Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palmer Renewable Energy seeking millions from Springfield for revocation of permit
The Republican ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: biomass; springfield
Good for Palmer Energy.
1 posted on 06/25/2011 2:02:58 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: matt04

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.


2 posted on 06/25/2011 2:13:37 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Sarah Palin, the only candidate to be vetted by the NY Times, the Washington Post and NBC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

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.


3 posted on 06/25/2011 2:28:49 PM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

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.


4 posted on 06/25/2011 2:39:02 PM PDT by sergeantdave (The democrat party is a seditious organization that must be outlawed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Aren’t we talking about a “permitting process”, not a “contract”.


5 posted on 06/25/2011 3:14:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“Aren’t 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.


6 posted on 06/25/2011 5:13:37 PM PDT by sergeantdave (The democrat party is a seditious organization that must be outlawed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
There are Supreme Court decisions regarding "permit processes" and they are NOT CONTRACTS.

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.

7 posted on 06/25/2011 5:16:11 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“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.


8 posted on 06/27/2011 5:00:09 PM PDT by sergeantdave (The democrat party is a seditious organization that must be outlawed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Your most recent decisions consider subdivisions of states to be inseparable from the states ~ which is why a state can't go bankrupt but a municipality can.

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!

9 posted on 06/27/2011 5:39:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson