by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 7, 2012 |
At their Monday, September 10th meeting, the Groveland Township Board of Trustees will once again be discussing the Enbridge matter. We don’t have any details, but Supervisor Bob DePalma has given indications in the local press (and also here) that Groveland will advance its own resolution. This is a VERY important action and it deserves the same show of support given to Brandon. Please plan to attend this meeting to make your voice heard and show support and gratitude for another local municipality demonstrating courage and leadership in the face of Enbridge’s might and state-level political apathy.
The meeting is this Monday at 7 pm at the Groveland Township Office, 4695 Grange Hall Rd.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 28, 2012 |
We suddenly realize we have yet to devote a full post to discussing dilbit, which everyone concerned about Enbridge and Line 6B should know about. We will try to make that a priority in the next week or so. In the meantime, there’s this.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 25, 2012 |
It’s quiet here on the blog today. We’re taking a break to tend to some of our land on this beautiful, if hot, Michigan day. There will be less to tend soon enough, thanks to our friends at Enbridge. Here’s just some of what we’re losing.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 23, 2012 |
This Katy Bodenmiller is one great public advocate. Listen here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 18, 2012 |
A fantastic article in this morning’s Los Angeles Times by Matt Pearce and Neela Banerjee– and not just because we make a brief appearance in it. Check out the great lead paragraph:
A major rival to the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline project is vastly boosting its U.S. pipeline system, but it’s avoiding the same scrutiny that federal regulators, environmentalists and landowners are giving Keystone owner TransCanada Corp.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 16, 2012 |
The (appalling) situation in Livingston county is (rightfully) getting lots of attention. Here and here and here and here. Let’s hope this wakes some people up.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 15, 2012 |
In Part 2 of our series on Core Issues for Landowners a couple of week’s ago, we wrote about the issue of local consent– the requirement, according to the state constitution and the Highway Act, that Enbridge seek consent from local municipalities before beginning work within them.
And just this morning, we posted a story from the Livingston Daily in which Enbridge even admits that they have yet to secure all the requisite state and local permits for their project– even though they have already begun construction.
In the former instance, the law seems fairly clear, although Enbridge disputes it and perhaps (I don’t think so, but perhaps) they have a case. In the latter instance, Enbridge claims that they are in the process of securing the necessary permits. So, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that there is at least a bit of wiggle room on these two matters.
But then there’s this: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 14, 2012 |
Thank you to all who attended last night’s Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting. It’s not clear that they were convinced to take any action, but it was great to see residents speaking up and expressing their many and varied concerns– and it is so important that public officials here those concerns. Please keep it up. Contact your congressmen and senators, contact local reporters, talk to one another.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 11, 2012 |
For those who live in or near Groveland Township, the Enbridge project is on the agenda for this Monday’s (August 13) meeting at 7 p.m. at the Township Hall on Grangehall Rd. We will be there prepared to say a few words during the public comments portion of the meeting. If you share our concerns about public safety, landowner rights, and local authority, please join us.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 9, 2012 |
An editorial from the Lansing State Journal. A little taste:
Rebuilding old lines that don’t meet modern safety standards is a commendable goal. But property owners along the route are skittish — understandably so, given Enbridge’s run of trouble.
And their confidence doubtless isn’t helped by knowing that an attorney representing some landowners was able to give significantly better compensation for her clients than that originally offered by Enbridge representatives.
