Friday, February 1, 2013

"Ton of Revenue" Trumps Fracking Fallout

This post refers to a drill site located in Arlington, several miles from the Ragland Road area, and the purpose here is to illustrate two issues: One related to local government, in this case the Arlington City Council proceedings, and the other having to do with the unwavering mindsets of those who fully support gas drilling operations.

First, a quick shout-out! to ALL of the local activists who appeared at that meeting in opposition to the SUP request - THANKS for your efforts.
__________________________
From the Arlington City Council Evening Meeting - January 22, 2013:
At issue: Zoning Case SUP09-10R1 (Rocking Horse Drill Site - 4945 South Collins Street) A request to amend the SUP by establishing the location of the drill zone and by changing the SUP boundaries for gas drilling on a 6.331-acres tract of land zoned Community Service within Airport Overlay 1 (CS-AP1) and Medium Density Multi-Family within Airport Overlay 1 (MF18-AP1) and generally located south of Caplin Drive and east of South Collins Street.
________________________________________________

At the Council meeting, an activist spoke to the issue of gas wells located close to area airports and concerns regarding unregulated multiple emissions, specifically the mixing of gas well emissions and jet fuel/airplane fumes.

Upon completion of her entire speech, here is the "response" by Council Member Charlie Parker:

Get Microsoft Silverlight



Mr. Parker, in his zeal to defend the almighty "ton of revenue", engaged in an argument which had nothing directly to do with the concerns about fuel fumes and gas well emissions broached by the speaker - and he made seemingly definitive statements about safety and airport workers that he, in fact, simply cannot back up with any degree of certainty. But moreover, he completely disregarded the absurdly illogical act of drilling gas wells near airports.

It seems the primary responsibility of City Council members should be to:
(1) Represent the best interests of ALL citizens in every issue heard by the Council;
(2) Listen fully to statements made by citizens during public council meetings;
(3) Respectfully ask questions pertinent to the issues being considered; and
(4) Participate in all sessions free from bias or pre-determined opinions and fairly take every point made into consideration when voting.

It does not seem, however, to be the right of any City Council member to step up on his soapbox in response to statements made by citizens in council meetings, and it certainly is not appropriate to attempt to engage a citizen in argument/debate, to speak with disrespect to, or even vaguely demonstrate a negative attitude toward any law-abiding citizen of this city. The public, when attending council meeetings, is expected to abide by a standard* of decorum, and it seems only fair that the same standards - if not higher ones - should apply to Council members, in each new session, regardless of their personal feelings toward the topics of discussion or toward individual speakers.

*RRCreporter notes here that it is the responsibility of ALL citizens and activists to conduct themselves with that decorum and sensible behavior when speaking before the council or in any venue. To behave irrationally is counter-productive to any cause.

One has to wonder if Mr. Parker is actually uninformed and close-minded or if he simply denies and evades due to a personally biased position on the issue. He, at least publicly, seems so sure, (as do too many others around the country), that there are absolutely no health risks to the general public, no dangers of increased seismic activity or environmental damage, no need to even consider the potential for a myriad of negative consequences caused by drilling/fracking . . . so certain there is no cause for concern.

But Mr. Parker . . . what if you, what if other Council members who agree with you, what if all individuals in this city and state and nation who are associated with and/or so staunchly supportive of the industry . . . WHAT IF ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG?