Binghamton Fracking Ban Heading to Court

Last December, at the eleventh hour shortly before Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan knew he would lose his all-Democrat city council and hence an opportunity to stick it to the drilling industry, Ryan forced through a vote on a measure to ban fracking within the city limits for a period of two years (see this MDN story). There’s just one problem with the ban as enacted—it isn’t legal, at least according to attorneys Robert Wedlake and Kenneth Kamlet, who have sent a letter to the city demanding they either follow the law or they’re going to court.

In the four-page letter, attorneys Robert Wedlake and Kenneth Kamlet say the law is "jurisdictionally defective" because it was enacted without a legally required referral to the Broome County Department of Planning.

State law requires that municipalities must send a referral to the county for any action affecting local zoning or land use that may have an impact within 500 feet of the municipal boundary, the letter states.

"It is indisputable that Binghamton’s gas drilling ban will adversely impact businesses both inside and outside the city that have sales that result from gas exploration throughout the region, including Broome County," the letter adds.

Kamlet said in an interview that the challenge to the city’s moratorium will serve as a test case, and could be applied elsewhere in the state.

"There has to be a first, and we decided to pursue it in Broome County," he said. "I’m not aware that anyone has taken a similar initiate in any other location."

If the city’s law is referred to the county, the county can approve it, disapprove it or take no action, Kamlet said.

If the county disapproves of the law, the city must rescind the law or override the county’s decision with a supermajority of five of Binghamton City Council’s seven votes.

"All we’re saying at this point is they have a mandate to adhere to general municipal law under this requirement of referring actions of this kind … to county planning for review, so that broader implications can be assessed," Kamlet said.*

Here was Mayor Ryan’s rather lame reply:

Binghamton Mayor Matthew T. Ryan said on Friday he disagrees.

The city didn’t have to refer the law to the county, he said, because the legal requirements cited by Wedlake and Kamlet only apply to zoning and land-use laws.

The city’s moratorium is written as an aquifer protection action, not a local land-use law.

"Because we didn’t feel we had the time, we developed a strategy we feel did not have to be referred to the county," Ryan said. "That’s what our answer will be about, and we’ll see what they think."*

Translation: We didn’t have time to do it the right way, so we fudged and we’re hoping we can slide it past a judge somewhere. And now the taxpayers of Binghamton will pay for Ryan and his fellow Democrats’ folly and legal sloppiness.

*Ithaca Journal (Apr 21, 2012) – Binghamton’s ban on drilling faces legal challenge

  • Anonymous

    The problem is that the Democratic incumbant Anti’s are wasting NY tax payer money keeping the courts full, helping local Attorney’s get more wealthy  while the general population of people suffer. This should have been voted upon by the people of Binghamton. The landowners on the out skirts of the city are paying the freight, and losing millions of dollars, while the city dwellers who have no interest, flush money down the toilet. Has anyone been to Binghamton lately ? I have, its a ghost town, with boarded up store fronts. Businesses have been closing for years. The only thing that is prosperous is the court house. How can any local politician look the community in their eyes and say they made their decisions based on what is best for the community. All you have to do is walk around the downtown area and see. Absolutely, shameful.

  • Anonymous

    Mayor Ryan’s reply is not “lame”.  If Binghamton’s moratorium is based on the city’s zoning powers, then review by Broom County Planning Department was required.  (Of course even if Planning advised against it, the City could still pass their moratorium, but it would require a super majority.)  However if this moratorium is based on city’s police powers, then review is not required and moratorium is legal, as affirmed in B&L Development v. Town of Greenfield, 1992.  By police powers, municipal law means the broad use as in to protect safety, health, and welfare.  Because Binghamton based their moratorium on “aquifer protection”, it may well be legal.  In this case, it is attorneys Wedlake and Kamlet who are generating unneccessary legal costs, possibly to their profit.

    That said, just because it is legal does not make the moratorium a wise decision.  Like so many of these moratoriums, this one will probably expire before any operator is ready to begin drillling.

  • Pingback: Slottje Stumbles May Embarrass Local Officials Following Their Lead | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative()