[CRNMC] possible CELDF allies

[Shannon Biggs]

Just a note that this is the same article that was discussed on the list
earlier today.  

My response to that thread was:
I know Helen.  Zoning laws and home rule are different in NY, and certainly
lots of folks have chosen to try to use zoning laws to ban, many are also in
court (many are not).
> 
>  I think the difference between the approach we¹re using is that we¹re seeing
> the problem differently. We say Fracking itself isn¹t the real problem, the
> problem is deeper than that someone else who doesn¹t live in Mendocino is
> deciding whether or not fracking comes our way. The work we¹re doing is about
> addressing the structure of law that says we¹re up for grabs to corporate
> profit and changing the law to put decision making in the hands of the
> community.  We¹re laying the groundwork for saying no not just to fracking,
> but to the idea that someone else can make these decisions for us.

And just a reminder that I don¹t work for CELDF ­ but Global Exchange. This
work isn¹t about one organization, but a grassroots movement. ;-)


On 4/30/14 1:12 PM, "edward Oberweiser" <edoberweiser at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tuesday, Apr 29, 2014 05:30 AM PDT
> The real secret to beating the Koch brothers: How our broken political system
> can still be won
> 
> You probably haven¹t heard of Helen Slottje, or, for that matter, of her
> husband, David. But in the past few years, the former corporate lawyers have
> become arguably two of the most powerful opponents of fracking in New York ‹
> not to mention the most successful. As the (sort of) public face of the duo¹s
> efforts, Helen Slottje on Monday was honored with the Goldman Prize, the
> world¹s largest environmental prize.
> 
> Like most fracktivists, the Slottjes became embroiled in the issue when they
> moved to an area targeted by drilling companies ‹ in their case, upstate New
> York, which sits atop the gas-rich Marcellus Shale, and where Gov. Andrew
> Cuomo has repeatedly put off making a decision about whether to lift the
> state¹s five-year moratorium on hydraulic hydrofracking. Lacking confidence in
> the power of the picket sign or citizen engagement on oil-funded big
> government, they instead decided to approach the program at the most basic
> level. Their weapon of choice is a principle known as home rule: If individual
> communities decide that these industries pose a significant risk to common
> resources like air and water, then those communities can decide to keep those
> industries out, regardless of what state and federal laws say.
> 
> One by one, the Slottjes have helped small towns in New York enact such bans,
> to the point at which, even if New York¹s moratorium were to be lifted
> tomorrow, the oil and gas industry would find itself effectively barred from
> drilling in 172 communities. After being decided in the towns¹ favors at all
> of the state¹s lower courts, two of those cases, in Dryden and Middlefield,
> are now up before the Court of Appeals. A decision, which will determine
> whether towns have the right to override state law, is expected this fall, and
> its anticipated impact can¹t be overstated.
> 
> As Thomas West, a lawyer for the energy company seeking to have the ban
> overturned, told the New York Times last year, ³It¹s going to decide the
> future of the oil and gas industry in the state of New York.² (The Slottjes,
> it should be noted, weren¹t even mentioned in the piece.)
> 
> As for why you haven¹t heard of the Slottjes? That, Helen told Salon, was
> entirely intentional ‹ the due diligence of people who were making a powerful
> industry very, very angry. Up until the redesign hit several weeks ago, you
> couldn¹t even find their names on their website. Winning the prize, which
> comes with $175,000 and an international spotlight, changes all that, putting
> them at potential risk. But, Helen said, it also presents the opportunity to
> teach their brand of gras-sroots legal activism to more communities, including
> those in other states. In that spirit, Helen (picture left) stopped by Salon¹s
> offices to open up about her personal story for one of the first times.
> Obviously, there was a lot to talk about ‹ this interview has been lightly
> edited and condensed for clarity.
> 
> So to start, could you tell me more about how you got involved in this battle?
> 
> My husband, David, and I were former corporate lawyers ‹ we had stopped
> practicing and moved to upstate New York because it was just too much. My
> husband¹s brother was looking for
> a second home in the area, so we went out in 2007 looking at ³gentleman farms²
> for him. And everywhere we went there were gas leases on the property. There¹d
> be a little box on the description form, and when you¹d ask the realtor about
> it, they¹d say, ³Oh, it¹s no big deal, nothing to worry about, it¹s never
> amounted to anything around here. Don¹t give it a second thought.²
> 
> David, being a lawyer, and having started out practicing in Texas, was like,
> ³There isn¹t any such thing as a no big deal, don¹t worry about it, oil and
> gas lease.² That¹s a big issue to have one of those on your property. We sort
> of filed that away, and in 2009 ‹ finally, it took me two years to get to that
> item on my to-do list ‹ I went to a gas drilling meeting. There were a number
> of these people who were starting to get educated and beginning to think that
> maybe this wasn¹t ³no big deal.²
> 
> Every one who spoke at the meeting said there¹s nothing you can do, because
> that¹s what everyone believed. An activist showed pictures from Pennsylvania ‹
> the sort of pictures we¹ve all seen at this point ‹ of just these huge
> industrial outdoor complexes with diesel generators and big lagoons of waste,
> and drill rigs and the like. So not only were there all these negative social
> impacts, it was just, ³That is ugly! That is just really ugly and toxic.² It
> just seemed to me wrong that there was nothing we could do. The way you become
> a successful corporate lawyer is by figuring out any and all ways to get your
> client exactly what they want. If you tell a corporate client like the Koch
> brothers, ³Oh no, you can¹t build that factory,² they¹re not going to not
> build that factory. They¹re going to go find a lawyer who can get it done.
> It¹s just a mind-set.
> But the people signing the gas leases were getting money for doing so, right?
> 
> So the first Marcellus well was drilled in 2005 in southwestern Pennsylvania,
> and it seemed like it would be successful. Range Resources [the company that
> first developed the shale] kept it as much under wraps as they could, and then
> sent these land men out to go and sign people up for gas leases for $25, $50,
> if you were lucky maybe $100 an acre. And they would tell them ³it¹s
> patriotic, it¹s energy independence, it¹s this great new technology, you won¹t
> even know we¹re here, we¹ll be in and out.² And they told them, ³you¹ll be
> doing this wonderful thing for your community.² So all sorts of people signed,
> including some of the most outspoken activists now: Cornell professors,
> environmentalists, farmers who were just appalled when it came to light what
> fracking looked like.
> 
> People were like, ³Can we get out of these leases? They lied to us. They told
> us this, and this is what we signed.² We looked into it, but all the leases
> say ³It doesn¹t matter what we told you, here¹s what you¹re giving away, and
> all promises that aren¹t reflected in this document don¹t count.² And it¹s
> like, well, you signed it.
> So when you start fighting these companies to keep them out of the towns, was
> that your way of getting around the leases?
> 
> Right, and also to protect the people who didn¹t sign leases. Let¹s say you
> own a house in upstate New York and it¹s in a zoned residential area, and you
> go out and sign a lease with Wal-Mart
> allowing them to build a supercenter in your backyard. The fact that you
> signed that lease with Wal-Mart doesn¹t mean Wal-Mart can go build that
> supercenter. If Wal-Mart paid you the lease money and didn¹t check first that
> they could build in that area, good for you, bad for Wal-Mart. So this was the
> same sort of thing. Contracts are always subject to those kinds of rules.
> 
> How did you put that principle into action against the oil and gas industry?
> 
> The reason why people thought they couldn¹t do anything was that there¹s this
> statute that says that towns cannot regulate the oil and gas industry. And so
> everyone took that to mean that basically the oil and gas industry could come
> into your town, and they didn¹t have to abide by any laws you had in the town
> at all. Of course, if you think about it, you¹re like, how can that be? How
> does one industry get this tremendous exemption from everything? And so the
> question is, well, what¹s a regulation of the industry? Where does that line
> end?
> 
> So we started looking at that, and laws in New York, and case decisions
> basically saying that that you can¹t build a Wal-Mart in somebody¹s
> residential neighborhood. That¹s not regulating Wal- Mart, that¹s regulating
> land use, and so that¹s permissible. And so we thought, well, that should
> apply here. You should be able to say, even though we can¹t say how deep you
> can drill the well, or what kind of fluids you can put down there, we can just
> say that¹s not consistent with the land uses in our community.
> 
> Nobody believed that at the time, from big environmental groups to municipal
> lawyers to D.C. So we had to both convince people that there was merit to our
> approach; that this wasn¹t just
> some hippy, ridiculous idea. And then, in the face of industry threats like,
> ³We¹re going to sue you, we¹re going to take your house away,² we had to get
> them to pass the laws. Then we had to take it from one or two towns passing
> the laws, which in and of itself takes a lot of work, to getting 170, 180
> towns to do it. So that just required a whole process of convincing people
> that were right. You know, PowerPoint presentation after PowerPoint
> presentation: ³Here¹s the law. Here¹s what it means.² The very fastest you can
> pass a local law is four months, if you rush it. And it takes more like a
> year, sometimes two years to pass a land use law, because there¹s so much
> process.
> 
> What kind of money was involved in putting all that together?
> A typical lawyer would charge at least $15,000 to draft one of these laws. We
> never charged a town anything for this kind of work. The original work we
> mostly funded out of retirement savings ‹ we just felt like we had to do this.
> And plus we felt like we hadn¹t really been on the right side of things in the
> past and this was sort of like payback. Putting those corporate lawyer skills
> that are usually used in not the greatest of ways, for a really positive
> cause.
> 
> The very first meeting when we mentioned this idea, we thought we must be
> missing something. It turns out we¹re not. Thirteen law professors just filed
> a brief in the court cases being appealed agreeing with our analysis. But at
> the time it was like, nobody agrees with us. We must be missing something. And
> so we were scared to death. It was like saying the emperor had no clothes.
> Were were looking around and saying, ³I¹m pretty sure he¹s naked.²
> 
> But at the time, we were only 80 percent through the research, and we just
> mentioned the idea. People left that meeting and started petitioning on their
> own. We were like, ³Oh my god. We¹d really better be right.² It was just
> really empowering for people, because this was the first time they had been
> told, yes, there is something you can do. You don¹t have to just watch this
> train wreck coming at you and brace for impact. You can get out of the way.
> You don¹t have to put yourself through this. So the community response was so
> overwhelming and the activists were like, ³we¹ll work on getting you some
> funding, so you at least have gas money, because you¹re driving 100,000 miles
> all over the state.² So it didn¹t take as much money as if a big group had
> done this, that had a bunch of people and studied it. This was guerrilla law.
> Still, it¹s so time-consuming: Is there an advantage to this piecemeal
> strategy, other than the fact that it¹s just more doable as opposed to, say,
> fighting for a moratorium for all of New York state?
> 
> The oil and gas industry has so much money in politics. It was FDR who said
> you can¹t win an election without big oil, and you can¹t govern once you¹re
> elected. Which is exactly the case. You need them to get elected. They have so
> much money. They¹re so influential in politics. We can¹t go after them. So at
> the federal and state level, especially in New York, with a governor who has
> presidential ambitions, two lawyers from Ithaca aren¹t going to win that, and
> probably no one is going to. The corporate money is just too influential.
> 
> But at the local level, you have your neighbors who are the people you¹re
> electing. And you can actually talk to them. And your other neighbors are the
> people who also influence them, and it¹s doable. Like writing a letter to
> Albany, where does that even go? Does anyone read it? I don¹t think so. This
> was one person, one vote. Not $1 million, one politician.
> 
> The oil and gas companies do try to go out and buy elections at the local
> level. They¹ll give big donations to the school, or other charities in the
> town. And they¹ve had instances where they¹re like, ³Oh we said we were going
> to give you $15,000 for your music program, but now you passed this law? No,
> your kids can¹t have clarinets.² So they do influence even at the local level.
> But a lot of their strong-arm tactics have gone over very poorly. Some towns
> are worried, they¹re scared of getting sued. But we were surprised by the
> number of towns and townspeople that were like, ³Are you kidding me? You think
> you can just come into my town and tell me you¹re going to do whatever you
> want, wherever you want, whenever you want it, and I¹m going to have no say?
> Who do you think you are?² So the local level is really the place where people
> can participate in democracy and take a stand.
> 
> The industry accuses us of NIMBYism. Well, what are you going to protect
> besides the places you love the most? And if everyone protected their
> backyards then we wouldn¹t have this: You¹re going to protect where you live,
> and if other people protect where they live, and other people protect where
> they live, then you¹re really growing a movement.
