Flower Mound Town Council Members Al Filidoro and Tom Hayden have called for a 6 month moratorium on all new drilling applications. In addition to the moratorium, they want to see major changes to FM's Oil and Gas Ordinance to further protect the residents and the environment.
Yesterday there was a spill of 80 barrels of flow back water that contained fracking fluid and other toxic chemicals. In the Dallas Morning News article, it said that this is the first spill reported to town officials related to gas drilling operations.
A good question is how many haven't been reported? It is no secret that residents are watching Williams and other gas drilling companies' operations more closely than before. They are reporting odors and any activity that appears to be out of the norm.
Council Members Filidoro and Hayden want to see better standards put in place.
They want to review the process for granting variances for drilling and the recent zoning amendment for centralized wastewater collection facilities in agricultural areas
They also want requirements for recycling wastewater at pad sites and to continually monitor air quality throughout the town and at pad sites.
The proposal also would include adoption of new standards for spills, penalties for air and water quality violations and installing vapor recovery systems.
With the prospect of 100's of wells in the future, now is the time to demand better drilling practices in the Town of Flower Mound. Filidoro and Hayden are currently the minority on the town council. The other council members, Dixon, Levenick, and Wallace, have not shown the desire to for better protections or a moratorium. This is evident by their voting records in the past on drilling related issues. It will be interesting to see if anything will be accomplished before the May 8th elections.
Our Mission: To work in a legal, ethical, and civil manner to stop urban gas drilling in the highly residential areas of North Texas. We are not against all gas drilling, but rather that which will adversely affect the public safety, the enjoyment of our homes, and our overall quality of life. We support the need for better regulation and accountability of the Oil & Gas Industry in rural and urban areas of Texas.
I won't hold my breath for the other council members to support a moratorium.
ReplyDeleteMay 8th can't get here soon enough.
ReplyDeleteIf such a moratorium ever comes to pass it will not end well for the citizens of Flower Mound. Legal settlements to the drilling companies and the mineral rights owners, legal fees to the lawyers, all resulting in much higher property taxes, and ultimately, the gas wells will be drilled anyway.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again, sounds like someone from the town is on this blog. Legal threats. Have you ever wondered it the residents might sue the members of council for endangerment? Or maybe the mineral owners that along with Williams are trying to shove a CCF down our throats may be sued. Lawsuits work both ways.
ReplyDeleteThere was never a mention that this was about stopping drilling. This is about demanding better drilling practices. In order to do that. There needs to be a slow down so the ordinance can be re-worked. Of course William's doesn't want that. Because a moratorium would stop all new permitting from the onset of the moratorium. Anything permitted after the ordinance change and the moratorium is lifted would be subject to stronger regulations here in Flower Mound.
ReplyDeleteSo any lawsuits by the Williams or mineral owners would simply be a form of intimidation. Which frankly I am sick of the threats. I believe it was Mark Davis who said at the Jan 21st meeting. "Bring it on".
I'm not making legal threats; just predicting what will happen. The law is on the side of the gas companies and the mineral rights owners, so they will win in the end. The only question is how long it will take (how long the Town of FM will keep appealing judgements against them) and how much it will cost all of us. You will get to see a relatively inexpensive and quick example of this when Williams wins the case over the pipeline under Shiloh Road.
ReplyDeleteSo your answer is to let Williams and any other drilling company come in and destroy our way of life in Flower Mound without a fight? My God how weak are you? These companies have all of this power because we allow them to have it. If your not up for the fight then be so be it but shut up and get out of the way while the rest of us fight.
ReplyDeleteI don't view my position as "weak", I view it as informed and realistic. And frankly, drilling in FM is not going to "destroy our way of life". There was a much more negative impact on longer-term residents' way of life when Wellington was created (traffic, polution, kids uprooted from schools, etc.), which is why I find it so ironic that a lot of the anti-drilling voices come from Wellington. Finally, I would be happy to "get out of the way" of your train wreck but the actions of Filidoro, Hayden and their followers, if advanced to the point of a moratorium (which would certainly not end after six months), are going to cost property owners in FM a lot of tax money and accomplish nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe first gas lawsuit (Deemed "Red Oak 1) costs 30k to defend (and gasp, we won), the Town of Flower Mound spent 500k (since the gas ordinance was created) on median beautification (actual Town documents to prove this have already been posted on this blog, please try to keep up). I don't hear you worrying about the extreme costs of something as important as median beautification as a horrific burden on the taxpayers of this town. Why is that, when we have spent 16x as much on flowers and trees? Towns get sued all of the time by a variety of people for all kinds of reasons (good and bad), there is another lawsuit pending about unequal and no low income housing in Flower Mound, why are you not getting the word out about that, no, it's all about the horrific costs to defend the Town against a few big bullies who think they can do whatever they want. The "law" is not supposed to be on anyones's side, it is supposed to protect the rights of ALL, not just the ones with 100 acres and mineral rights. The argument of the Town can afford it is ridiculous, and many people will happily pay the cost to have the town defend it's interest. By the way, the "law" in this Town is what Council says the law is, sure, they can challege it in court, but the pen, in this case can move faster than the sword of the, not so swift justice system.
ReplyDeleteI respect your opinions about the impact of Wellington. However, your argument about the people in Wellington implies that the people who bought their homes in Wellington have no right to voice their objections to changes in their community.
ReplyDeleteI suspect your one of the "old" families in Flower Mound who believe that because you were here first you know what is best for all of us. Sorry, democracy doesn't work like that.
Did it ever occur to you that there are those of us who would gladly see our tax dollars go to fight to protect our right to a safe and healthy living environment either in court or at the state and federal legislative levels?
We are here, we are staying and if you don't like that you should not have allowed the subdivisions of Wellington, Bridlewood, Lake Forest, Glenwick, Chimney Rock etc to ever have been built.
You have a say just like the rest of us do. Just don't hide behind the argument that this is going to happen and we're all helpless to di anything about it.
Let's use one from the drill no matter what crowd playbook, if you don't like all of the people moving in who have a vote in the town election and want to use their tax dollars to fight this, then move. Many of the "old" town people, sold their land and made millions, that is great, more power to you, but when you did that, you opened the door to people, with votes, who may not agree with you. If you wanted your county club to retain power you should have never sold in the first place, you can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteIt was not in my power to prevent Wellington from being built. The land owners had the right to sell to the developer, the developer had the right to build all the houses and the families had the right to buy the houses. Same is true for the mineral rights owners and the drilling companies. They have the right to monetize their resources, which they will do, either through the extraction of natural gas or through the courts. In fact, the Town should be taking a more proactive approach to leasing the Town's rights, as advocated by former mayor Rick Lust at a Council meeting last fall. I understand that LISD has entered into a lease; hopefully the royalties will help reduce the school taxes for us. Or will some of you stand on principle and pay extra taxes because you object to drilling in our hood? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenters 3, 4, 5 and 10.
ReplyDeleteCommenter 3 is correct. This moratorium is a fool's errand, and an expensive one at that. Here's why:
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/search/rbcdetails.asp?DocId=902
This case involves the Town of Flower Mound losing a takings claim. At the Texas Supreme Court. Flower Mound lost in both lower courts. Wonder how much that cost us?
Rather embarrasing that a case Williams will undoubtedly cite to strike down this moratorium (itself a regulatory taking) also involves our Town. The lawyers will be amused, of course. And well-paid.
Commenters 4 and 5 would "bring it on." That's exactly what the trial lawyers (for both sides) are hoping. Flower Mound will be summarily defeated, but 'our' lawyers will be handsomely rewarded regardless. At our expense.
Hey #4, how about fronting some your own $$$ for this ridiculous lawsuit you seem so eager for? You and #10 appear quite willing to make the taxpayers of our Town pay for your own intransigence. Is that how democracy works #10?
Just cut the flower budget in half and you will still have plenty of flowers and it will be fine!
ReplyDelete"Regulatory Taking, Regulatory Taking, Regulatory Taking" This was the same crap spewed by a Cheasapeake Exec who neither lives nor does business in Flower Mound during the moratorium meeting. If a regulatory taking is such a sure thing, then why did Red Oak not file that lawsuit first? Hmmmmmmm????? Wouldn't you file the "sure thing" lawsuit first and not the one that they lost? I'll tell you why, because it's not a sure thing and they (you) know it. Once again, if none of you are worried about it, why are you on this blog, oh yeah, because you ARE worried about it. State Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, said the industry’s “lack of communication” and public relations in the Barnett Shale have caused consternation among North Texas residents and the elected officials who represent them. Rep. Keffer is Chairman of the House Energy Resources Committee and a FREAKIN' republican, as I am. He is quoted as saying “We are at crossroads... in how the oil and gas industry is going to be looked at and worked with, and if the oil and gas industry can coexist with populated areas...I’ve got to say, the jury is still out.” It's not Nancy Pelosi saying this, it's a Republican on the House Energy Resources Committee. You can cry "Regulatory Taking" all you want, when property values go down, or the first explosion happens (like the "rare" event that happened this week), no one is going to give a flying you know what about a "regulartory taking", they are going to care about who approved it and supported it and it will be a witch hunt, and you will be on the wrong side of the hunt. So get your money and MOVE, because you don't want to be here when it all goes down.
