In the Village Council meeting (June 2nd) discussion about whether to withhold services to the Industrial Park until the Port Authority commits to not leasing for the EnerGreen waste facility, the statement was made that we "can't have a [legally] binding agreement to a negative."
I have since consulted a lawyer friend who said "There absolutely can be a binding agreement to a negative. Examples: No landfills. No atomic waste dumps. No subleases. No pets. No pouring gasoline into the sewers. No violations of OEPA permit requirements, etc."
Some Council members said they felt they would be going back on their word if they refused to supply services over the issue. I assume Council did not expect a waste facility when they made the agreement to supply services. If the Port Authority had been transparent, done their research, and presented all of the facts, this would be a non-issue. As it is, with no relevant state regulations in place, little about this waste facility proposal is legitimate.
Mr. Bunting made the statement: "How can we be more clear that we don't want the waste facility?" I would respectfully suggest that the non-binding vote that passed in the May 19 meeting is not as clear a message as a vote to withhold services until we get a binding commitment from the Port Authority Board that the waste facility will not be sited at the industrial park.
John M. Morgan