you wear the blinders one must wear to defend your employer, balance takes on a whole new meaning.
Mr. Franko's guarantees that the Vindicator's coverage has been "balanced and complete" notwithstanding, the paper's coverage is now tainted by its blatant disregard for objectivity in this case. It would have been better for the paper's editorial board to simply sit this one out instead of sticking their foot into the middle of it.
Also, the paper exposes its incredible level of hypocrisy and inconsistency when it promotes the citizens right to decide the ballot issues it thinks should be voted on, while attacking the one (The Community Bill of Rights) it thinks is unworthy, all the while wondering why the public would dare consider such conspiracy theories about undue oil and gas industry influence on such a "balanced and complete" paper!
TRANSLATION - "We support the democratic process, but only if you vote for the measures we want you to vote for!"
That's why their coverage of this issue cannot be trusted...they've placed the cloud above their heads and will now have to live with the level of mistrust they've brought opon themselves...
August 5, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.
I'd say it's the the Vindy whose "hypocrisy [is] on full display."
So the citizens of the City of Youngstown should be allowed to vote on only the charter amendments the Vindy decides are worthy, not the ones the Vindy decides are unworthy of the voters input, like the charter amendment to ban drilling within city limits?
I'd call that hypocrisy "on full display."
July 31, 2013 at 1:44 p.m.
"Multiple wells at one pad not only reduce surface disruption, but they also maximize the return of oil and gas."
The reporter forgot to add ~ drilling and fracking multiple wells at one pad increase the risk of water contamination, seismicity leading to well failures, and increase the level of air pollution via flaring, diesel, various other VOC's, and methane emissions, while permanently destroying billions of gallons of freshwater.
Without these additions, the article remains an unbalanced piece of industry propaganda.
July 10, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
"Leftist liberals hate private property rights."
I'm voting FOR the Community Bill of Rights to protect my property value.
Everywhere drilling increases, property values are suppressed. This is a fact. Ohio-based Nationwide Insurance Co WILL NOT offer home policies adjacent to drilling installations. Many banks are refusing mortgages as well. And it makes total sense - why would they chance it knowing the risks involved?
So this notion that those in favor of the Bill are somehow against property rights is completely false.
Also, the writer forgot to include J, #11 of the Bill i.e., "Severability." This means the Bill is a "living" document that can be amended by We the People, or even a Court, if any section is deemed unconstitutional.
PLUS, a New York Appeals Court just ruled that NY law permits local communities to ban drilling. Their state law is not that different than Ohio's.
May 4, 2013 at 9:13 p.m.
"Though drilling is unlikely to occur in Youngs-town’s urban core..."
Except that the evidence doesn't support this.In areas of the country where drilling has increased, the siting of drilling installations has taken place adjacent to residential communities, schools, churches, etc.
Ohio law preempts any local control, meaning the State can permit drilling anywhere they choose to. That not only threatens our health and safety, but it will negatively impact our already depressed property values in the City. Everywhere drilling increases, property values drop.
We wouldn't dare allow a dynamite factory to be built next to our homes, schools, or churches, but that's exactly what a drilling company can do with drilling installations - thanks to an Ohio State Legislature heavily influenced by the oil & gas lobby.
The Community Bill of Rights RESTORES local control so that We the People can once again have the power to zone this industry so that we can ensure a safe and healthier city in which to raise a family or to retire to with peace of mind.
That's why I'm voting "YES" on May 7, FOR the Community Bill of Rights!
May 4, 2013 at 8:59 p.m.
...except that the "fracking jobs" meme is nothing more than industry disinformation.Employment gains in drilling and non-drilling areas of Ohio were almost identically flat:
"...employment growth due to shale development in the counties was not evident, the report noted. Employment rose 1.4 percent year-over-year in counties with heavy or moderate shale production, compared to 1.3 percent in other counties without shale development."
May 1, 2013 at 9:41 p.m.
The writer is also not being forthright regarding the issue of fracking-induced seismicity.
3 recent studies - 1 Canadian, 1 American, 1 British - have concluded that hydraulic fracturing does, in fact, cause earthquakes.
So not only waste injection wells like the D&L Northstar #1 which caused the Youngstown earthquakes, but the actual oil & gas _fracking_ wells cause earthquakes too!
"The report, Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Horn River Basin, shows that the seismicity observed in the study area was induced by fault movement resulting from the injection of fluids during hydraulic fracturing."
"A REPORT PUBLISHED BY DECC that includes a BGS co-author concludes that the earthquakes near Blackpool in April and May 2011 were induced by hydraulic fracture treatments..."
"The injection of fluid to facilitate oil and gas production...has the potential to generate induced seismic activity."
May 1, 2013 at 8:35 p.m.
Aside from not being a Youngstown resident, the writer is what's known as a "landman," or someone who would personally profit from the defeat of the Youngstown Community Bill of Rights.
Also, sadly, we only have to look at today's headlines to see that his claims ring hollow, especially concerning the inherent problems associated with the safety and dependability of this industry. This tragic story reveals the fact that contamination issues related to drilling will be with us for a very, very long time, as this appears to be an old, vertical well storage tank that is leaking, onto pristine, rural farmland. Is this the future we want for the Meander Reservoir and the City of Youngstown? This is why I'm voting YES on May 7th!:
"Oil well spills in Bristolville, hazmat crews on scene"
"BRISTOLVILLE, Ohio - A oil well spilled Wednesday afternoon in Bristoville on Mahan Denman Road."
"Hazmat crews are on scene and they believe an open valve was the cause of the spill."
"Crews are unsure how much crude oil spilled at this time. However, the oil spilled 3/4 of a mile downstream."
"Natural dams kept it from spreading too far and the Environmental Protection Agency put in booms to help clean it up."
May 1, 2013 at 8:08 p.m.