Back in January, Republican Tom Reed, the Ithaca area’s House Rep., proposed to Congress the Defense of Property Rights Act in response to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s state-wide fracking ban.
According to Reed’s website, the legislation “would defend private property rights by providing an option for compensation on behalf of those unfairly harmed by government action. It would also open the judicial process in a more fair and equitable way.”
Reed, who smashed Democratic challenger Martha Robertson in the November election, recently published an op-ed in the Ithaca Voice explaining the legislation more in-depth and linking measures like the fracking ban–legislation and regulations Reed believes stifle business growth–to the collapse of the Southern Tier’s economy.
Reed’s piece begins:
“New York had more electoral votes than any other state in every presidential election from 1812 to 1948. It has lost electoral votes in every redistricting since 1950. It stands at 29 now and has fallen behind California, Texas and soon Florida. Upstate has borne the brunt of the population loss.
Washington can’t figure out why this is happening, and neither can Albany, our state capital. But Neil Vitale knows. Vitale is a farmer in Steuben County in New York’s Southern Tier. He was my personal guest to President Obama’s State of the Union Speech. And it is obvious to him what happened. “What I’ve seen in our area is farmers going out of business often because of regulation and with the unemployment rate so high,” he told me. “People just can’t find work to support themselves, let alone a family. They are leaving in droves.”
New York had a chance to revitalize the Southern Tier. It could have joined the natural gas boom years ago. Its Marcellus Shale would have provided thousands of well-paying jobs that could’ve put many of these families back to work and lifted many out of poverty.
But our governor, Andrew Cuomo, thought otherwise. He banned fracking throughout New York. Now, the only way many of these farmers can see any return on their property is to sell out and leave.”
In response to Reeds op-ed published on Monday, Ithaca local Barbara Coyle submitted an op-ed response in the Ithaca Voice citing four rebuttals to the congressman.
“1) Congressman’s Reed is not seriously representing the majority of the people in Ithaca as your title suggests. His blatant derision of Ithaca during the last election cycle showed his cards in regards to “representing” Ithaca seriously.
2) Reed’s arguments in favor of high volume slick water hydrofracking read as if they were written by the oil and gas industry. Perhaps they were. Any serious analysis of Pennsylvania’s experience with fracking over the last 10 years would result in a perfect example of boom to bust scenario. Landmen promising the moon only to deliver diminishing royalties, toxic wastewater holding ponds, damaged roads, spills, contaminated aquifers, poisoned water & air and short term jobs that mostly went to out of state industry workers. Not to mention increases in violent, sexual assault and drug crimes.
3) NY State could have joined the race to frack it’s shale with toxic chemicals years ago as Reed suggests. Instead our Governors during this period wisely decided to hold the moratorium until there was sufficient peer reviewed science available to base this decision. Governor Cuomo and his Health Department looked at that science and issued the ban. Good for them.
4) Pennsylvania has become the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the shale region. The canary is sick. Reed is after fools gold with his proposed Defense of Property Act. The Oil and Gas Industry lies and lies again to get you to sign over your grandchildren’s health and welfare. New York is on the brink of a renewable energy renaissance. Let’s get behind supporting a clean and green revolution in New York for our children’s sake. Congressman Reed – being from a political party that dismisses science and derides scientists – might have a hard time with this. But the people of Ithaca are willing and ready.”
It seems the basis of Reed’s legislation is rooted in the idea of eminent domain–that the government must pay fair market value for property which it seizes through its Constitutional power of eminent domain. Reed argues that the landowners barred from extracting the wealth in the form of oil and gas from their property via fracking are victims of non-compensated eminent domain.
“Farmers who can’t derive the benefits of oil or natural gas on their property because of government action are due compensation as certainly as those who are forced to move so a road can be built,” writes Reed in his op-ed.
