THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

BARCLAY DAMON LLP.

"New York State's New Green Amendment to Be Interpreted by the Courts"


February 11, 2022

On November 2, 2021, New York State voters passed a ballot measure enshrining in the New York State Constitution the right to a “healthful environment.”

The new “Green Amendment,” or Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA), provides that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” i

With the adoption of this amendment, New York became the third state in the nation to include environmental rights in its bill of rights along with Pennsylvania and Montana.

Four other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) have constitutional provisions regarding environmental protections, although not in their bills of rights.

The impact of New York State’s Green Amendment has been unclear since its passage.

At the outset, the amendment is comprised of just 15 words and lacks any specificity as to what the right actually means in practice.

The sponsor’s memo provides little by way of interpretation, merely noting that the Green Amendment was spurred by “recent water contamination and ongoing concerns about air quality,” which, it says, “have highlighted the importance of clean drinking water and air as well as the need for additional protections.”

These additional protections are noticeably absent from the text of the amendment and the sponsor’s memo.


Further, during the floor debate on the amendment, certain members of the legislature assured their colleagues that the amendment would not provide a private right of action.

This is despite the language in the amendment itself that the right to clean air and water and a healthful environmental is vested in “each person.”

Also uncertain is whether compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations would shield an individual or entity and be a “safe harbor” in litigation as well as what the potential penalties might be.

As a result, the general consensus was that the courts would ultimately decide the significance of the Green Amendment.

That time has come.

The first case to bring claims solely under the Green Amendment has been filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Monroe County against the State of New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City, and the owner-operator of the High Acres Landfill in Wayne County, New York. ii

The action alleges that the improper operation of the landfill, where municipal solid waste from New York City is taken, is violating the constitutional right to clean air and a healthy environment of the petitioner’s members that own property or reside near the landfill or both.

The petitioner seeks a declaration that its members’ rights under the Green Amendment have been violated, the immediate closure of the landfill, and other relief (e.g., costs and attorneys’ fees) as the court deems appropriate.

The respondents have yet to respond to the complaint.

Barclay Damon’s Environmental Practice Area will continue to monitor this lawsuit and will continue to distribute timely legal alerts.

We expect more lawsuits to follow as the courts grapple with the full significance of the Green Amendment.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Yvonne Hennessey, Environmental Practice Area chair, at yhennessey@barclaydamon.com, or another member of the firm’s Environmental Practice Area.

i See N.Y. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 19.

ii See Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. The State of New York et al, Index No. E2022000699 (Monroe Co.).

Key Contacts

Yvonne Hennessey
Partner
Albany
518.429.4293

https://www.barclaydamon.com/alerts/new ... the-courts
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

4 SEPTEMBER 2022

TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk

FOR: The record

To continue to keep this record straight, this morning, 4 September 2022, at 5:13 A.M., my entire western horizon was lit up, as if on fire, or as if the Ku Klux Klan of Poestenkill were conducting a cross burning on my property, by the Nazi concentration camp spotlights on the brick house compound owned by Patricia Gettings on the north side of the west end of Liberty Lane.

So again this campaign of intimidation by Gettings as an agent of the town of Poestenkill continues for no other purpose than an intent to prevent, by force, intimidation and threat myself from holding a public trust or place of confidence in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer as a New York State licensed professional engineer, and from discharging any duties thereof; and to injure me in my person on account of my lawful discharge of my duties of New York State licensed professional engineer so as to molest, interrupt, hinder and impede myself in the discharge of my duties as a licensed professional engineer to protect life, health and property in the State of New York and with purposeful intent to punish myself for lawfully enforcing my right to equal protection of the law.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONROE
______________________________________________________
FRESH AIR FOR THE EASTSIDE, INC.,
Petitioner,

vs.

TOWN OF PERINTON, TOWN OF PERINTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, L.L.C.,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________

Petitioner (“Petitioner”) Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. (“FAFE”) for its Amended Verified Petition (“Amended Petition”), by its attorneys, Knauf Shaw LLP, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Petitioner brings this proceeding against the Town of Perinton Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) and the Town of Perinton Town Board (“Town Board”) pursuant to inter alia, CPLR Article 78, CPLR §3001, the Town Code (“Town Code”), the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) (Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”) Article 8), the Open Meetings Law (“OML ”) (Public Officers Law Article 7), General Municipal Law (“GML”) §239-m, the United States and New York Constitutions, and/or otherwise, for an Order and Judgment vacating, annulling, and/or declaring illegal, unconstitutional, invalid, arbitrary, capricious, null and/or void: (1) the decision and approval (the “ZBA Approval”), annexed as Exhibit A, by the ZBA of the application (“Application”) submitted by Respondent Waste Management of New York, L.L.C. (“WMNY”) for a Solid Waste Facility Permit, pursuant to the Town Code §208-21 (“Landfill Permit”) for the extended operation, modification and expansion (the “Landfill Activities”) of the High Acres Landfill & Recycling Center (“Landfill”) in the Town; (2) the determination made by the ZBA that the Approval was a Type II action and not subject to environmental review under SEQRA; (3) the approval (the “Town Board Approval”) by the Town Board of a new Host Community Agreement (“HCA”) for the Landfill; (4) the Negative Declaration made under SEQRA by the Town Board; directing that an EIS be prepared on the Landfill Activities; enjoining further operation of the Landfill in the Town; and further granting such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, including Petitioner’s costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and disbursements.

PARTIES

2. Respondent WMNY is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in New York, with offices located at 425 Perinton Parkway, Perinton, New York.

3. WMNY is the owner and operator of the Landfill, which is located at 425 Perinton Parkway, Perinton, New York, is the applicant for the Landfill Permit, and party to the HCA.

4. Petitioner is a New York not-for-profit corporation with offices located in Monroe County in the State of New York.

Petitioner was organized exclusively to carry on the activities of a charitable or educational organization as specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

5. Petitioner was formally formed in 2018 to, among other things, preserve and protect the environment for the benefit of residents living in proximity to the Landfill by performing activities such as working with elected officials and the public on environmental issues related to the Landfill and ensuring compliance of the Landfill with land use, solid waste management, and air pollution permits, zoning laws, and environmental laws, codes, and regulations.

6. Petitioner has more than 200 members who own property or reside in close proximity to the Landfill whose lives and properties have been and continue to be adversely impacted by persistent, noxious, and offensive odors of garbage (“Odors”) and landfill gas emitted from the Landfill over at least the past five years.

Landfill gas consists of volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and reduced sulfur compounds, as well as potent greenhouse gases like methane.

Petitioner’s members are forced to breath unclear air caused by the Landfill.

7. Members of Petitioner are uniquely injured by the operations of the Landfill in numerous ways including adverse impacts related to aesthetics, property values, environmental harm, noise, dust, fumes, odors, traffic, air pollution, vectors, tremors caused when the gas plant malfunctions, etc. (“Impacts”).

8. The Impacts are experienced differently between FAFE members, and are unique from the public at large, for example, the Odors and Impacts interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the individual member’s properties.

9. Specific members of Petitioner impacted by the Landfill include Justin and Kaitlyn Foley, residing at 24 Tea Olive Lane, Fairport, NY 14502, Gary and Jennifer McNeil, residing at 11 Golden Bell Court, Fairport, NY 14450, and Michael and Heather Merlo, residing at 7 Tea Olive Lane Fairport NY 14450.

10. Heather and Michael Merlo reside about 0.6 miles north of the Landfill, and regularly experience adverse Impacts caused by the Odors and Landfill.

Due to the Odors and other Impacts, the Merlos limit use of their yard, and routinely check weather reports and wind direction and speed before planning any outdoor activities for themselves or their children.

The Odors and Impacts have unduly interfered with the quiet enjoyment of their property.

11. Gary and Jennifer McNeil reside about 0.8 miles north of the Landfill, and regularly experience adverse Impacts caused by the Odors and Landfill.

Due to the Odors and other Impacts, the McNeils have refrained from making property improvements and have seriously considered selling their home.

Due to Odors, the McNeils’ children were not able to play outside on numerous occasions.

The Odors and Impacts have unduly interfered with the quiet enjoyment of their property.

12. Justin and Kaitlyn Foley reside approximately 0.8 miles north of the Landfill, and regularly experience adverse Impacts caused by the Odors and Landfill.

Due to the Odors and other Impacts, the Foleys have refrained from holding any large events at their home in fear that their guests would experience the Odors.

They often refrain from using their backyard when Odors are present and constantly keep their windows closed in fear that the Odors will enter their home.

The Foleys’ daily activities are often interrupted by Odors.

The Odors and Impacts have unduly interfered with the quiet enjoyment of their property.

13. Petitioner’s members are concerned that the emissions from the Landfill are contributing to unclean air, an unhealthful environment, global warming, an increase in extreme weather conditions and unusual meteorological and atmospheric conditions, and will for ever alter the manner in which they normally interact with the natural environment.

14. Both SEQRA, and Chapter 208 of the Town Code, were enacted to protect citizens from the type of adverse environmental impacts being experienced by the Members.

By granting the ZBA Approval and the Town Board Approval (together the “Approvals”) in a manner inconsistent with applicable law, including the requirements of the Town Code and SEQRA, the Town is continuing to permit the Landfill to operate in a manner that adversely impacts the members of Petitioner without imposing proper mitigation measures to eliminate or mitigate these Impacts.

15. Respondent Town is a municipal corporation with offices at 1350 Turk Hill Road, Fairport, New York 14450 in Monroe County which is governed by its Town Board.

16. Respondent ZBA is a zoning board of appeals existing pursuant to Town Law §267, with offices located at 1350 Turk Hill Road, Fairport, New York 14450 in Monroe County.

THE TOWN CODE

17. Chapter 208 of the Town Code governs “Zoning” in the Town.

18. Town Code §208-21 regulates the filling of land and dumping of waste material in the Town, and specifically prohibits any dumping of waste, except as expressly provided for in that Section.

19. Town Code §208-21(C) permits the dumping of waste in the Town only in an Industrial Zone, and then only if a Landfill Permit is issued by the ZBA following a public hearing.

20. Town Code § 208-21(C) requires that a Landfill Permit applicant submit a copy of its Landfill Permit application to the Town of Perinton Conservation Board (“Conservation Board”) for comment.

21. Town Code § 208-21(C) requires that a Landfill Permit applicant secure the appropriate permits and permission from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) to operate a solid waste facility in the Town.

22. Town Code § 208-21(D)(1) requires that a Landfill Permit applicant set forth “the waste materials which shall be dumped on the site.”

23. Town Code § 208-21(D)(2) further states that: Before issuing a solid waste facility permit thereunder, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall find the following facts based on the evidence produced at the public hearing or submitted to the Board or upon personal observation by the members of said Board that:

(a) The granting of such permit is in the public interest to establish environmentally sound facilities to dispose of and treat solid waste.

(b) Adequate plans have been presented to show that the solid waste facility does not create a public hazard; that the solid waste facility does not unduly interfere with the quiet enjoyment of adjacent properties; and that sufficient precautions are to be taken to prevent fires or the creation and spread of smoke, odor, dust, fumes or noises liable to become a nuisance; and that when the operation is completed, the fill material or disturbed area will be covered with at least six inches of clean nondeleterious topsoil within a reasonable time thereafter and seeded with a permanent pasture mixture or other fast-growing surface vegetation and that such reseeding is continued until growth has been established.

(c) Any excavation permitted under this section shall not occur unless all required Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) permits or other DEC authorizations have been obtained, all operations are in compliance with all DEC regulations, the requirements of §122-13 are satisfied and a bond is posted to ensure compliance with §122-13.

The standards for restoration set forth in §122-13 of the Excavation Law of the Town of Perinton, as may be amended from time to time, are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply to all properties under the jurisdiction of this section.

24. Town Code § 208-21(D)(3) states that the ZBA shall require an applicant to file a surety company bond with the Town as a condition to any Landfill Permit, to ensure compliance with Town Code § 208-21.

25. Town Code § 208-21(D)(4) states that any Landfill Permit shall expire no later than the fifth anniversary date following the issuance.

26. Town Code § 208-21(D)(4) further states that any application for a Landfill Permit “may be renewed under the same procedures required for the original permit.”

27. Town Code§ 208-21(D)(5) requires that an applicant “enter into a contract with the Town Board for the operation of a solid waste facility” prior to the issuance of a Landfill Permit.

This contract is referred to as a “Host Community Agreement,” and is further detailed below.

28. Town Code § 208-21(D)(6) permits the Town to revoke the Landfill Permit should any
condition in § 208-21 not be complied with.

29. Town Code § 208-21(D)(7) requires all uses permitted under a Landfill Permit to “conform to bulk and setback restrictions as prescribed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but in no event shall such restrictions be less restrictive than those described in § 208-
40A(4).”

30. Town Code § 208-40(A)(4) allows for a solid waste facility to operate in an Industrial District upon obtaining a Landfill Permit from the ZBA provided that the following criteria are met:

(a) The parcel is greater than 100 acres in size.

(b) The facility and related improvements are set back greater than 100 feet from any property line.

(c) Appropriate measures are taken to minimize the visual impact of any operational activities and equipment, and drop off facilities are provided along adjacent public roads.

THE LANDFILL HISTORY

THE LANDFILL IS A CONTINUING NUISANCE

THE LANDFILL HAS CHANGED ITS OPERATIONS AND PERMITTED ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY ITS 2016 LANDFILL PERMIT

WMNY’S LANDFILL PERMIT APPLICATION

THE ZBA APPROVAL

THE HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

143. Petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies.

144. Petitioner is a Plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, entitled Fresh Air for The Eastside, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Waste Management of New York, L.L.C. and The City of New York, Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-06588, but seek different relief in this proceeding.

145. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND ILLEGAL ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN OF PERINTON TOWN CODE, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

146. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” through “145” of this Amended Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

147. The Application failed to comply with the requirements embodied Town Code § 208-21 and was deficient on its face.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND ILLEGAL ACTION BY THE ZBA IN VIOLATION OF SEQRA, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

153. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” through “152” of this Amended Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

154. Under SEQRA, a lead agency is required to review an EAF and make a determination of significance, pursuant to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7, and require an EIS if an “action” might have at least one significant adverse impact to the environment, prior to granting any approvals. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.3

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND ILLEGAL ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

180. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” though “179” of this Amended Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

181. OML § 103(e) states that “Agency records available to the public pursuant to [the Freedom of Information Law], as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation, policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject of discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be made available, upon request therefor, to the extent practicable as determined by the agency or the department, prior to or at the meeting during which the records will be discussed.”

182. Petitioner’s attorneys submitted a Freedom of Information Law request to the Town on August 12, 2021, seeking the documents pertaining to the Application, scheduled to be discussed on August 19, 2021.

Petitioner still has not received all documents it requested, and thus, the Town violated the OML.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND ILLEGAL ACTION IN VIOLATION OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 239-M, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

192. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” though “191” of this Amended Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

193. Pursuant to GML § 239-m(3)(a), the issuance of a special use permit requires a referral to the county planning agency.

194. The proposed action must be referred to the county planning agency prior to the local entity taking final action on the proposed action.

195. Pursuant to GML § 239-m(3)(b), any proposed action within a county located within five hundred feet of the boundary of any city, village, or town is subject to referral requirements created under § 239-m.

196. The Landfill Permit is effectively a special use permit subject to GML § 239-m.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND ILLEGAL ACTION BY THE TOWN BOARD IN VIOLATION OF SEQRA, PETITIONERS ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS:

201. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” through “200” of this Amended Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

202. The SEQRA review conducted by the Town Board in approving the HCA did not include a SEQRA review of the Landfill Activities or, as mentioned above, granting of the Landfill Permit.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ILLEGAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

217. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” through “216” of this Petition, as if set forth in this paragraph at length.

218. The Town Board Approval and the HCA were illegal, arbitrary, capricious and/or unconstitutional, and both lacked a rational basis, and did not serve an important or compelling government purpose.

219. By discriminating against members of Petitioner that brought a legal action regarding the Landfill, the Town has denied Equal Protection, Due Process and the Right to Free Speech and to Petition for Redress, in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Sections 6, 8, 9 and 11 of Article I of the New York Constitution.

220. By granting the Town Board Approval, the Town allowed the Impacts, Odors and a Public Nuisance to continue to be imposed upon members of Petitioner, in violation of the Right to Due Process, in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Sections 6, 9 and 11 of Article I of the New York Constitution.

221. By approving the HCA and allowing the Landfill Activities, the Town has violated the right of members of Petitioner to a “clean air and a healthful environment,” as guaranteed by Section 19 of Article I of the New York Constitution, including by allowing the continued Odors and other air emissions from the Landfill, by approving the least favored option under the Solid Waste Hierarchy, and by authorizing continued greenhouse gas emissions like methane to contribute toward global climate change without mandating any new mitigation measures to curb such emissions.

222. WMNY admits that changes to weather conditions interferes with its ability to properly operate the Land fill and control the Odors emanating from the Landfill; weather conditions which will only increase with climate change; climate change that is being caused by greenhouse gas emitters like the Landfill.

223. Therefore, this Court should annul and void, and declare unconstitutional, the Town Board Approval and the HCA.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND ILLEGAL ACTION, PETITIONER ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

224. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs “1” through “223” of this Petition, as set forth in this paragraph at length.

225. Upon information and belief, and/or as may be further determined upon filing of the record of proceedings, the Approvals may otherwise be in violation of other laws, regulations, and procedures.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant an Order and Judgment, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, the Town Code, SEQRA, the OML, GML, the United States and New York Constitutions, and/or otherwise, vacating, annulling, or declaring illegal, unconstitutional, invalid, arbitrary, capricious, null and/or void:

(1) the ZBA Approval of the Landfill Permit, pursuant to the Town Code §208-21, and the landfill Permit;

(2) the determination under SEQRA made by the ZBA that its Approval was a Type II action;

(3) the Town Board Approval of the Host Community Agreement; and

(4) the Negative Declaration made under SEQRA by the Town Board; directing that an EIS be prepared on the Landfill Activities; enjoining further operation of the Landfill in the Town; and granting such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper, including Petitioner’s costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and disbursements.

Dated: Rochester, New York
January 20, 2022

KNAUF SHAW LLP

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iy5e7e5ww2kmg ... D.pdf?dl=0
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

"Justice Department settlement details Cuomo's misuse of grants for Chamber staff - Federal investigation grew out of Times Union reporting on Cuomo’s extensive payment of Executive Chamber employees using state agencies and public authorities to obscure staffing costs"

Chris Bragg, Albany, New York Times Union

Sep. 1, 2022

ALBANY — The state Environmental Facilities Corp. has agreed to pay a $500,000 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to settle allegations that it repeatedly received payments from a clean water fund to pay for staffers that were working in Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office.

The investigation grew out of reporting by the Times Union in 2016 and 2017 concerning Cuomo’s practice of paying Executive Chamber staffers through various state agencies and public authorities — a tactic that obscured the true size and cost of the chamber's payroll.

Those stories prompted an FBI investigation in 2017 that lasted several years.

While the investigation did not result in any criminal charges, U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman's office began pursuing a civil case under the False Claims Act.

The $500,000 civil settlement between her office and the EFC was announced on Thursday.

The EFC paid the settlement to resolve allegations that it falsely certified individuals were working in support of a federal water-quality improvement grant when, in fact, they were working for Cuomo in positions unrelated to that funding.

As part of the settlement agreement, the EFC admitted that former senior officials included part of those individuals’ salaries and benefits in federal funding requests made to the federal Environmental Protection Agency — without disclosing that they were actually working for Cuomo’s office.


In March 2021, the Times Union's Capitol Bureau investigated whether the federal clean water grant was being misused to pay at least four Executive Chamber employees.

The Times Union did not publish a story on the topic after a spokesman for the Division of Budget — which is part of the governor's administration — claimed that the information was false.

But details of the settlement agreement announced Thursday — which was authorized by Cuomo's successor, Gov. Kathy Hochul — suggest the Cuomo administration improperly sought reimbursement for least two of the Executive Chamber employees the Times Union asked about last year.

"The Environmental Facilities Corporation falsely certified that employees were supporting a clean water grant when they were actually working directly for former governors in unrelated positions," Freedman said in a statement.

"I am pleased that current EFC leadership was willing to admit what happened, resolve EFC’s liability, and implement new compliance measures that should ensure ethical and legal behavior in the future."

"We will continue to use all of our resources to make sure that federal grant administrators follow the rules and that clean water grant money is used to improve water quality for all New Yorkers.”


Cuomo's spokesman, Richard Azzopardi, said Thursday that the former administration had provided federal investigators with "irrefutable evidence" that the employees in question had not been paid with federal funds.

He also criticized the long-running FBI investigation, which more generally concerned the Cuomo administration's practice of paying Executive Chamber staffers through the payrolls of agencies and public authorities.

“This was a multi-year attempt to criminalize a practice that went back to at least Gov. (Nelson) Rockefeller and involves positions, some of which predated our administration, and while we were obviously not a party to this settlement, our position remains that no federal money was misused and EFC was able to unequivocally demonstrate to the feds that no federal dollars went to these individuals,” Azzopardi said.

The Environmental Facilities Corp. is a public benefit corporation that assists communities in undertaking critical water quality infrastructure projects by providing access to low-cost capital, grants and expert technical assistance.

According to the settlement, the false funding submissions to the EPA began when former Gov. David Paterson was in office and continued after Cuomo was elected in November 2010.

Between 2009 and 2019, according to the settlement, senior Executive Chamber staff asked then-EFC officials to pay the salaries and benefits of several individuals hired to work in the governor's office in unrelated positions.

"More than one" now-former senior EFC official agreed to that arrangement, according to the settlement.

The individuals hired under the practice, according to the settlement, were not retained to work for the EFC or to support the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, even though the EFC sought federal payments for their salaries from the grant.

The settlement states that one individual whose salary and benefits EFC paid was "hired by the Executive Chamber to work on the former governor’s advance team while another was hired to help run the former governor’s Washington, D.C., office.”


Eighteen months ago, the Times Union had asked then-Division of Budget spokesman Freeman Klopott about EFC-funded employees fitting very similar profiles: Ryan Dalton, who was deputy director of Cuomo’s Washington, D.C., office, and Jennifer Darley, who before joining Cuomo’s office had been the "national advance lead" for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and filled a similar role for Cuomo.

"Your questions are based upon a faulty premise," Klopott said in March 2021.

"The salaries of these employees were not charged to a federal grant and the documents do not indicate that they were."

"Indeed, each of these individuals was paid entirely with state dollars."

"... EFC never received any federal funding it was not entitled to and no federal money was used to pay for the employees you're asking about."

Klopott, now a spokesman for the state Office of Cannabis Management, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Hochul’s office also did not immediately comment.

https://www.timesunion.com/state/articl ... 09a3f12c1f
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

5 SEPTEMBER 2022

The Honorable Kathy Hochul
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224

RE: On environmental injustice and the culture of corruption of the NYSDEC

Dear Governor Hochul:

ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE A WAY OF LIFE AT THE DEC; “GREEN AMENDMENT” CHANGES NOTHING IN THAT REGARD

If we were to want independent corroboration from an impeccable source whose testimony on the subject cannot be controverted or challenged that the passage of the so-called “green amendment” changed absolutely nothing with respect to the business-friendly policies of the NYSDEC that result in “environmental injustice,” such as is the case in Poestenkill and the city of Rensselaer right now, the very best source we could have, the most truthful, the most factual, the most honest, would be NYSDEC Commissioner Basil Seggos, himself, and what his official position on the “green amendment,” which supposedly “changed everything,“ but in reality changed nothing, really is can clearly see in a WCNY Radio article titled "Green constitutional amendment still ‘undefined’" by David Lombardo on July 18th, 2022, where we have Basil Seggos front and center on the “green amendment” in his own words, as follows:

Last fall, voters approved adding language to the state constitution guaranteeing every New Yorker a right to clean air, clean water and a healthful environment.

More than six months into the life of the amendment, which took effect in January, and it’s still not clear what the language means for government regulators.

Speaking on The Capitol Pressroom, state Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos said the amendment is still “very undefined,” when asked how it was used, if at all, to inform a decision about air permits for a fossil fuel plant in the Finger Lakes.

“We didn’t need to rely upon it to make a determination,” he said.

“I’m sure the courts will interpret [the amendment], ultimately,” Seggos said, noting some cases had already been filed.

“It will take some time."

"That ultimately will then help us understand the metes and bounds of that amendment.”


end quotes

Ah, yes, the metes and bounds of that amendment, indeed!

The Commissioner of Environmental Conservation has no idea himself of what they are, nor from his laconic attitude, does he care, and my goodness, why should he, when he is not compelled to?

In the meantime, of course, until Basil shall get a court decision telling him what the amendment really does mean, it is business as usual at the NYSDEC, as if the “green amendment” had never happened.

And that takes us to perhaps the best analysis of the “green amendment” that has been published to date, that being a piece published by Yvonne Hennessey of Barclay Damon LLP titled "New York State's New Green Amendment to Be Interpreted by the Courts" on February 11, 2022, where we were informed as follows concerning the “green amendment,” as follows:

On November 2, 2021, New York State voters passed a ballot measure enshrining in the New York State Constitution the right to a “healthful environment.”

end quote

In actuality, if there is a “right” to a “healthful environment,” it precedes the so-called “green amendment” by some eighty-four (84) years and it is enshrined not in the “green amendment,” but in the New York State Public Health Law, which law is derived from §3 of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, titled Social Welfare, wherein is stated "(T)he protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine," adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.

Despite that reality, here we are, eighty-four (84) years later, still seeking that elusive dream of the “healthful environment” enshrined in §3 of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, this time by enacting yet another Constitutional Amendment that because of its nebulous language, is not self-executing, and thus, does nothing whatsoever to deliver a healthful environment to the people of the state of New York that §3 of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution has itself been unable to do, given that today, in the town of Poestenkill in the Rensselaer County Health District, which district encompasses all of Rensselaer County, people are drinking a toxic cocktail of what is known in Poestenkill as “ka-ka water” for the fecal matter in it blended with PFAS for good measure, while in the intervening years since 1970, when the NYSDEC came into being to our detriment, the town of Poestenkill, the Rensselaer County Health Department, the NYSDOH and NYSDEC have studiously been looking the other way while that has been happening, despite anything §3 of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution might have to say about it.

Going back to the Barclay Damon analysis, it continues as follows with the real meat of the issue, to wit:

The impact of New York State’s Green Amendment has been unclear since its passage.

At the outset, the amendment is comprised of just 15 words and lacks any specificity as to what the right actually means in practice.


end quotes

And it is obvious from the fact of Basil Seggos’ laconic attitude concerning the “green amendment” and the fact that since 1 January 2022, despite Basil and his deputies all swearing an oath to our Constitution, including § 3 of Article XVII and §19 of Article I, nothing has changed at the NYSDEC with respect to their attitudes, that Basil, himself a lawyer of note, is very aware of just how weak the language of the “green amendment” really is, and why that is so, which takes us back to the Barclay Damon analysis as follows:

The sponsor’s memo provides little by way of interpretation, merely noting that the Green Amendment was spurred by “recent water contamination and ongoing concerns about air quality,” which, it says, “have highlighted the importance of clean drinking water and air as well as the need for additional protections.”

These additional protections are noticeably absent from the text of the amendment and the sponsor’s memo.


end quotes

And in fact, as we see by going to the Times Union article "Ballot Proposal 2: A 'Green Amendment' with Capital Region roots - A look at the second ballot question, a constitutional amendment to guarantee New Yorkers a right to clean air, clean water" by Joshua Solomon on Oct. 25, 2021, the “green amendment” was never anything more than a shallow thinking green pipe-dream by people in the environmental movement who mistake wishful thinking for sound policy, to wit:

The group Environmental Advocates NY directed a concerted effort in pushing for the measure in the wake of widespread attention on the situation emerging in Hoosick Falls six years ago, where high levels of manmade perfluorinated chemicals were discovered in the community's drinking water supplies, including private wells.

"It would be a wonderful thing if a positive came out of the Hoosick Falls situation, because the state of New York really failed those residents," Judith Enck, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, told the Times Union.


end quotes

In point of fact, Judith Enck has been aware of serious groundwater problems in Rensselaer since at least 1989, and in all that time since, including her spell as Eliot Spitzer’s chief environmental policy advisor when he was AG, and her spell as Spitzer’s chief environmental advisor when he was governor, and her time as Obama’s EPA director, never once was Judith Enck heard to speak out about the groundwater problems in Rensselaer County since 1989, and from a Times Union article titled "Congress to probe Hoosick Falls water crisis - House Committee asks Cuomo and EPA for documents on water pollution" by Brendan J. Lyons on July 8, 2016, it can readily be concluded that Ms. Enck also failed those residents, to wit:

A U.S. congressional committee has launched an investigation into the state and federal governments' handling of the widespread contamination of public and private water supplies in Hoosick Falls and other areas of eastern Rensselaer County.

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent letters Wednesday to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency demanding documents for the pending congressional probe into the water pollution.

The House committee's investigation cites Times Union articles and other news reports indicating that officials at all levels of government, including the state and Rensselaer County Health departments, as well as the EPA, were aware for more than a year that a hazardous chemical, PFOA, had polluted the village's water system but did not warn residents to stop drinking the water.

U.S. Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, has pushed for months for the House committee's leadership to investigate and potentially hold congressional hearings on the situation in Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh, where PFOA also contaminated public and private water supplies.

"We need to learn what happened and not repeat it and this is why we need the hearings," Gibson said.

"They and the rest of the country deserve answers as to what happened."

Officials with the EPA's Region 2, which includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, declined to comment on the congressional inquiry.

They also declined to clarify when Enck, the EPA's Region 2 administrator, learned of the situation in Hoosick Falls.

The Times Union has reported that Enck learned of the crisis last fall.

But emails indicate that Rensselaer County health officials consulted with Arlene Anderson, a supervisor in the Region 2 office, in December 2014.

Anderson works in the agency's Drinking Water and Ground Water Protection Section.


end quotes

And in a sure sign that since Hoosick Falls, which could not have happened but for the RCDOH and NYSDEC looking the other way, all of which is easily documented and in fact is a matter of public record that cannot be refuted by either agency, nothing has changed, we go back to the Times Union article just mentioned, where we have as follows:

"The Committee is seeking information as to why the state and county delayed in acknowledging the health risks of PFOA exposure in Hoosick Falls and continued to provide the public with false and confusing information."

end quote

And when we fast-forward to September 22, 2021 and the WNYT-TV article titled "Rensselaer County leaders discuss chemical found during water tests," we find the NYSDEC and NYSDOH still peddling that same line with respect to PFAS in Poestenkill’s drinking water, to wit:

POESTENKILL - According to both DEC and the State Department of Health, contaminant levels of PFOA discovered in private wells of two properties adjacent to the Algonquin Middle School in Poestenkill do not pose a significant health risk.

end quote

And we find the same false information about the health risks associated with continued ingestion of PFAS being peddled by the town of Poestenkill, where people drink a “ka-ka water” cocktail laced with PFAS for flavor, because the DEC and DOH imply or openly state that it is good for you to keep your alimentary canal well lubricated, in August of 2021, when the Town of Poestenkill published on its website an "Update on Algonquin Middle School Water Tests" from Bob Brunet, Poestenkill’s “public health coordinator,” wherein was stated as follows:

In our last update we quoted numerous NYSDOH statements which reassured us that the school’s water 'does not pose a significant health risk.'

'Your water continues to be acceptable for all uses.'


end quotes

There has been no change since Hoosick Falls precisely because there is no incentive for the NYSDEC, the NYSDOH, the RCHD and the town of Poestenkill to change.

There is no jeopardy for them to tell us bald-faced lies, and if they work for NYSDEC, there is a good chance they will get promoted if they do lie to us, and the “green amendment” does absolutely nothing whatsoever to change that reality, given that the “green amendment” was never anything more than a publicity stunt along the lines of the New York State Environmental policy, as we see by going back to the Times Union article titled "Ballot Proposal 2: A 'Green Amendment' with Capital Region roots - A look at the second ballot question, a constitutional amendment to guarantee New Yorkers a right to clean air, clean water" by Joshua Solomon on Oct. 25, 2021, to wit:

The Hoosick Falls drinking water crisis, coupled with air pollution from nearby industrial plants in Albany's South End, particularly around the Ezra Prentice apartments, pushed Environmental Advocates NY to rally for a clean air, clean water amendment.

It emerged from the Capital Regional crises, Environmental Advocates NY Executive Director Peter Iwanowicz said.

Iwanowicz and Environmental Advocates NY formed "Vote YES for Clean Air and Water," a campaign committee for the ballot proposal in February.

Four years ago, an attempt to get the amendment on the ballot failed in a Republican-controlled state Senate.

When Democrats took control of the Legislature following the 2018 election, the momentum for the amendments picked up.

It's something Enck, the former EPA regional administrator fighting for clean water, hopes can be an extra tool to protect the public.

"Ironically, I'm heading out to a meeting in my hometown," Enck said in a conversation last week.

"The town board is meeting because, guess what, we have PFOA in our groundwater."

"The middle school is violating state drinking water standards, so they've turned off the water supply."

"Once again, the DEC and the health department response has been really inadequate."

"It's as if Hoosick Falls never happened."


end quotes

So environmental injustice in New York state as we know it is not going to change because of the “green amendment,” and to date, the only voice we have not heard speaking to the “green amendment” has been yours, although one could safely infer that the attitude taken by Basil Seggos towards the “green amendment” would have to derive from your own attitude about the “green amendment,” given that the reason Basil Seggos exists is to give you pleasure 24/7/365, and if Basil were to go against your interpretation of the “green amendment,” that would not give you pleasure and so in that case, Basil would have to go, and being a political appointee for so many years, Basil is very well aware of his continuing duty to you to keep you happy.

So perhaps you could do we voters a favor before the November elections by making a public statement as to exactly where you do stand on the matter before we go to the polls to select who are next governor is going to be.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

JDSUPRA

"New York’s Green Amendment: How Guidance from Other States Can Shape the Development of New York’s Newest Constitutional Right"


Sheila Birnbaum, Mark Cheffo, Allie Ozurovich, Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Marina Schwarz, Lincoln Wilson

Dechert LLP

November 15, 2021

Key Takeaways

* The span of New York’s Green Amendment remains to be seen and will likely be left to the courts to determine.

* Guidance from other states with Green Amendments — especially those that, like New York, include it in their Constitution’s Bill of Rights — may be a good starting point in assessing how New York’s Green Amendment may shape up in the courts.


Likened by some to motherhood and apple pie, the Environmental Rights Amendment was adopted by New York with a resounding “Yes” on November 2, 2021, with approximately 68% of voters approving the new amendment.1

This amendment, also known as the “Green Amendment” adds the following right to the New York Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.2

Many Questions Remain

The impact of this single sentence on New York law remains unclear.

The Sponsor Memo provides little in the way of interpretation, but states that the Amendment was spurred by “recent water contamination and ongoing concerns about air quality,” which it says “have highlighted the importance of clean drinking water and air as well as the need for additional protections.”3

But what those "additional protections" are is unclear.

For example, certain General Assembly members “assured” their colleagues that “this Constitutional Amendment does not” provide “a private right of action for environmental damage,”4 though on its face, the Amendment provides the right to each person.5

It is also unclear whether, if a private right of action exists, it can be asserted against private companies.

And whether individuals could use the Amendment to engage the government in their dealings with private companies also remains to be seen.

Even fundamental questions have yet to be answered, such as how to define “clean” and “health,” and whether there are penalties for violations.

Nor does the Green Amendment provide any guidance as to whether compliance with current regulations will be a safe harbor defense in ligation — for example, by complying with current emissions standards under New York or federal law.

There is also uncertainty as to how this Amendment will affect state agencies’ and legislative bodies’ policymaking power.

While both typically drive environmental policy, that power could now vest with private citizens — prosecuted through the courts — as they pursue litigation consistent with their own environmental ambitions and agendas.

In the face of such litigation, courts may be tasked with evaluating the intricacies of environmental policy beyond constitutional boundaries.


Such litigation could turn separation of powers on its head by devolving into a judicial evaluation of the merits of a particular economic and environmental policy, rather than just its legality.

Guidance from Other States With Green Amendments

In deciding how to answer the many open questions about the Green Amendment, courts may be guided by interpretation of similar provisions from other states.

The Sponsor Memo for the Amendment stated that it looked to “several other states including Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Montana have constitutional protections in place to ensure access to clean air and water” to “follow those models and ensure that clean air and water are treated as fundamental rights for New Yorkers.”6

Of those states, only Pennsylvania and Montana, like New York, include their Green Amendment in their state Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

And New York’s Amendment appears, on its face, to lack some of the features and limitations in similar provisions from other states.

Below, we outline how those different amendments have been interpreted by the courts to inform how New York courts may decide the meaning of the Amendment here.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s Green Amendment bears some similarities to New York’s, such as its inclusion in the Bill of Rights, that make it a useful framework to assess New York’s Green Amendment.

Pennsylvania’s  Environmental Rights Amendment states as follows:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.

Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.

As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
7

Because the Amendment entrusts the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with protecting these resources, and therefore courts have imposed limitations on how it may be enforced.

First in a plurality opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that Pennsylvania’s Green Amendment allowed a legal challenge under the Amendment if either “the government has infringed upon citizens’ rights or the government has failed in its trustee obligations” or both.8

A later decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court crystalized this limitation as a restriction primarily on the state.

In Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court explained that the Green Amendment “places a limitation on the state’s power to act contrary to” the Green Amendment.9

Lower courts in Pennsylvania have likewise adopted this view: “The plain language of the Environmental Rights Amendment charges the Commonwealth, as trustee, with the duty to conserve and maintain Pennsylvania's public natural resources, and we are unaware of any case law applying this duty to non-Commonwealth entities.”10

In light of this authority, private action against private companies under the Green Amendment has not yet been endorsed by Pennsylvania courts.

Montana

Like Pennsylvania, Montana includes a Green Amendment in its Bill of Rights: “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights."

"They include the right to a clean and healthful environment.”11

The enforcement of perceived violations of the Amendment, however, appears in a different article of the Montana Constitution, which states that “the State and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations” and “the legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”12

Montana courts have thus interpreted these two provisions to require strict scrutiny review to “state or private action which implicates either constitutional provision.”13

Montana courts have also permitted private action against a public agency for dealings with a private company on the basis that those dealings were harmful to the environment.14

Though the Montana Environmental Information Center decision leaves open the question of whether a private action may violate the Green Amendment, the focus of litigation under the Green Amendment has been on state (not private) action.

Hawaii

Hawaii’s Constitution states that “each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources."

"Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law.”15

The plain text of the statute suggests that anyone may enforce the right to a clean environment against any party (either public or private), but that the scope of a “clean and healthful” environment is determined by environmental regimes already in place.

The Hawaii courts, however, have treated the Green Amendment as conferring a property right.

For example, in In re Application of Maui Elec. Co., the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that there was a “protectable property interest” in the “right to a clean and healthful environment guaranteed by article XI, section 9.”16

More recent guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court confirms the same: “Appellants possess a protected property interest in a clean and health environment under article XI, section 9 of the Hawaii State Constitution[.]”17

Because Hawaii’s Green Amendment was not originally introduced as part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Hawaii legislators recently introduced a bill to add it: “Each person has a right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air and healthy ecosystems, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment.”18

However, because Hawaii treats its Green Amendment more as a property interest more than a fundamental right, Montana and Pennsylvania interpretations are likely more analogous to New York’s Amendment.

Massachusetts

Though the New York legislature also cited Massachusetts’ Green Amendment as precedent, the language of the Massachusetts’ Green Amendment seems to pertain specifically to takings and easements for a “public purpose”:

The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development, and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose.19

The Massachusetts Green Amendment further clarifies that “the general court20 shall have the power to enact legislation necessary or expedient to protect such rights.”21

Moreover, “in furtherance of the foregoing powers, the general court shall have the power to provide for the taking, upon payment of just compensation therefor, or for the acquisition by purchase or otherwise, of lands and easements or such other interests therein as may be deemed necessary to accomplish these purposes.”22

Finally, the amendment notes that “lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court.”23

In light of this language, Massachusetts courts have typically evaluated this Amendment in the context of takings or easements.24

And because the amendment vests the general court with the power to protect the environmental rights of the people of Massachusetts, it appears that the general court did not contemplate private causes of action under this Amendment.

These features likely make it less analogous to New York’s Green Amendment.

Illinois

The Illinois Constitution states that “the public policy of the State and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations.”25

It goes on to state that “each person has the right to a healthful environment” and “may enforce this right against any party, governmental or private, through appropriate legal proceedings subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as the General Assembly may provide by law.”26

Thus, unlike New York’s Green Amendment, the text of the Amendment suggests it expressly provides for a private right of action against any party — which presumably includes state and private agencies.

The Illinois Supreme Court, however, has construed the Amendment in line with precedent from other states and implemented safeguards against overbroad Green Amendment litigation.

Based on the Committee Meeting notes in passing the Green Amendment, the Illinois Supreme Court held that “section 2 gives standing to an individual for a grievance common to members of the public,” but that it “is limited to granting standing and does not create any new causes of action.”27

A subsequent lower court decision has reiterated this principle: “While section 2 refers to individuals being able to enforce their right to a healthful environment, that section did not create any new causes of action but instead eliminated the need to show a special injury as is traditionally required in environmental nuisance cases.”28

Thus, even in instances where the statute appears to be broader than New York’s Green Amendment, courts have nevertheless been reluctant to permit a new species of private causes of action under the Green Amendment.

Rhode Island

Finally, Article 1, section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution states as follows:

It shall be the duty of the general assembly to provide for the conservation of the air, land, water, plant, animal, mineral, and other natural resources of the state, and to adopt all means necessary and proper by law to protect the natural environment of the people of the state by providing adequate resource planning for the control and regulation of the use of the natural resources of the state and for the preservation, regeneration and restoration of the natural environment of the state.29

However, this provision is not considered a Green Amendment since the courts have limited it to fishery rights.30

Therefore, it will likely not provide useful guidance in interpreting New York’s Green Amendment.

Conclusions

Though the text of the New York Green Amendment provides more questions than answers, guidance from other states that have adopted a Green Amendment may prove useful in evaluating potential limitations that courts may apply in determining its scope.

It will be up to the courts in the coming years to shape the impact of this Amendment on private citizens, state agencies, and companies alike.

Footnotes

1) New York Environmental Rights Amendment, https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Propos ... ent_(2021) (last accessed Nov. 5, 2021).

2) N.Y. Const. art. XIX.

3) See https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s5287 (last accessed Nov. 5, 2021).

4) See Feb. 8, 2021 Session Transcript (Statement of Assem. Simon).

5) See generally Jan. 12, 2021 Session Transcript.

6) Id.

7) PA. Const. art. 1, section 27.

8) Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 632 Pa. 564, 642 (2013).

9) Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, 640 Pa. 55, 88 (2017) (emphasis added).

10) Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015); Marcellus Shale Coalition v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 193 A.3d 447, 485 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).

11) Mont. Const. art. II, section 3.

12) Mont. Const. art. IX, section 1.

13) Montana Environmental Information Center v. Department of Environmental Quality, 296 Mont. 207, 225 (1999).

14) See, e.g., Park County Environmental Council v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 402 Mont. 168, 193-194 (2020).

15) HI Const. art. XI, section 9.

16) In re Application of Maui Elec. Co., 141 Hawaii 249, 271 (2017).

17) Matter of Gas Company, LLC, 465 P.3d 633, 650 (2020).

18) See https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2 ... 2_HD1_.HTM (last accessed November 5, 2021).

19) MA. Const. art. XCVII.

20) The General Court refers to the Massachusetts state legislature.

21) Id.

22) Id.

23) Id.

24) See, e.g., Mahajan v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 464 Mass. 604, 612 (2013).

25) IL. Const. art. IX, section 1.

26) IL. Const. art IX, section 2.

27) Glisson v. City of Marion, 720 N.Ed. 2d 1034 (1999).

28) See Helping Other Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos, 406 Ill. App. 3d 669, 683 (2010).

29) R.I. Const. art 1, section 17.

30) See, e.g., Riley v. Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, 941 A.2d 198, 208 (defining section 17 as “the ‘right of fishery’”).

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-y ... e-2462721/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

THE ADVERTISER Letters To The Editor

“Green amendment” changed nothing


September 8, 2022

It seems as if on an almost weekly basis now, the people of Rensselaer affected by the Dunn dump have yet another letter in the Advertiser pleading with Governor Hochul to close the landfill, which raises in my mind the question why.

Why would Kathy Hochul, who is running for office in November, and thus, in need of a steady stream of incoming cash donations, risk annoying and alienating the powerful people who benefit from keeping the landfill open by siding with a small group of people from Rensselaer who have no clout or power, or else they wouldn’t be writing letters to the Advertiser every week begging her to take action?

Besides nothing, what is in it for her?

She has made it quite clear since she took office that with her administration, money talks.

So why should she do something for the people of Rensselaer for free, and start a precedent?

Because of the so-called “green amendment,” which supposedly guarantees “clean water, clean air and a healthful environment,” which amendment became law of the land on 1 January 2022?

Has anyone ever heard a word in favor the amendment uttered by Kathy Hochul since she has been in office?

And what about Basil Seggos, her “environmental chief?”

Has anyone ever heard Basil utter a word in favor of the so-called “green amendment?”

And of course they haven’t, because Basil has never even acknowledged the “green amendment” as applying to him as DEC commissioner and his agency, and to the contrary, in a WCNY Radio article titled “Green constitutional amendment still ‘undefined’” by David Lombardo on July 18th, 2022, Basil was quoted as saying said the amendment is still “very undefined.”

“I’m sure the courts will interpret [the amendment], ultimately,” Seggos said, noting some cases had already been filed.

“That ultimately will then help us understand the metes and bounds of that amendment.”

In the meantime, it means nothing and changes nothing at DEC and the Dunn dump will remain open.

Paul Plante
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

28 SEPTEMBER 2022

TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk

FOR: The record

Once again it is necessary to continue to keep this record concerning Patricia Gettings and her trespass in my life and on my property with her Nazi Concentration Camp spotlights straight because this morning, 28 September 2022, like clockwork at 5:07 A.M., when I came out of my home to begin my day, it was to see a literal river of intense bright white light from the Nazi concentration camp spotlights on the north side of the brick house compound owned by Patricia Gettings on the north side of the west end of Liberty Lane flowing through my land, as if it were on fire, or as if the Ku Klux Klan of Poestenkill were conducting a cross burning on my property.

As was previously stated, each day this harassment and intimidation goes on is one more count in what is an indictment of Poestenkill for intentional violation of my right to a healthful environment pursuant to § 19 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, the Bill of Rights that Poestenkill does not acknowledge as applying to it.

As I am sure your town attorney has already informed you, because §19 of Article I of the New York State Constitution is new, there are several questions that have been raised as to how it is enforced which I and my legal advisor have been studying assiduously, which task is made easier by the fact that a lawsuit alleging violation of §19 of Article I of the New York State Constitution has already been filed in Monroe County against the Town of Perinton, which lawsuit now serves as a template, as does the Motion to Dismiss in that case, which gives us insight into what possible defenses Poestenkill, with its extensive well-documented record of lawlessness and intimidation of myself, could possibly raise, given that this campaign of intimidation by Gettings acting as an agent of the town of Poestenkill continues for no other purpose than an intent to prevent, by force, intimidation and threat myself from holding a public trust or place of confidence in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer as a New York State licensed professional engineer, and from discharging any duties thereof; and to injure me in my person on account of my lawful discharge of my duties of New York State licensed professional engineer so as to molest, interrupt, hinder and impede myself in the discharge of my duties as a licensed professional engineer to protect life, health and property in the State of New York and with purposeful intent to punish myself for lawfully enforcing my right to equal protection of the law.

With respect to that claim, and by way of background, given that an on-going course of conduct is a necessary element of such a suit, in previous litigation, these following facts which are indeed germane to this matter are unrefuted and firmly established facts where attorney David T. Luntz of the firm Ryan & Smallacombe PLLC, who was the attorney of record for Poestenkill, NOT Patrick Tomaselli, confirmed to the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on behalf of the Town of Poestenkill in a federal court brief dated 16 August 2005 that "(I)n the present matter, for purposes of this appeal, defendants Bechard and Gebhardt are not disputing the facts set forth in plaintiff's amended complaint," facts which the Town of Poestenkill is now bound to in this above matter of the "culture of corruption" in Poestenkill to this day.

Those undisputed facts which serve as the necessary background in this up-coming matter are these:

FACT 1: At all times of the day and night, before, on and after August 7, 2001, plaintiff Paul R. Plante, P.E., was a non-dangerous person fully capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself.

FACT 2: On August 7, 2001, specifically, plaintiff was a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York pursuant to the New York State Education Law and Rules of the New York State Board of Regents, further qualified pursuant to the New York Public Health Law and New York State Sanitary Code to practice as an associate level public health engineer in the State of New York to protect and safeguard life, health and property in the State of New York.

FACT 3: In that public trust or place of confidence on August 7, 2001, plaintiff was conducting a lawful investigation pursuant to the New York State Education Law, the New York State Public Health Law and the Rensselaer County Sanitary Code into deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions to the Rensselaer County Department of Health and the Town of Poestenkill Building Department by defendants Carl Richard Aiken and Kevin McGrath in connection with the issuance of a Rensselaer County Department of Health sewage system construction permit to defendant Jeffrey Pelletier on May 22, 2001.

FACT 4: This lawful investigation was in furtherance of the due course of justice in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County and the State of New York and consistent with and in full accord and compliance with a March 1999 directive from the Rensselaer County Board of Health to all residents of the Rensselaer County Health District to report any and all such deliberate falsifications of inspection data and fraudulent submissions to the Rensselaer County Director of Environmental Health, defendant Roy Champagne, which plaintiff herein had done on August 3, 2001.

FACT 5: While conducting this lawful investigation on a public thoroughfare in the Town of Poestenkill on August 7, 2001, four (4) days after reporting to defendant Champagne, plaintiff was viciously attacked and physically assaulted by defendant Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York, who first threw a rock directly at plaintiff's head in a killing throw and after narrowly missing plaintiff, then came out on Liberty Lane in a killing rage and grabbed plaintiff in a wrestling hold and literally cracked plaintiff's spine sideways, which immediately paralyzed plaintiff and rendered him speechless in pain and defenseless.

FACT 6: While plaintiff was in this position of helplessness on August 7, 2001, defendant Jeffrey Pelletier kept displaying class- based invidiously discriminatory animus towards plaintiff as a federally protected disabled veteran by repeatedly calling plaintiff a "f__king retard".

FACT 7: Subsequent thereto, on or about August 9, 2001, defendant Robert Reiter personally confronted plaintiff and warned plaintiff to "back off" on the Pelletier investigation as defendant Jeffrey Pelletier was a "protected person" in Rensselaer County.

FACT 8: Thereafter, on August 17, 2001, defendant Kathleen Jimino called plaintiff at his home and told plaintiff that if he did not stop his investigation into the manner in which defendant Jeffrey Pelletier had procured a Rensselaer County Health Department sewage system construction permit, she would cause plaintiff to be harmed in his person and in his property.

FACT 9: Under color of MHL 41.09(b) on August 22, 2001, defendant John Christian Braaten made out and filed with defendant Samaritan Hospital, the Albany VA Hospital, the New York State Police and the United States Attorney, a fraudulent medical certification pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.37 falsely attesting therein, despite the absence of clear and convincing evidence, that plaintiff was a dangerous person with a mental illness for which immediate inpatient care and treatment in a hospital was appropriate despite the fact that defendant Braaten had ever seen, examined or evaluated plaintiff in any manner.

FACT 10: On August 22, 2001, at about 11:20 A.M., plaintiff suffered a massive curtailment of liberty when plaintiff was seized by Albany, New York VA Hospital staff and involuntarily confined, detained, incarcerated or otherwise committed to the secure mental health ward of the Albany, New York VA Hospital, based on nothing more than the unlawfully issued New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order which was unlawfully executed by defendant John Christian Braaten on August 22, 2001.

ALL of what is now transpiring in this matter, all of the continued intimidation, all of the continued harassment, flows forth from that established and admitted set of facts which Poestenkill cannot refute.

And as of this morning, this story of corruption and retaliation in the tiny town of Poestenkill, a town with a documented record of corruption going back to 1976, which on-going story is posted on the internet and updated on a daily basis as this harassment and intimidation continues, is up to 22419 views as the candid world out there continues to follow these Nazi/Ku Klux Klan tactics which now characterize Poestenkill, as if Patricia Gettings has the power to drive me out of Poestenkill with the blessings of the corrupt town board.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

30 SEPTEMBER 2022

TO: Poestenkill Town Clerk

FOR: The record

And this is exactly what I need, continuing confirmation, thanks to Patricia Gettings trespassing in my life and on my property with her Nazi Concentration Camp spotlights this morning, 30 September 2022, like clockwork at 5:07 A.M., when I came out of my home to begin my day to see a literal river of intense bright white light from the Nazi concentration camp spotlights on the north side of the brick house compound owned by Patricia Gettings on the north side of the west end of Liberty Lane flowing through my land, as if it were on fire, or as if the Ku Klux Klan of Poestenkill were conducting a cross burning on my property, that the town of Poestenkill INTENDS to keep up this campaign of intimidation and harassment to literally drive me from Poestenkill the way the Ku Klux Klan drove people of color out of the South, or the Nazi thugs in Nazi Germany drove Jews out of Germany, same tactics, different day, which campaign of intimidation, which is very well documented and cannot be refuted, given that it is well detailed in the files of the Workers' Compensation Bureau to support my claim for disability due to psychological harassment, that dates back to 1988, when I was the licensed professional engineer serving as the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer who was charged by Governor Cuomo and then-Health Commissioner Dr. David Axelrod with putting and end to endemic public corruption in the Rensselaer County Health District, including Poestenkill, including the use of the NYSP as Poestenkill's private army of thugs.

As has been previously stated, and ignored, each day this harassment and intimidation goes on is one more count in what is an indictment of Poestenkill for intentional violation of my right to a healthful environment pursuant to § 19 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, which in turn implicates §11 of Article I, wherein is stated in clear and unequivocal language that "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof," and "No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state," which in turn implicates Ricky Brown, et al. v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 65 USLW 2355 (1996), and the subject of Constitutional Torts, and the use by the town of Poestenkill of the NYSP as a private army of political enforcers, because while in Ricky Brown, the NYSP were directed against people of color, in this case, they have been directed at me as their target, all of which again is a matter of record, including Code Enforcer Officer Church's use of the NYSP on 6 February 2021, at which time I was confronted by two New York State Troopers who were sicced on me by Tracy Church, the town's so-called code enforcer officer, who made a FALSE REPORT to the Troopers that I was mentally ill and a danger to him, this in retaliation for my complaints about his complicity in this light trespass harassment by Patricia Gettings.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY

Post by thelivyjr »

DATE: May 20, 2021 at 4:36 PM

TO: New York State Police

Thank you for your correspondence, Sgt. __________!

It is appreciated.

I do not know why Trooper Sheehan was originally copied by Poestenkill Town Code Enforcer Tracy Church in apparent connection with myself, what the circumstances of that relationship might be or have been, and given that lack of knowledge on my part, and uncertain as to the game being played by Tracy Church might have been, and being very fearful of the New York State Police, I thought it would behoove me to introduce myself to Trooper Sheehan separately from any introduction Church might have given me.

I had no idea where Trooper Sheehan was stationed, nor what position he occupied in the State Police hierarchy, only that his name appeared in the list of copies on an e-mail from Tracy Church to myself concerning a matter the State Police would not have an interest in.

That to me was suspicious on the part of Church, not the State Police.

Having been through that ordeal, and more, since this has been on-going since that time, I am concerned about a fraudulent Order on Protection in the possession of Diane Horton.

If she tries to revive that Order of Protection, it is my concern that a Trooper will not question its fraudulent nature, and harm will come to me, as a result.

So that is part of why Trooper Sheehan became involved.

I shall certainly gladly defer the matter upwards to yourself, now that I know of your existence.

Paul Plante
Post Reply