Dear Abby, Dear Abby
Bet you never thought
Telling your lies, that you'd ever be caught;
There is no PUC deadline for eminent domain
The deadline is yours, and your lie is insane.
In a recent news article about public hearings for the 133 eminent domain petitions filed by the Transource Independence Energy Connection, spokeswoman Abby Foster says:
Many landowners are in the process of negotiating rights of way, and Transource had to meet the PUC deadline for any easement which might require eminent domain, according to Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster.
"Those names may come off as negotiations happen," she said.
Transource will not proceed with eminent domain proceedings until the project is approved, according to Foster.
Landowners should meet with Transource right-of-way agents so they can understand the process and can negotiate the location of the line, she said.
"They can still say no at the end of the process," she said. "It's up to the landowners whether to sign the documents."
A PUC deadline, you say? It's been a while since I read one of Transource's eminent domain petitions (filed in May) but I don't remember anything about there being a PUC-imposed deadline to make those filings. So, I gave it another look. In one such petition against a landowner in York County, I found this admission:
However, given the construction schedule and in-service date for the proposed lEC-East Project, it is necessary for Transource PA to seek Commission approval to exercise the power of eminent domain in order to ensure that the lEC-East Project is constructed and operational by the in-service date.
So it's actually a self-imposed deadline by the company. IT IS NOT A "PUC DEADLINE."
Where I come from, we call this a lie. In fact, I'd categorize as the bold-faced variety.
What was the purpose of this lie? Was it because 133 eminent domain petitions looks bad for Transource? Especially when there was no reason whatsoever to file them. Except maybe Abby's statement reveals Transource's reasoning... the company is STILL trying to get landowners to negotiate. But landowners are STILL routinely slamming doors in Transource land agent faces. How many is "many," Abby? The dictionary defines "many" as "a large number." 133 is a large number, and many of those individuals have refused to negotiate.
Where I come from, we call this a lie. In fact, I'd categorize as the bold-faced variety.
What was the purpose of this lie? Was it because 133 eminent domain petitions looks bad for Transource? Especially when there was no reason whatsoever to file them. Except maybe Abby's statement reveals Transource's reasoning... the company is STILL trying to get landowners to negotiate. But landowners are STILL routinely slamming doors in Transource land agent faces. How many is "many," Abby? The dictionary defines "many" as "a large number." 133 is a large number, and many of those individuals have refused to negotiate.
Miss Abby, Miss Abby, I have a complaint,
The truth is the truth and truth this just ain't
So, listen up, missy, and listen up good
Stop telling your lies and go back to your 'hood.
Landowners should NOT meet with Transource right-of-way agents... unless they just want to amuse themselves "negotiating" the location of the line to Nick Akin's backyard.
RSS Feed