The Community Bill of Rights Committee has once again exercised its democratic right to petition local government and put a charter amendment on the November 2016 ballot. The voters have again indicated via their petition signatures that they want to vote in November 2016, on whether or not to ban shale gas development (fracking, injection wells and other shale gas infrastructure) within Youngstown city limits and uphold their unalienable right to local control to protect their public health, safety, well-being and the democratic process.
“We have received an overwhelmingly positive response from the community this year, and we thank them. We only lost by 2.49% in the November 2015 election,” said Lynn Anderson, a Community Bill of Rights Committee member. “We believe that voters are increasingly voting YES with us, in part, because they are seeing the truth and scientific facts about fracking and related processes. They understand that the risks are too great when injection wells and other heavy industrial operations are permitted in residential or populated areas near homes, schools, parks, cemeteries, farms, and even the protected Meander drinking water area.”Read the whole release by clicking here.
Based on what has been happening in Ohio courts when similar actions have been approved and then challenged, the ban would be illegal if passed. As Energy in Depth notes, the measure would likely be overturned and lead to a chunk of taxpayer dollars being spent defending it if approved:
So you have a fringe group of people, selectively choosing studies and portions of studies to fit their agenda, while ignoring studies paid for by fellow activist groups because the results don’t align with said agenda, and completely disregarding the will of the people they say they are standing up for. Not to mention the whole fact that Ohio’s Supreme Court declared in 2015 that local governments cannot supersede state authority by banning oil and gas development. So, even if the ban were to pass after so many failed attempts, it would likely mean an expensive court proceeding to determine if its even legal, which by the Supreme Court’s definition it would not be.According to EID's research, this charter has also cost taxpayers over $16,000 each time it has been voted on, which means that this sixth vote would push the total cost to nearly $100,000 to keep having this appear on ballots.
Anti-drillers have vowed to keep pushing for repeat votes as long as the measure keeps being defeated.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!