by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 5, 2012 |
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: no local reporter has done such excellent work on the Line 6B story as Susan Bromley of the local paper the Brandon Citizen (why The Oakland Press, for instance, has completely ignored Brandon Township we will never understand). Bromley’s latest covers the exciting development of Brandon Township’s decision to take legal action to require Enbridge to comply with the state Constitution. Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman:
“We will be requiring that Enbridge obtain consent to cross our roads,” said Supervisor Kathy Thurman. “Article 7, section 29 of the Michigan state constitution says a utility needs to obtain local consent. They are running a pipeline, so in that regard, they are a utility… We also want them to abide by ordinances.”
And on the Brandon Township woodlands ordinance:
The woodlands ordinance states that no person of any nature, for whatever reason shall develop any parcel in the township without providing a survey of woodlands on such parcel. Enbridge has not complied with the ordinance.
And finally, something we’ve said here repeatedly:
“We definitely want to see the pipeline replaced, but we are concerned that it be done in the proper manner,” said Thurman. “Enbridge does not appear to be sincere in what they have communicated to the township. They have made statements that they will get information we have requested, but they have not produced it for us.”
One more thing we’ve said repeatedly: the courage and leadership of Thurman and the other Brandon board members is an inspiration.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 29, 2012 |
We just returned from the Brandon Township board of trustees meeting where the smart, principled, courageous trustees passed a resolution stating that they would take whatever legal steps necessary to require Enbridge to seek local consent as required by the Michigan Constitution and the state HIghway Act. With this resolution, they not only join the MTA in support of the POLAR lawsuit, they go a step further in resolving to take legal action to enforce the law. This is precisely the sort of bold position we’ve been waiting for some government entity to take; it effectively solves the “standing” conundrum we have previously discussed.
Brandon Township has once again taken remarkable and inspirational action on behalf of their township and, in our estimation, on behalf of the citizens of the state of Michigan. As we’ve said before: this is what leadership looks like.
We’ll have more details on this action and the next steps as they become available and as time allows. In the meantime, for tonight at least, we’re actually feeling hopeful.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 22, 2012 |
We returned from today’s hearing in federal court to find clearing crews cutting down our trees. Sam the dog is very frightened and won’t go outside now.
We’ll give a fuller account as soon as we’re able, but the quick version of today’s hearing is that not much happened. Judge Cleland wants the parties to argue the question of “standing”–that is, whether POLAR has legal standing to bring this suit (more on that in a later post)– before hearing anything else. But since the parties weren’t prepared to make those arguments today, they’ve set a date (Nov. 7, I believe) for that hearing. So more delays…
We’ll try to explain and describe all of this in more detail in a subsequent post. Now back to the falling trees…
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
On Monday, Oct. 22nd, Eastern District Circuit Court Judge Robert Cleland will conduct a hearing on POLAR’s lawsuit against Enbridge. If you would like to show your support for insisting that Enbridge obtain all requisite permits and permissions before beginning construction (even though they’ve already begun!), please consider attending the hearing.
The hearing will take place at 2 pm, this Monday, October 22nd. The address for the Eastern District Court is: 231 West Lafayette Boulevard Detroit, MI 48226
See you there!
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 13, 2012 |
As we reported late yesterday, the Michigan Townships Association has filed an amicus curiae brief in the POLAR lawsuit now being heard in federal court.[ref]For those who may not know, an amicus curiae (the phrase means “friend of the court”) brief is a legal argument submitted by an individual or group that is not a party to the case but that has a strong interest in it; these briefs are designed to provide information or an additional perspective that might assist the court in making its decision.[/ref] Regardless of whether it alters the outcome of the case, we think this is very good news indeed. And now that we’ve spent the morning reading over the brief, we’re in a position to explain why and to discuss some of the implications of this action. First, the brief: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 4, 2012 |
If you’ll recall, a couple of weeks ago, Enbridge filed a Notice of Removal to have a POLAR lawsuit heard in federal court. The case is now before U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland. The suit filed by POLAR sought both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order asking the court to halt construction work by Enbridge.
Late last week, Judge Cleland issued two orders in the case. First, he “terminated without prejudice as moot” POLAR’s motion for a temporary restraining order. What that means is that he did not rule one way or the other on the merits of the motion; rather, he ruled that the motion is a non-issue because the other motion– for a preliminary injunction– “supersedes” it. In other words, there’s no need for the court to consider both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The court will consider just the former.
Why is this good news? Well, because it means that the the motion for a preliminary injunction WILL go forward; POLAR will have its hearing. So Judge Cleland’s second order set a date for that hearing– October 22– and gave a number of very pointed instructions for both sides on how to gather and present facts and evidence in advance of the hearing. (And I’ll tell you, having read lots of orders, filings, and hearing transcripts from county and state courts, it’s clear that these federal judges do NOT mess around; Cleland runs a very tight ship).
So mark your calendars: October 22nd will be a very important date for landowners along Line 6B.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 3, 2012 |
This morning, more outstanding reporting by David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News. More than anything else we’ve read, this one accurately gets to the heart of citizen resistance to Line 6B. Here, for example, is Kim Savage, who has always gotten it. She
said people understand the need for a new pipeline but object to the unsympathetic way Enbridge has gone about dealing with them and the evasive answers the company has given to questions.
“Enbridge simply needs to be more honest and forthcoming.”
And here is landowner Ken Weathers:
“I sure hope now Enbridge has a better understanding of the personal anxiety they have been causing people,” Weathers said. “It’s the principle of the thing.”
And Debbie Hense
wishes Enbridge would be more respectful of not only the trees she loves but of every landowner who faces the uninvited demolition and construction.
As we’ve said before and as we’ve tried to explain to Enbridge, it didn’t have to be this way. Had Enbridge treated landowners fairly and with respect from the beginning– as they claim to do– they wouldn’t be facing what Carl Weimer calls this “extraordinary” resistance. We wonder whether they’re listening now.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 27, 2012 |
Those keeping up with news and events here and elsewhere know that Enbridge has been spending a lot of time lately suing Michigan landowners in court. We’ve been reporting on these condemnation hearings as best we can, especially on a few cases in Oakland County. But the past few days, all the action has been over in Livingston County. And unfortunately, Livingston makes it much more difficult to get a hold of court records than does Oakland. What’s more, the judge in the recent hearings, Judge Hatty, appears to prefer ruling from the bench, rather than in writing.
We can, however, say this much: the news out of Livingston is mixed. In the cases that have come before him, Judge Hatty has ruled that Enbridge’s easement language (the part we’ve discussed before, which says that they can send any old thing they want through their pipe, exceeds what the MPSC approval allows. That’s good news. However, unlike the TWO judges in Oakland County, Judge Hatty did not, therefore, dismiss Enbridge’s suits altogether. Instead, Hatty’s position seems to be “no harm, no foul”; let the suits commence. Also, in at least one case, Hatty ruled in favor of Enbridge on the question of “necessity”– which means, essentially, that Enbridge gets to “take” (ie, use) the land it wants. On the other hand, compensation still needs to be determined and we remain hopeful that the courts will help ensure that whatever agreement is reached is fair to the landowners, both in terms of monetary compensation and the language of the agreements, which should grant as many protections and assurances as possible to the property owners.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 24, 2012 |
As we reported earlier today, two more of Enbridge’s condemnation suits were dismissed this morning. Last week, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge James M. Alexander dismissed an Enbridge suit, ruling that their “good faith offer”– a requirement prior to any taking– was defective, since it included language claiming “use beyond that allowable under the Michigan Public Service Commission Order approving [Enbridge’s] application.” This morning, Judge Phyllis C. McMillen likewise accepted the defendant’s argument regarding the same Enbridge overreach. Judge McMillen puts it this way: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 24, 2012 |
This just in: two additional condemnation suits brought against landowners in Oakland County court have been dismissed– this time by a different judge than the one who ordered the dismissal last week. The grounds for the dismissal are similar (Enbridge overreaching), but there are some interesting and heartening nuances in this morning’s ruling. We’re looking over and digesting the relevant documents and will have more to say about this good news later today. Stay tuned.
