[CRNMC] What Ben Price of CELDF said about the supes not endoding Measure S

[edward Oberweiser]

edward Oberweiser <edoberweiser at gmail.com>

Dec 24 (2 days ago)

Hi Ben,

Here is what one of our County Board of Supervisors is telling us.

Ed Oberweiser

Hi Agnes,

I didn't mean to imply that three votes will lead to codifying Measure S.
What I was saying was that three votes could codify a ban on fracking in the
County.

I don't believe the broader proscriptions described in "S" can be codified
since they run so directly against state and federal law.  There is also the
issue of an initiative addressing more than single subject (which is
apparently a flaw in the drafting of "S").

Prior to the November election, Sups. McCowen and Brown wanted to send "S"
to the Superior Court to determine its constitutionality; however, a Board
majority voted to allow it to go to the ballot regardless of the potential
for a state and/or federal constitutional challenge.

Now that "S" has passed overwhelmingly, I would like to see the original
anti-fracking measure come back to the Board.

I will talk with County Counsel to make sure I'm right about these matters.

Dan

Ben Price
to Shannon, me
Ed,

I think you need to arrange a conference call with Shannon Biggs - and
I'll join in if it helps --  to discuss why the Supervisors don't have
a legal option to pick and choose what they enter into the code. If
they or another party want to challenge the legality of the community
bill of rights, or any part of it, there are legal avenues to do so.
They may not assume the authority of a judge and jury and in their own
judgement chop up the CBoR to suit their own taste.