Here's a copy of a letter PATH has been sending out to landowners they have been harassing to sign easements and options for the past 2 years. Not only are they not telling landowners the whole story of their "suspension", but they're using weasel words, just in case they "accidentally" do something they claim they won't do. The letter tells landowners that they have "suspended nearly all activities on the project including efforts to acquire easements, survey work and other field activities involving the proposed route." So, if you take them at their word, they're not going to be bothering you anymore. But the weasels just can't resist throwing in the word, "nearly." We know that their land agents are still in our communities, more than a month after their "suspension." Why? I've heard lots of reasons why from various people. I guess those activities are covered by "nearly."
Meanwhile, back at the PATH ranch, the "Status Update" sent to FERC states that, "some non-development activities and non-capital cost expenditures will necessarily continue..."
It seems that quite a few of PATH's Option Agreements are due to be renewed (at PATH's discretion, of course, remember PATH wrote these Options and coerced landowners into signing them without the benefit of legal advice). Renewal of an option requires another payment to the landowner. The option payments to landowners are a capital expense.
Is PATH lying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or are they going to let the options expire? Or, the most likely explanation -- Will PATH continue to be an uncoordinated, mismanaged mess where they say one thing and do another and when they're caught, they say, "ooops!"?
Meanwhile, back at the PATH ranch, the "Status Update" sent to FERC states that, "some non-development activities and non-capital cost expenditures will necessarily continue..."
It seems that quite a few of PATH's Option Agreements are due to be renewed (at PATH's discretion, of course, remember PATH wrote these Options and coerced landowners into signing them without the benefit of legal advice). Renewal of an option requires another payment to the landowner. The option payments to landowners are a capital expense.
Is PATH lying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or are they going to let the options expire? Or, the most likely explanation -- Will PATH continue to be an uncoordinated, mismanaged mess where they say one thing and do another and when they're caught, they say, "ooops!"?
RSS Feed