Skip to comments.Palmer Renewable Energy seeking millions from Springfield for revocation of permit
Posted on 06/25/2011 2:02:52 PM PDT by matt04
Palmer Renewable Energy has filed a lawsuit against Springfield after the City Council voted last month to revoke the energy development firm's permit to build a wood-burning biomass plant in East Springfield.
Although details of the civil complaint were not immediately available on Saturday, Springfield City Councilor Timothy J. Rooke confirmed that the city has received notice of the suit, which is reportedly seeking somewhere in the ballpark of $50 million.
On May 23, the 13-member City Council voted 10-2 -- one member was absent for the May vote -- to revoke the Palmer-based developer's special permit to build a $150 million biomass plant near the intersection of Page Boulevard and Cadwell Drive.
The council's decision triggered cheers from project opponents and an expected legal challenge from the developer.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
So the citizens of Springfield will not only have to pay Palmer, but they also lose jobs that the plant would have created?
Government Democrat? Never mind.
Interesting Article and some of the posted comments were interesting.
But from my perspective this appears to be another case of NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard. These people insist on ‘Green’ Energy but when someone comes up with a realistic plan. Whoa Nellie! That’s so big and noticeable! It might smell!
These people make me sick and tired of their constant BS.
A city council is sovereign. A previous city council cannot bind a future city council with a contract. There is no such thing as an omnipotent legislature that can write plenary law. If that were the case, a radical left wing legislature could sign a contract with public employees paying them each $1 million a year for life, and no future legislature can undo the damage. That would make elections, whose purpose is to correct some thing or change the course of legislative policy, meaningless.
As we’re seeing in Wisconsin, the legislature is rewriting the collective bargaining contract for public employees that was passed by a previous legislature. It’s perfectly okay and legal.
Palmer is out of luck and will lose, unless it can find a radical judge who says a legislative body is not sovereign. And if that comes to pass, it would be the duty of the citizens to buy pitchforks and rope.
Aren’t we talking about a “permitting process”, not a “contract”.
“Arent we talking about a permitting process, not a contract.”
Let’s not confuse the situation. We’re talking about sovereignty. Sovereignty trumps a contract. Always has and always will. And a “permit” is a one-sided contract writ large for the advantage of the government pig who wrote it...
It’s why we have elections, to change the permit/contract.
They are, in fact, part of administrative due process and are LAW. You have to be very careful pulling a permit because you have to have a lawful reason to do so. You can't just vote to do it. Sovereignty doesn't count when it comes to municipal authorities ~ they are, after all, nothing more than a part of the states in which they do business.
“Sovereignty doesn’t count when it comes to municipal authorities ~ they are, after all, nothing more than a part of the states in which they do business.”
We have federal court decisions declaring counties, Indian tribes and sheriffs as sovereign. And in “home rule” states, city and village councils are very much sovereign.
Regarding Indian reservations, they were set aside for the Indian "nations". You should know I always side with the Indians on these questions and simply ignore the argument that "they ain't no diff'ent" 'cause, it turns out, they are diff'ent!