Reed’s “Defense of Property Rights Act” is the focus of Thursday’s Owego Town Hall Meeting

On Thursday night (6 PM) Rep. Tom Reed will be holding a Town Hall Meeting in Owego, Tioga County. According to a mailed announcement he will be focusing on his Defense of Property Rights Act. Defense of Property Rights Google Map directions to Tioga County Office Building, 56 Main Street, Owego, NY.

Defense of Property Rights ActH.R.510 (Text and other information about the proposed law) In response to Governor Cuomo’s decision to ban hydrofracking in New York, Rep Reed sponsored a bill that would permit property owners  to obtain compensation (sue) when local, State, or Federal government impairs the value of ownership. (Reed is saying that property owners with mineral rights could sue New York State since they potentially lost millions of dollars when fracking was banned. Please realize that Rep Reed will benefit financially–he owns mineral rights of a property in the town of  Tuscarora. He doesn’t own the property, but he owns the mineral rights. Even though Reed has said different, there still  could be drilling for Natural Gas on lands in New York State, but not hydrofracking. Many have predicted that this bill has a super LOW chance of becoming law–as of today it has NO CO-SPONSORS. Also, this is not just for New York State—it will be a Federal Law. It is seen as a Wedge Issue, trying to help Rep. Reed in 2016 like the SAFE Act helped him in 2014.

Background—Rep. Reed’s Press ReleaseNo Fracking Way article Finger Lakes Times article 

If you go to this, or other Town Hall Meetings, here are some Possible “Defense of Property Rights Act” Questions:

  • Would Zoning be affected by this bill?
  • I thought you were against Big Government, how is this making the government smaller?
  • How much will this Bill add to the deficit ?
  • Isn’t this bill unconstitutional? (What about the 10th Amendment–State Rights–which you used to feel was important?)
  • Why didn’t you proposed this bill two years ago when Vermont banned hydrofracking?
  • Who is co-sponsoring this bill? (None, as of today).
  • Are you saying that my taxes will be paying people for not drilling?
  • Isn’t the federal government unable to regulate hydrofracking because of the Halliburton Loophole?
  • Isn’t it true that none of your colleagues is willing to cosponsor this bill because it makes possible suing a state for ‘takings,’ which is already completely available as a remedy and needs no additional legislation to make possible?
  • Other Questions? (Add your questions to the comment area, and I may add them here.)

If you can’t make it to Owego on Thursday night, Rep. Reed will be in Penn Yan on Friday, February 20 (PY Village Hall, Elm Street, 5:00-6:30). The ‘focus’ of that meeting will be “Foreign Issues”. On Saturday, February 21 he will hold Town Hall Meetings in Chautauqua County– 10:00 AM he will be at 813 W. Main Street, Ellington; 12:30 PM at 87 W. Main Street, Brocton (Town of Portland); and 3:00 PM  at the Dutch Village Restaurant, 8729 East Main Street in Clymer. I don’t know what his focus will be at the Saturday Meetings.

Advertisements

About pystew

Retired Teacher, political science geek, village trustee. I lean a little left, but like a good political discussion. My blog, the New NY 23rd (http://newny23rd) is about discussing the issues facing the people of our new congressional district. Let's hear all sides of the issues, not just what the candidates want us to hear.
This entry was posted in Constituents, Constitution, Economics, Environmental, fracking, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, Political and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Reed’s “Defense of Property Rights Act” is the focus of Thursday’s Owego Town Hall Meeting

  1. whungerford says:

    Tom’s likely answers:
    …This bill will stop overreaching big government from taking our property.
    …The Fifth Amendment guarantees our property rights
    …I proposed this bill as a constitutional alternative to overriding state law because I believe in the Tenth Amendment.
    …This bill will bring pressure on taxpayers and local communities to force NYS to rescind its fracking ban.
    As for the Halliburton amendment, Tom has previously denied it exists. (bring documentation)

  2. josephurban says:

    Tom’s answers;
    Freedom.
    I support Social Security. Except for disabled folks.
    God bless America.
    If fracking happens to destroy your drinking water you have the free choice to drink Chardonnay.
    If you feel slighted by a multinational corporation hire a high cost lawyer and sue them.
    Government should stay out of your life. Government should guarantee corporate profits.
    God bless America. Home of the free. Land of my country tis of thee. Jesus saves. Where’s my envelope?

  3. Krys says:

    So, anybody is free to bring a lawsuit against the state at any time. That is a basic right of citizenship. “Takings” cases have a long and well-settled case law. People CAN ALREADY sue NYS claiming the fracking ban is a taking– and they threatened to do so like crazy before it was a fact– but, THEY WILL LOSE. Unless the fracking ban takes away all economic use of the property (can’t farm, put a house there, lease it to hunters or harvest timber), there is no taking. This bill, I think, is all smoke and mirrors to obscure why none of these crackpots is bringing a lawsuit for takings like they threatened they would. Now, they can whine that they first need Reed’s law to pass to ALLOW them to bring a lawsuit that is already something they could do tomorrow, if they could find an attorney that wanted to lose it. Even perennial legal fool Tom West is not ready to do that. Not sure that acting like we believe this law is anything more than lies in bill format has any positive effect, because it gives it cred. I would stick to the question “isn’t it true that none of your colleagues is willing to cosponsor this bill because it makes possible suing a state for ‘takings,’ which is already completely available as a remedy and needs no additional legislation to make possible?”

  4. Deb Meeker says:

    Yes.

  5. whungerford says:

    Yet the landowners attorney, Scott Kurkoski, says Tom’s bill is a good one.

  6. whungerford says:

    It is astonishing that under our laws a wad of cash passed secretly in an envelope is an illegal bribe, while the same wad of cash from the same bad guys passed openly in the form of a campaign contribution is considered “speech.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s