ReplyDelete"So get your money and MOVE, because you don't want to be here when it all goes down." Oh no - it sounds like the bloody French Revolution all over again! The unwashed rabble of Wellington (unwashed presumably because they refuse to use gas to heat their water) rise up in revolt, pitchforks in hand, accompanied by the odiferous bourgeoisie of Bridlewood (odiferous because they righteously use their own dung to heat their homes) exiting their McMansions en masse to march west on FM 1171 and confront the land baron aristocracy of Shiloh Road and the corrupt gas company monarchy, shouting "Vive la Revolution!" and "Off with their heads!" Well, unlike another blogger, I say we double the Town flower budget to try to keep them molified and off the streets.
ReplyDeleteNice Thesaurus. Your argument has come full-circle to the hypocrite, if I use gas, I should get my cancer and shut up about it.
ReplyDeleteIt's both lame and old. I do like the pitchfork idea, however, instead we will use the ballot box with a calm demeanor. Don't like the French much, but this is revolution.
That's right, paint the residents of Wellington and Bridlewood with your broad brush. (you know, they must all be communist, socialist, enviro-wacko's). I haven't seen someone make so many enemies, let's see, since our Mayor did a few months back.
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 15.
ReplyDeleteA link to this Red Oak decision would be appreciated. Paragraph breaks as well.
In any event, you fail to understand what a "regulatory taking" is. A regulatory taking is governmental regulation of private property to such an extent that it effectively deprives the owner of economically beneficial use. There are many cases on the subject, but you'll find the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council instructive. Here is a link to that decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=1003
This Red Oak decision apparently (again, please provide a link) involves the Town's denial of a variance to the 2003 drilling ordinance. This is not a regulatory taking, because Red Oak took title subject to a valid, preexisting ordinance that imposed legitimate zoning restrictions. Note that the 2003 ordinance did not ban drilling, merely imposed spacing requirements that Red Oak sought a variance from. Note also that Red Oak knowingly acquired an interest subject to the ordinance.
This present situation (the moratorium) is plainly distinct from the situation in the Red Oak case. This is not a variance from an existing ordinance. Rather, moratorium is a total prohibition on drilling for at least 6 months. It will be a prohibition that did not exist at the time Williams acquired its interest. This is a total deprivation of Williams' property interest. Williams' leases, like all leases, are limited in term. They expire if drilling does not commence within the lease term. The town council knows this and is trying to apply pressure in an effort to get a kickback for itself. Make no mistake, the Council has no problem with drilling. Hayden and Filidoro just want to pad their pockets a bit first.
These unscrupulous council members are trying to get a shakedown from Williams. This is what they were trying to do last fall when they demanded a few million upfront from Williams for potential road damage (from seismic surveys, a notion which is laughably stupid). Williams offered to post a bond to cover any actual damage, and these disreputable council members refused. This is called extortion.
Please review the embarrassing Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates decision I linked to in Comment 13. In fact, here's a link to the full text:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=/sc/020369&invol=1
This is a similar situation in which Flower Mound sought to use its police power to extract a benefit to which it was not entitled (improvements on Simmons Road) from a developer. The Texas Supreme Court saw this for what it was -- municipal extortion, or a "compensable taking." Guess who does the compensating when the TX Supreme Court steps in? I'll give you a hint, it won't be Filidoro or Hayden.
Please review the law. And consider what our unsavory council is trying to do to us. They have no problem with drilling and would allow it today if Williams would pay them off. Similarly, Filidoro and Hayden have no problem with losing a lawsuit, because they won't be paying the lawyers or Williams. We will.
It's called "satire". That's a real problem with zealotry - besides losing perspective, you often also lose a sense of humor. And if you think I painted people with a broad brush, note the post above yours - that enlightened resident harbors ill will toward an entire nation - c'est terrible!
ReplyDeleteWant your drill permit faster, just ask Mr. Tasker.
ReplyDeleteHere's your link - http://justice1.dentoncounty.com/PublicAccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=531723
ReplyDelete..and I'll play the game...so using your refined logic and argument of "economically beneficial use" I should be able to use my home as a hotel, after all that would be economically beneficial use to me and how dare you deny me MY right to use MY property to the fullest extent of it's economic potential. Then, you will argue that I cannot, and will cite some ordinance in the code of ordinances that doesn't allow me to do so because it is a) illegal by law and is so because b) it does not conform to the development standards of area, hmmm, what does that sound like, putting a gas well in the middle of the neighborhood? So tell me poindexter, how is that any different?
(Note to Moderator: Apologies if this a double post. I had an internet glitch in posting.)
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 15/22.
Your link is invalid. Please provide a working link so that the readers may review this Red Oak decision. Otherwise, provide the full name and procedural disposition of the case, so that we may seek it ourselves.
I also must insist that you review the cases I provided before responding further. Your post evidences a total lack of understanding of the law and I will not waste time responding to further legal inquiries until you are able to make them on an informed basis. Note that the other readers have not demonstrated a similar unwillingness to review the law.
At the very least, read the totality my post at Comment 19. Doing so will reveal why your objections in Comment 22 are without merit.
Even so, I'll try to spell it out for you one last time. To address your specific hypotheticals, you cannot operate a hotel out of a residential home because doing so is barred by a municipal ordinance. You purchased a residential home subject to a municipal ordinance and hence had no reasonable investment-backed expectations of operating a hotel. Furthermore, you are not deprived of all economic value of the home, because it exists as just that, a home.
Similarly, nobody is talking about putting a gas well in the middle of the neighborhood. If Filidoro and Hayden suggested this as necessitating the moratorium, they have completely fooled you. Drilling in the middle of neighborhood would run afoul of the 2003 oil & gas ordinance, as Red Oak apparently discovered (again, please provide a functional link to that decision). The ordinance does not prohibit drilling. Rather, it imposes spacing restrictions (for instance, absent a variance, a well may not be placed within 1,000 feet of a school) and manner restrictions (ambient noise, time of operation, permit requirements). Williams has not run afoul of any of these restrictions. Here is a link to the 2003 ordinance:
http://www.flower-mound.com/env_resources/pix/pdf/Oil_Natural_Gas_Ordinance.pdf
This moratorium is being proposed precisely because Williams is not doing anything in violation of the existing municipal ordinance. If Williams had violated the ordinance, there would be no need for a moratorium at all. Indeed, Williams wouldn't be threatening a lawsuit because the situation would be the same as that presented in Red Oak.
But the situation is not the same as Red Oak. Williams has not violated any zoning restrictions. Hence the proposed moratorium. Williams' reasonable investment-backed expectations are illegally thwarted by the moratorium, which did not exist at the time Williams acquired its leasehold interests.
Additionally, unlike your wayward homeowner, Williams is deprived of all economically valuable use of its property interest. Williams' leases are rendered absolutely worthless by the moratorium because Williams' property interest is temporally limited. In other words, a moratorium will cause the leases to expire.
Hayden and Filidoro understand this. They are trying to extract a kickback from Williams to drop the moratorium. They know the moratorium is illegal and they know that defending it will cost the TAXPAYERS tens of thousands.
This post is addressed to all readers.
ReplyDeleteThe final point in my previous post (addressed to Commenter 15/22) is crucial. If, like 15/22, you would rather not read the law, please understand this:
We, as citizens and taxpayers, have an agency problem. The incentives of the principal (you, me, and every other FM resident reading this) are not aligned with those of the agent (in this case, Filidoro and Hayden in their capacity as council members).
Consider that the agent here has not internalized the cost of pursuing a nuisance lawsuit. The agent knows the lawsuit will be lost and will be expensive. The agent knows if it kills Williams' leases the Town will have to provide compensation to Williams (this would be very, very expensive).
But the agent still has incentive to try to hassle Williams for a kickback. The agent knows Williams will incur costs in litigation as well and might be willing to shell out a few thousand to the agent. Once paid off, the agent will drop the illegal moratorium and Williams won't need to go to court to get it lifted.
If the agent were responsible for the costs of the litigation, the agent would not embark upon such a foolish venture. But the agent is not responsible for the costs. The principal is. That's you, me, and every other resident reading this with the exception of these disreputable council members.
So to 15/22 and anyone else who remains uncertain, I request you join us in calling on Hayden and Filidoro to personally post a bond to cover any litigation costs that this moratorium will provoke. If the moratorium is upheld in court they will be reimbursed. If Hayden and Filidoro truly believe the moratorium is legal and just, they will happily post the bond.
I bet you could find thousands of FM residents that would be happy to chip in to defend the town. See you haven't got it yet. Most of us don't care what the cost is.
ReplyDeleteThere is no price tag for health, safety and quality of life. Without the above, why live here. And if all of us start moving away, all the leased property will eventually become worthless after they have drilled the hell out of it.
"Similarly, nobody is talking about putting a gas well in the middle of the neighborhood" - really, so what do you call Bridlewood then? Looking at the maps, that's pretty much looks like smack in the middle of a neighborhood to me and most reasonable people. Your two arguements were 1) It is illegal by city ordinance - right, so will drilling for 6 months when the law is changed. 2) I had no expectation of running a hotel, true, and the landowners had no intention of drilling wells 5 years ago either, so like me, they had no expectation of this being a revenue stream for them. There are certain risks associated with doing business anywhere. Williams knew this wasn't a sure thing, the land wasn't already zoned to allow this type of development. They went forward with the confidence that it would be changed. Sucks to be Williams. As has been stated, it is not this town's job to ensure Williams operating margins, or bottom lines, ROI, or capitalization rates or that they won't make bad decisions. Buying land in Flower Mound was a bad decision, you don't get to sue us because you are bad at business. This town is going to choose, gas drilling landscape or have a town. I and many others would like to have a town left over when this is all said and done, if we don't we will leave and then everyone left will lose, no matter what side you are on. Ask any of the realtors around here (who will give you an honest opinion) it is already happening. Land that has already been striped of minerals is not selling, because it is a poison-pill in any potential future sale. Oh, but the O&G lawyers will get rich, at least that much we can count on.