As much as I detest the state’s fracking ban, Reed’s legislation treads a very tenuous line. I agree farmers and landowners precluded from fracking their own land because do-gooders in Albany do not want them to is unjust, but Reed’s legislation only seeks to expand the role of government rather than limit it. Whenever you get into the business of receiving cash from the government–whether they are handouts, subsidies, or reparations–you tread into the murky waters of victimization, wealth redistribution, and the creation of ever-expansive bureaucracies tasked with sorting everything out (at least, in theory).
A better solution, from Albany, would turn over the decision to frack to localities. Let the counties vote, or even the cities individually. Or all the cities who have a common water supply–let them vote on the issue in one referendum. If County A wants to frack by the will of the people directly, let them. If County B thinks the risks of fracking are too high, they don’t have to. Isn’t this a much more democratic way to go about things? Local government decisions are infinitely better than state or federal ones, because at the local level is where each individual has much greater influence and where members of government are least removed form the general populace. Additionally, if your county votes against the way you did, it’s much easier to cross county lines than to leave the state (though I think most New York residents are looking to leave anyways).
In this vein, though I understand where Rep. Reed is coming from, I respectfully disagree with his proposed legislation. The solution is not more government, but less government.
Thoughtful article. I have to say a few things about Congressman Reed since I followed his last campaign closely. His op-ed is a very good example of how he operates. During the campaign against Robertson he flooded my mailbox with half-truths and down right lies. Example 1. He sent numerous emails with photos of old people and told how he supported Medicare and Social Security and that Obama and Robertson were trying to cut Medicare. An outright lie. When I called his office to ask specifically what Obama was trying to cut no one could give me an answer. Then the first bill he presented to the new Congress was one that prevented a shift in money (already in the program) to SSI Disability. This would result in a cut to the money given to the most needy, old folks on SS Disability. He never once mentioned that plan in his campaign yet it was is first act in Congress.
Example 2. He sent tons of literature regarding the NY SAFE Act. And his opposition to it. He also sent out literature saying that Martha Robertson wanted to BAN GUNS and that she supported the SAFE Act. The fact is that she was one of the few Democrats who VOTED AGAINST the Safe Act in the county legislature. And, as a gun owner she never proposed any gun control legislation. No matter. right until election day Reed sent out these brochures which were blatant lies.
It is one thing to win an election because your ideas are more popular than your opponents. That is fair. It is another to send out lies about where your opponent stands on issues. And to deceive the voters as to where you stand on issues. Reed has really crossed the line.
Which brings us to his op-ed. Since he has a consistent history of lies and half-truths I thought I would do just a few minutes “fact-checking” on his statement.
Paragraph 1. NY has lost electoral votes. TRUE. Reed says it is because we have lost population. WRONG. NY has been growing in every census. There are more people living in NY today than there were 10 years ago. What has happened is that other parts of the country have been growing more rapidly. A simple look at a census table shows Reed has misstated the issue. NY has a lower GROWTH rate, it is not a declining population.
Paragraph 2. He quotes a farmer in Steuben County as saying that the unemployment rate is so high that people are leaving in droves. He does not quote a demographer. Or the county statistics. He quotes one person and uses that as a basis of his economic policy. Well, let’s look. The unemployment rate, according to a December 2013 article in the Corning Leader, was 7.9% for the county. Down from 9,2 % the year before. And it now sits at 7.6%. Still above the national average but steadily improving. And a considerable drop since the great recession of 2008-2010. And Steuben is in about the middle of NY counties as far as unemployment rates go. In addition, the population of Steuben HAS been dropping slightly since the 1980s. WHAT? The 1980s when Reaganomics took hold and jobs were shipped overseas (See how easy it is to make false leaps and false correlations). But yes, the population has decreased by fewer than 300 people. 300 people. The current rate of population decrease is 0.3%. Less than one-half of 1%. Droves ? Really? Droves. Just another example of Reed’s abuse of the facts.
