I have a hard time imagining that this actually came from a group posing as rationalists opposed to emotional conversation. It reminds me of complaints that NIMBYs will use any argument available to stop a project, only it's coming from a group without much regard for anyone's backyard.
Let's see - the risks of nine figure litigation - hundreds of millions of dollars! (They like big numbers.) The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. "A 100% confiscatory tax on wealth." Preemption, an issue our Republican State Senator seems interested in changing and that the draft SGEIS wobbles around. Carefully chosen cases that haven't resolved this issue. The dangers of nullification. "Knowingly attempting to override and destroy constitutional, federal, and state rights." Discrimination. Clouded land titles. The Town's responsibility for doing anything that it might have known was illegal, and heck, my favorite, personal liability of board members.
None of that sounds remotely emotional, right? Concluding the list with a warning that this will destroy Town Board members' personal lives is just dull rationality, right? Friendly advice? Then throw in a reference to the Kyoto Protocols for spice.
I understand that the gas companies and their allies are perfectly willing to use intimidation when they think it will work for them. It happens all the time. I'm not sure why Henry Kramer thinks it's a good idea.Posted by simon at August 1, 2011 8:37 PM in energy