ReplyDeleteClearly you have a financial stake in this, so thank goodness, all of the rest of us are expendable so your financial gain in this can be realized. Most of us go to a job, own a business, and work to create something, not at the expense of someone else. You should try it sometime, it's much more rewarding. Look, at the end of day, if the voters REALLY want this, then it should happen, I can't imagine the next generation, our kids looking at this and going, wow, they made a good choice, look at all of the this undevelopable, untaxable, barron land, what forsight they had. For you, it's about maximizing your monetary gain today. The Republicans I hang around do so without detriment to their fellow man, but then, clearly you and I hang around in difference circles, thank goodness.
Love the idea of Hayden and Filidoro putting up a bond...PERFECT!!! I wonder if that could really happen?? To all who think something will actually be drilled here in Bridlewood...you have fallen for the scare tactics.
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 25.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations. You have (unintentionally) provided an alternative solution to the dilemma captured by your statement "most of us don't care what the cost is."
Here's what you do:
1) Gather the "most of us" or the "thousands" of lemmings you refer to -- call it the Lemming Group for sake of simplicity -- that don't care what the cost of a failed lawsuit is.
2) Post a bond yourselves (won't Hayden and Filidoro be relieved!) in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the litigation and damages that will be owed to Williams.
3) Make a contract with the Town stipulating that when the moratorium is challenged (as it will be) and overturned (as it will be) the Town may appropriate from the bond all litigation costs, including damages to Williams.
4) Include a provision that if you win (you won't, so the Town will no doubt agree), the entire amount of the bond will be remitted to the Lemming Group.
This is the ideal solution. This way, the rest of us won't have to pay for your ignorance. And even if you did win (again, I refer you to my prior posts as evidence of why you will not), then the Town eats the costs of the suit.
In other words, if you're right about the lawsuit, you win! The Town pays. But if you're wrong, you must pay for your ignorance, not your neighbors.
So what say you #25? Time to put up or shut up. Are you willing to stake your own money on a failed lawsuit? Or would you rather burn through the hard-earned dollars of your neighbors?
This post is addressed to Commenter 15/22/26.
ReplyDeleteTrue to my word, I will not provide you further explanation of the legal situation. After two direct attempts to explain, including links to the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court, I have come to accept that you are unwilling to, or incapable of, grasping the situation.
Should you choose to do so, you will find your concerns addressed in my previous comments. This isn't terribly difficult to comprehend. If you don't trust me, then perhaps you'll find the U.S. Supreme Court persuasive? How about the Texas Supreme Court? This is why I provide links, so that you may better inform yourself. I suggest you make use of them.
I address here your allegation that I "clearly have a financial stake in this." YES! My financial stake is the same as yours. If we, as a community, do something illegal, then we, as a community, will pay the price. The price is litigation costs and reimbursement of Williams. You're asking us to burn what could amount to an astronomical sum of money in a suit that will fail. Imagine how that'll affect our schools?
As an aside, you may self-identify as a Republican, but you would burn through other people's money like the most shameless D.C. Democrat. This moronic willingness to throw public money away ("most of us don't care what the cost is") is why this country has a 13 trillion dollar national debt.
What I don't want to do is subsidize a private companies operations in the town. So, they "will sue us into oblivion" is not a scare tactic, please. This is mantra of Wallace and Levenick, we cannot afford another lawsuit. Really? So, this trial is going to go before a judge or jury and they are going to bankrupt the town, that is your bold prediction, for gas. Screw the cops, and the firemen, and an operating, solvent, municipality of 70k+, we are going to sacrifice it ALL for a non-renewable fuel that will be gone in the not so distant future? I doubt the judge that bankrupts Flower Mound would get re-elected, if not run out of the state, Republican or not. Piss off 70k+ people with one judgement, I'll take that bet, even if it is the Texas Supreme court. See how many companies move their HQ to Texas after something like that goes down, I think it *might* make the news. Williams is playing for keeps, and we are playing for no less. If you want to bend over, go ahead. Screw peoples LEGITIMATE concerns, whether real or perceived? Forget that ad-valorem tax values are already starting to fall because people are sick of it and ARE LEAVING NOW. Want to pay more taxes, create a mass exodus, that will do WONDERS for the tax base. Forget the cancer cluster, clearly nothing to see here, move along, just put on your blinders, we don't want to cost the town some money. You are going to lose one way or the other, either the council will support the views of the people who are concerned or they will not. If they don't, no one will want to live here and then the precious taxpayers you claim to want to protect will be left holding the pipeline, gas well, compressor stations, ccf-ridden bag, but then again, YOU aren't planning on being here for that part of it, are you? C'mon, we know you aren't planning on being here, that's really pissing in your FruitLoops isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, can we have Filidoro and Hayden put a bond up? I have no idea what number I am in this long line of comments, so I am giving myself a name...you may call me friend.
ReplyDeleteI like the bond idea, let's have the Mayor, Dixon, Levenick, and Wallace put up a bond for the ad-valorem tax value of let's say 1%. Even a small percentage of people leaving because they are sick of this could cause such a drop (probably more, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I mean there are only 4,500+ please who have signed the petition) Oh, and lest we not forget the future taxable value of all of the 3-5 acre pad sites whose value will approach zero over the 20-30 year life of the well. What about that lost income to the city, the county, and LISD? Should we hold your precious friends financially accountable for all of that lost revenue? What get's taxed at a higher rate, a gas well which depreciates 50% in the first year, or a commercial property rented for 30 years. I mean, if we are going to hold Filidoro and Al accountable for all legal fees, then the sword cuts the other way for loss of taxable value to all of the taxing jurisdictions.
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to all readers.
ReplyDeletePlease read Comment 30. Read every incoherent, rambling, grammatical-abortion of a sentence. Read every non sequitur, every angry emotional outburst, every wild, unsubstantiated claim. Note that the author accuses those of us worried about the very real costs of litigation of "scare tactics." Note that he/she later rails about "cancer clusters." Commenter 30, you have provided an excellent conclusion to my work for me.
Now, reasonable readers, ask yourselves: if this unfortunate individual cannot reasonably engage a neighbor, what are the lawyers going to do him? I haven't even discussed the engineers and scientists. Ignorance and emotion are no substitute for logic and experience.
Do you want this person spending tens of thousands of your money for a lawsuit that he/she should know will fail? How about the millions of dollars to pay damages to Williams if its leases expire because of Hayden and Filidoro? Millions of dollars that would otherwise go to our fire and police departnments, libraries, your childrens' education?
I say we cast this modern-day Ahab adrift before he drags our Town into the darkest depths of insolvency with him.
Let Filidoro and Hayden know how you feel. Let them know that they will not drag us into the jaws of the beast with them. Let them pursue their white whale together.
Dispensing with my contentions via a superior, gramatically correct Cliff Notes version of Moby Dick, an eloquent argument does not make. Our founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, saw fit to weave within the framework of our great republic, the notion a person with
ReplyDeletea superior intellect, as your own, would possess the same power as a lessor individual. I speak of myself, of course. In as much as we would both be bestowed, one and only one vote, equal in all regards. ----- There is a tail of two lands, one prim, proper, educated, refined.....anal you might say. Another, rag tag, poorly dressed, intellectually inferior troupe. They hadn't accomplished much, they were poor, many thought they wouldn't accomplish much or ever really amount to anything. They were trivialized and marginalized. Eventually this unsightly, meanacing, band of brothers decided to toss aside the chains that had bound them. They were called "traitors". They were berated and belittled, until enough was enough and they formed a great nation. They didn't have many scientists and engineers, mostly farmers. They were militarily, economically, intellectually, and organizationally outmatched in every regard, but they won, because they had passion about their cause. (Williams = Britain, annoying isn't it?) Myself, I will disengage from this trivial excercise, basking in the notion, that under God, and this great nation, we are ALL created equal, and my vote will nullify yours, and the decision will be made by people more reasonable and less entrenched than the two of us, and for that, they will all be thankful.
This post is addressed to “friend” (Commenter 31).
ReplyDeleteAll you, me, and anyone else can do is request that Hayden and Filidoro put their money where their mouths are. Make them know you disapprove of their frivolous spending and make them know you, as a citizen and a voter, will hold them accountable. If Hayden and Filidoro truly believe this moratorium is legal, they will happily put up the legal defense fees, knowing the Town will reimburse them if they are correct. Put the question to them and see if they are as willing to risk their own money as they are to risk our money.
Of course, this must be qualified. Even if they were so inclined, I doubt Hayden and Filidoro could muster sufficient funds to cover the crippling liability that could result from damages to Williams. This liability could run in the millions. The Town would still be on the hook and potentially rendered insolvent. Nonetheless, if we make Hayden and Filidoro internalize a personally significant amount of the risk, they will not be so cavalier about defending an illegal action.
This post is addressed to Commenter 32.
ReplyDeleteFinally, an interesting criticism! You make a clever point, but you miss the crucial distinction: what Hayden and Filidoro are proposing is illegal. The reason they will not post a bond is because they know a lawsuit will be lost. After this happens the Town will be in the exact same position, with Williams going ahead with drilling and possibly also receiving enormous damages awards. Drilling will continue; these enraged residents you mention will move anyway. You might as well bundle up those legal defense fees and toss them into Lake Grapevine.
Furthermore, you claim your goal is to insulate the Town against risk of lost ad valorem tax revenue. Then you surely must consider what is evident on this very thread; people are disgusted with litigious bumpkins like Hayden and Filidoro wasting taxpayer money. If “even a small percentage” of these reasonable individuals leave because they’re disgusted with this expensive and failed legal wrangling then tax revenues (not to mention the average IQ of the Town) will drop. Why not make Hayden and Filidoro post additional money to cover this eventuality?
Also by your reasoning, we should further require Hayden and Filidoro to post additional funds to cover the loss of any tax revenue the Town might receive from future gas drilling. You see, the sword does cut the other way after all.
In any event, there is a good reason why neither Hayden and Filidoro, nor their more sensible colleagues, should be held accountable for any future loss of ad valorem taxes. Think about administering such a scheme. People move all the time, for any number of reasons. Additionally, home values fluctuate based on countless factors totally unrelated to this drilling spat. You may recall some recent difficulty at the national level related to this. And even for people are moving because of this dispute, how do you know they aren’t moving because of the litigiousness and intransigence of the Hayden-Filidoro crowd?
There is no limiting principle to your suggestion and no way of equitably administering it. Causation is purely speculative. However, my idea of the bond is not so unconstrained, because it is tied to a very real result. Causation is easy; either their moratorium is legal or it is not. The costs are also easily ascertained; attorneys’ fees and damages to Williams. When the moratorium is struck, Hayden-Filidoro, or their loyal band of lemmings, will pay the cost.
LIkewise, when the well blows up, Levenick and Smith should pay for the lives lost. I'm thinking that liability will be more than some damned gas, although to you gas is probably worth more than your family. They could start by handing over their royalty checks. Council Members risk their seat, not their personal finances, if you don't like their decisions then they get voted out, go ready a governement book instead of Moby Dick.
ReplyDeleteLIkewise, when the well blows up, Levenick and Smith should pay for the lives lost. I'm thinking that liability will be more than some damned gas, although to you gas is probably worth more than your family. They could start by handing over their royalty checks. Council Members risk their seat, not their personal finances, if you don't like their decisions then they get voted out, go read a governement book instead of Moby Dick.
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 32/37.
ReplyDeleteI’m glad to see everybody gets the literary reference. It means I chose wisely, something with broad appeal. And I must admit to being amused and inspired by a previous commenter’s reference to the French Revolution. So Commenter 16, I salute you. Nothing wrong with trying to bring a little levity to this thread. My old friend Commenter 15/22/26/30/34 even made an effort, though I consider his attempt was far too flighty.
Now 37, I presume you are also 32? You showed such promise in Comment 32; I’m very disappointed in this “blowing up wells, lives lost” foolishness. First of all, modern gas wells don’t “blow up.” This is a ridiculous proposition and completely unfounded. There have been over a million gas wells drilled in this country alone. Drilling has been going on in our neck of the woods for years without incident. Wouldn’t you have heard about it on the news if people were getting “blown up”? It’s a serious question.
Secondly, even if gas wells did “blow up,” the liability is already internalized. It seems another short economics lesson is in order. Consider that if a gas well were to magically “blow up,” there would be legal recourse. Williams, as operator, is on the hook for any property damage and physical injuries. The loss is thus internalized. The injury will be redressed in full by the operator. Internalization of costs is essential to an efficient free market; actors are responsible for their actions. Williams would not operate gas wells that “blow up” because Williams could not. The liability would be crushing, not to mention the public relations disaster. Putting liability on the council for a cost that is already internalized makes absolutely no sense.
Now, contrast this to the situation of your turbulent council members, Hayden and Filidoro. They have not internalized the costs of their actions. They may pursue an illegal moratorium that will subject this Town to crippling liability. They are incentivized to do this because they will not be on the hook for the inevitable fallout. Instead, WE will pick up the tab for their folly. Inefficiency and waste are a direct and perhaps even inevitable result these perverse incentives. Consider my prior comment on the agency problem we face. If the economic argument escapes you, consider this ancient truism: it’s always easier to spend somebody else’s money than it is your own.
Very interesting blog! If I may summarize: On the one side, we have a series of very logical, rational points, supported by case law, illustrating why FM and its tax-paying citizens will lose in court if they impose the moratorium. On the other side, sadly, the most rational, well-reasoned statement I can find is: "Don't like the French much." Judge finds in favor of Williams; case closed.
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 37 and to all readers:
ReplyDeleteI realize I neglected to address your “council members risk their seat, not their personal finances" point in my last post. I was so caught up on economics that I forgot you requested a government lesson as well. So here goes:
Though it should probably go without saying, you are correct that we cannot force our Hayden and Filidoro to personally internalize some of the risks of taking an illegal action that will bind the Town. For the reasons discussed in my last comment, we should be able to do this when a council member knowingly, or with reckless negligence, takes an illegal action that will bind the Town. But we cannot directly force them to internalize the risk. And no, loss of a seat is not internalization of a tremendous financial risk.
As I have been arguing all along, however, we may condition our support of their moratorium on their willingness to internalize some of the risk. This is the beauty of the democratic process you purport to embrace. If Hayden and Filidoro want our support, they will put up legal defense fees in advance. Otherwise, we have no obligation to support this measure, or any of their other measures. If they won’t personally share in the risk, don’t vote for the moratorium.
Never forget, Hayden and Filidoro work for us, we don’t work for them. If they think differently, they’ve got a rude shock coming next election. Everyone who is undecided, condition your support of this moratorium on Hayden and Filidoro personally accepting the risk.
Simply by making the request you will see where their convictions lie. If they believe the moratorium is legal, they will post the defense fees. If they want us to cooperate, then they’d better play ball too. To answer an early commenter – that’s how democracy works.
This apparently did not process the first time, so here's another shot:
ReplyDeleteThis post is addressed to Commenter 32/37.
I’m glad to see everybody gets the literary reference. It means I chose wisely, something with broad appeal. And I must admit to being amused and inspired by a previous commenter’s reference to the French Revolution. So Commenter 16, I salute you. Nothing wrong with trying to bring a little levity to this thread. My old friend Commenter 15/22/26/30/34 even made an effort, though I consider his attempt was far too flighty.
Now 37, I presume you are also 32? You showed such promise in Comment 32; I’m very disappointed in this “blowing up wells, lives lost” foolishness. First of all, modern gas wells don’t “blow up.” This is a ridiculous proposition and completely unfounded. There have been over a million gas wells drilled in this country alone. Drilling has been going on in our neck of the woods for years without incident. Wouldn’t you have heard about it on the news if people were getting “blown up”? It’s a serious question.
Secondly, even if gas wells did “blow up,” the liability is already internalized. It seems another short economics lesson is in order. Consider that if a gas well were to magically “blow up,” there would be legal recourse. Williams, as operator, is on the hook for any property damage or physical injuries. The loss is internalized. The injury will be redressed in full by the operator. Internalization of costs is essential to an efficient free market; actors are responsible for their actions. Williams would not operate gas wells that “blow up” because Williams could not. The liability would be crushing, not to mention the public relations disaster. Putting liability on the council for a cost that is already internalized makes absolutely no sense.
Now, contrast this to the situation of your turbulent council members, Hayden and Filidoro. They have not internalized the costs of their actions. They may pursue an illegal moratorium that will subject this Town to crippling liability. They are incentivized to do this because they will not internalize the costs of their action. Instead, WE will pick up the tab for their folly. Inefficiency and waste are a direct and perhaps even inevitable result these perverse incentives. Consider my prior comment on the agency problem we face. If the economic argument escapes you, consider this ancient truism: it’s always easier to spend somebody else’s money than it is your own.
This post is addressed to Commenter 38:
ReplyDeleteNobody likes the French.
Filidoro is a lawyer - he could represent the Town (gratis of course) against the string of lawsuits should the Council impose a moratorium on drilling! That would provide come comic relief to this dreary situation and result in swift resolution of the legal matters. Seriously, could he be much worse than our current Town attorney? The same guy who wasted so much Town money on the Stafford case?
ReplyDeleteWe're going to lose these cases anyway, may as well do it as cheaply as possible.
I will never forget what Jeff Tasker said while he was on Town Council, it made me realize what a worthless lawyer he must be. He compared a gas well that is up against a home with a gas station next to a McDonald's. Is that the most mentally challenged think you have ever heard?
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to judge the merits of Mr. Tasker's alleged comment since I do not know the full context within which he made the alleged comment. But even if I accept your statement as an accurate recreation of his comment (which is a pretty brazen leap of faith on my part, given the distortions, half-truths and outright lies that flow from the anti-drilling crowd), I would have to say that several of the statements on this very blog are better candidates for your question regarding "the most mentally challenged think(g) I have ever heard (read)?". My personal favorite is "...to you gas is probably worth more than your family."
ReplyDeleteAsk him if you don't beleive me. If he denies it, I encourage you to pull the audio of the day he voted to change the ordinance.
ReplyDelete