Municipal News
- Last Updated on Friday, 07 June 2013 02:46
By J.R. Brower
May 22, 2013 - In response to the May 6 public hearing informing Ramaco, LLC of conditions to be imposed upon their application to operate a deep coal mine in Nottingham Township, Faith Bjalobak of McMurray wrote a scathing letter to the Observer-Reporter published May 13 entitled “Corporate Bullying in Nottingham”.
May 22, 2013 - In response to the May 6 public hearing informing Ramaco, LLC of conditions to be imposed upon their application to operate a deep coal mine in Nottingham Township, Faith Bjalobak of McMurray wrote a scathing letter to the Observer-Reporter published May 13 entitled “Corporate Bullying in Nottingham”.
Mistakes in both the letter and in the reporter’s story on the public hearing were brought to the editor’s attention by Nottingham Board of Supervisors Chairman Peter Marcoline and Supervisor Doug King the next day. Bjalobak and the reporter both erred by saying that Nottingham Township paid for security at the public hearing, when it was, in fact, paid by Ramaco, a Lexington, KY company proposing to begin operations within several years on property off Little Mingo Road. Marcoline was surprised by the errors, because he announced early in the meeting, which both attended, that Ramaco paid for the security.
Bjalobak does not live in Nottingham nor did many of those who attended the public hearing. A group called the Center for Coalfield Justice, noted for their anti-mining activism, was in attendance. At least several Nottingham residents who live close to the proposed mine have been in communication with the group.
Marcoline reiterated at the regularly-scheduled board meeting on May 20 that Ramaco’s decision to hire security for the public hearing did not seem to be out of line. He said that it resulted from a harsh verbal confrontation between a neighbor who opposes the mine and a young woman who was one of the owners of the property being sold to Ramaco. The incident prompted a call to the State Police who responded to the incident, and reported that in later days the owners of the property were subject to threatening phone calls and garbage scattered on their property.
As a result of these disappointing events, the supervisors had no objection to Ramaco’s offer to pay for security to ensure the safety of all those who attended the hearing, for it had been made apparent to them that, as Marcoline said, “A highly emotionally charged atmosphere existed among many who opposed the deep mine.”
He also countered Bjalobak’s assertation in her letter that residents “do not want the aesthetic beauty and peaceful atmosphere of the park (Mingo) destroyed by industrialization that necessarily attaches to the mining of coal.” In his own letter to the editor of the Observer-Reporter, dated May 16, which as of May 22 has yet to be published, he emphasized that the proposed Ramaco mine will have no effect on Mingo Park. He stated that the mine is several miles from park property and that prior mining beneath the park years ago did not destroy the beauty and peacefulness of the park.
Board Chairman Marcoline said that his strongest objection to Bjalobok’s letter was her statement that he personally had “partaken of the corporate kool-aid”, inferring that he had taken some type of monetary compensation for simply abiding by the law in accepting Ramaco’s agreement to comply with 62 strict conditions, many of which were presented by Nottingham residents themselves.
Like those residents, the supervisors confirmed on May 20 that each one of them would prefer that the mine never open, and it may not, if Ramaco’s application to the state DEP is rejected. One factor working against the company is the fact that it was incorporated in 2011 and has no proven track record of safely and successfully mining coal. The township’s complete denial of the company’s conditional use application would have violated state law, putting the municipality in a “no win” legal jeopardy situation, resulting in extensive legal fees ultimately paid for by Nottingham taxpayers.
Supervisor Doug King added that, on the other hand, “If Ramaco had opposed the 62 conditions, they could have taken us to court, and if the court ruled in Ramaco’s favor, the court could have thrown out all the conditions, in which case Ramaco could pretty much do whatever they wish.”
Marcoline called the misstatements and allegations in Bjalobak’s letter to the editor “serious, false and reckless”, and, in his own yet-to-be-published letter, asked her to provide some evidence of her allegations to the newspaper. He stated that unless she could provide such documentation, he expected “an immediate apology.”
At the meeting, he also expressed his displeasure with the Observer-Reporter for publishing a correction of the public hearing reporter’s error on misnaming the hirer of security guards in their online edition and not in the print edition, which most people read. He said that the editor told him that his letter needed to be edited even though Bjalobak’s letter was published immediately after submission in its entirety, errors and all. Since its original publication, the letter has been updated and run again, however, the last sentence still makes the incorrect reference of Nottingham Township hiring security guards.
In a recent compromise with the newspaper, Marcoline said that the editor gave him the option of running the full letter in the May 26 Sunday edition as an editorial piece, which he said he accepted.
Note: Nottingham Board of Supervisor Chairman Peter Marcoline’s rebuttal to Peters Township resident Faith Bjalobak’s letter to the editor was published as an editorial in the Sunday, May 26 print and online editions of the Observer-Reporter.
Featured Articles