Paragraph 3. Yes. NY could have joined the “boom” but whether that would be a good idea is still under debate. There are two sides to the issue. The controversy is the whether the short term economic gain for the gas industry and local communities is worth the potential long term destruction of water supplies and lack of a long term economic development plan. Reed wants NY to jump on the band wagon. I am more conservative. I think NY made the right decision in waiting to see the actual environmental repercussions before joining in. Perhaps it is a good idea. Perhaps not. But the gas is going nowhere. Better to be safe than sorry.
Paragraph 4. His last statement is simply without merit. There is no evidence to support it.
But whether or not Reed can be believed the issue is really the one you talk about. Do I, as a landowner, have the right to collect a government check if the government makes a law preventing me from financially benefiting from my property. It is like one of those ideas I get at 11 PM after consuming too much alcohol. Hey ! Ya! That makes sense. Then I wake up the next day and say ‘What was I thinking?”
The Pandora’s Box: There is no way to determine any financial damages. I can claim anything I want. Maybe there is gold on my property. I want compensation because the state won’t let me construct a massive gold mine. Maybe my property would make a good military base. But the Air force refuses to build one. Compensation, please. The examples are endless.
The idea of local control sounds reasonable, on the surface. The problem with things like fracking, however, is that the problems associated with them extend far beyond a municipality. For example, the contamination of a water supply. The incorrect storage of waste materials. The infrastructure that needs to be built. Large scale economic activities and their ramifications go beyond any one municipality. That is why we have state and federal regulations for some things (Although, oddly enough, the Bush administration was able to get Congress to EXEMPT the fracking industry from the Clean Water Act. Ever wonder why?)
On a practical matter I have seen how local control actually works in the real world. The foreign wind power company came into Yates County and parts of Steuben county a few years ago. They wanted to put up wind turbines in the mountains.(With massive public subsidies). The local governments did not want them. In one case a bit of money changed hands, jobs were handed out to family members of the government board and VOILA! . Votes were changed. The project was approved. In another town the local government went to court and WON. The industry lost.So, the industry went back to court again. And lost. But no matter. The town had no more money to fight in court.So, the industry is back in court. Small communities just don’t have the resources to continue court battles. The corporation wins by default . (I refer you to the Exxon Valdez situation in Alaska).
Finally. No one opposes fracking for the sake of opposing fracking. Or because they are “do-gooders”, whatever that means. If the gas extraction can be done without destroying drinking water. Without creating mini-earthquakes. With legal and financial guarantees and proper taxation then I have no problem with it. But there is an ever increasing body of evidence to suggest that this particular technique is dangerous to the water supply . In the end, that is much more important than the gas extraction. It is better to continue to see the results in other parts of the country before jumping in. As I said earlier, the gas is not going anywhere.
I did suggest letting all localities that share a common water supply vote. That could be a logistical nightmare, but it would be no worse than having Albany/Washington voting on the matter. As for large companies buying influence in town, OK, so what? It’s wrong, but they do that in Albany and Washington too. The problem is not the degree of influence of companies at the federal and local levels, it’s electing and re-electing politicians who are swayed more by lobbying money than the people’s will.
By “do-gooders” I mean politicians and bureaucrats who want to pass laws and regulations controlling what people can and cannot do for the people’s “own benefit.” Even if these do-gooders are well intentioned, they’re job is to protect citizens’ rights. And when there is a conflict between rights–property rights of landowners who wish to frack versus life (via health) rights of those potentially sickened by fracking–the courts should settle the matter.
I understand and respect your point of view. But I also think that we need to “weigh” the rights involved. For example, I think the right to have clean air and clean water outweighs the right to have a short term economic gain. Just my set of values.
The only problem with depending on the courts for this type of litigation is that, as in the town I mentioned, the less affluent participant runs out of money and so cannot continue to make a case in the courts. Unless, of course, it becomes a constitutional issue. Theoretically I agree with you. But in reality the court system is always skewed to those who have greater resources. (OJ, the Exxon Valdez situation come to mind).