> 
> Do you seek these towns out, or do they come to you?
> 
> We only work with towns that come to us. We have to be invited, by our own
> internal rule, because we don¹t want to be accused of lobbying.
> 
> Do you hear people from these communities who are swayed by promises of
> economic benefits? Are you in communities where there are a lot of blue-collar
> workers who would be looking for the jobs?
> 
> So, yes. I mean, there are both workers that would like jobs, and our farmers,
> who can¹t make a living, are being promised this road paved with gold and the
> like. And that¹s difficult. But what industry will tell you is that if you did
> make regulations that would truly make this safe, if they had to comply with
> the environmental laws that apply with everyone else, they couldn¹t make any
> money doing this. The reason why is the money they make comes out of the
> pockets of the people that are harmed, because they don¹t have to comply with
> environmental laws. So it is less a creation of wealth than a transfer of
> wealth from poor people in communities, in not necessarily immediately
> apparent costs.
> What¹s somebody¹s house worth when the water supply goes bad? In our country,
> in our system, it¹s never been enough that you need money, to make it right to
> steal it from somebody else. And it¹s intergenerational theft. It¹s theft from
> the community. The public owns the air, the water. Those are common public
> resources, and the only way these people make money is by basically ruining
> these common assets for private gain. And so yes, there would be people that
> make money, there would be people that get jobs. The jobs are the riskiest,
> most dangerous jobs you can get. They¹re effectively jobs that are like
> digging your own grave. And like, yeah, you got the paycheck. But you¹re
> digging your own grave. Is that a job you want?
> 
> Is that something that¹s hard to convince people of before it happens? Is
> there opposition from those people when you come into a town?
> 
> There are certainly towns that we don¹t work with for that reason. And it¹s
> very difficult. Human beings are fundamentally positive, optimistic, hopeful.
> Who wants to hear a negative story? Industry comes in and says, ³You¹re going
> to be rich beyond your wildest dreams, everything will be wonderful and
> great.² And then we come in and we¹re like, ³No, it¹s really not going to be
> all that terrific.²
> 
> Let¹s look at extractive communities, the places where the roads should be
> paved with gold. You look at Pennsylvania, you look at West Virginia. Those
> people did not make out from extraction. It¹s called the resource curse. The
> places you extract everything from are left impoverished, ruined and
> destroyed. Where are the places you want to live? They¹re literally green,
> that¹s just like the way it is. So you want to live in a verdant, green, local
> economy, with organic agriculture and distributed, renewable energy.
> 
> Locally sourced production. That¹s what we try to convince people: ³Look at
> these two pictures, don¹t you really want this one?²
> 
> So are you going to keep working on a town-by-town basis, or do you have
> bigger plans in the works?
> 
> We started helping consult with lawyers and other groups in California, in
> Texas, across the country. The beauty of this was we could take it from one
> town to 180 towns in New York ‹
> we¹d have to have it crafted for each state, and there are different rules,
> but this could happen across the country. Even in places where the laws aren¹t
> necessarily as favorable to local control, it resonates with people. Who
> better to make decisions about what happens in our community? Should it be
> some business executive in Norway, or should it be the people who live in our
> town? Who gets to decide? In America, it¹s supposed to be the people who get
> to decide. People feel disconnected from federal and state politics. You can
> get people involved at the local level. So we¹d really like to try to spread
> that and get people involved in their local politics and use that as an entry
> point where you can begin to effect some change, despite the dysfunction at
> higher levels of government.
> 
> Are you worried about there being more industry blowback now that you¹ve
> opened up about all this?
> 
> I¹m sure that there is going to be. There are people who are going to be
> apoplectic. Local level industry people know who we are, and I¹m sure this is
> going to cause them to be more upset. But we¹re sort of at the point where
> we¹re in front of the highest court in New York, the briefs have been filed,
> we¹re confident that the court of appeals is going to do the right thing here.
> Even industry lawyers have said, they have to appeal ‹ like, why wouldn¹t you?
> ‹ but they do not expect to win. We certainly don¹t think they¹re going to win
> either. So the personal attacks will not detract from the work.
> 
> Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on all things
> sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams at salon.com.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140430/f3349aa4/attachment.html