RACHEL CARSON WAS BORN IN 1907 AND GREW UP IN A HOUSE AT 316 MANOR STREET IN SPRINGDALE, ALLEGHENY COUNTY. HER HOMESTEAD STILL STANDS. IT IS OWNED BY SPRINGDALE BOROUGH AND OPERATED BY THE RACHEL CARSON HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION. FOR DECADES SHE WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A MARINE BIOLOGIST AND EDITOR OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
Rachel Carson Homestead Association link
IN THE LATE 1950’S SHE BECAME AWARE OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AROUND THE COUNTRY SHOWING THE HARMFUL EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE CAUSED BY CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES SUCH AS DDT.
IN 1962, CARSON PUBLISHED HER BOOK SILENT SPRING. IT WAS ON THE NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER LIST FOR WEEKS. SHE PASSED AWAY IN 1964 HAVING SUFFERED FROM BREAST CANCER. HER SCIENTIFIC WORK TO DISCOVER AND PUBLICIZE THE DANGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS IS CARRIED ON TODAY BY THE SILENT SPRING INSTITUTE.
I hope to give public comment when Allegheny County Economic Development's Planning Division reviews an application from the Developer, Allegheny Property Company LLC. I plan on using Rachel Carson quotes from Silent Spring. I will be removing any reference to poison or chemicals and replacing them with references to Artificial Intelligence Data Centers (AIDC).
Below are quotes with page references from Silent Spring's 40TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION, PUBLISHED IN 2002:
"WE HAVE SUBJECTED ENORMOUS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO CONTACT WITH THESE POISONS, WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
IF THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS NO GUARANTEE THAT A CITIZEN SHALL BE SECURE AGAINST LETHAL POISONS DISTRIBUTED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IT IS SURELY ONLY BECAUSE OUR FOREFATHERS, DESPITE THEIR CONSIDERABLE WISDOM AND FORESIGHT, COULD CONCEIVE OF NO SUCH PROBLEM.” Silent Spring PAGES 12—13.
I will make no allegation that Allegheny DC or Springdale Borough are proposing to distribute lethal poisons in Springdale!
“THIS IS AN ERA…DOMINATED BY INDUSTRY, IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DOLLAR AT WHATEVER COST IS SELDOM CHALLENGED.
WHEN THE PUBLIC PROTESTS, CONFRONTED WITH SOME OBVIOUS EVIDENCE OF DAMAGING RESULTS OF PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS, IT IS FED LITTLE TRANQUILIZING PILLS OF HALF TRUTHS.” SILENT SPRING PAGE 13.
“I CONTEND THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED THESE CHEMICALS TO BE USED WITH LITTLE OR NO ADVANCE
INVESTIGATION OF THEIR EFFECT ON SOIL, WATER, WILDLIFE AND MAN HIMSELF.
FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE UNLIKELY TO CONDONE OUR LACK OF PRUDENT CONCERN FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATURAL WORLD THAT SUPPORTS ALL LIFE.” SILENT SPRING PAGE PAGE 12
"...(Pennsylvania’s original constitution of 1776 “reduce[d] to writing a deep history of unwritten legal and moral codes which had guided the colonists from the beginning of William Penn’s charter in 1681.”). This concept is illustrated in the basic two-part scheme of our Constitution, which has persisted since the original post-colonial document: one part establishes a government and another part limits that government’s powers." Robinson Township v. Commonwealth (2013)
Adoption. Unless otherwise noted, the provisions of Article I were adopted December 16, 1873, page 67874 P.L.3, effective January 1, 1874.
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE THAT--
§ 1. Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
§ 2. Political powers.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
§ 11. Courts to be open; suits against the Commonwealth.
All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct.
§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
§ 25. Reservation of powers in people.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
(May 16, 1967, P.L.1035, J.R.1)
§ 26. No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.
(May 16, 1967, P.L.1035, J.R.1)
§ 27. Natural resources and the public estate.
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.
Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.
As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
(May 18, 1971, P.L.769, J.R.3)
1971 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.3 added section 27.
§ 28. Prohibition against denial or abridgment of equality of rights because of sex.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.
(May 18, 1971, P.L.767, J.R.2)
1971 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.2 added section 28.
§ 29. Prohibition against denial or abridgment of equality of rights because of race and ethnicity.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the race or ethnicity of the individual.
(May 18, 2021, P.L.493, J.R.1)
Facts: The facts of this case were local government officials and their Townships and Boroughs claimed Act 13 of 2012 violated their civil rights within Article 1, Section 27 of the PA Constitution. Act 13 was written to streamline the process whereby fracking companies obtained signed contracts from Pennsylvania residents. Act 13 also permitted land owners in residential zoning to disregard bans on fracking wells in residential zones.. Townships and Boroughs across the state filed this lawsuit claiming Act 13 violated their duties under Article 1, Section 27.
The PA Commonwealth Court's opinion determined Act 13 did not violate Article 1, Section 27.
Appeal issue: Townships and Boroughs appealed to the PA Supreme Court claiming several portions of Act 13 do violate Article 1, Section 27.
Court Holding: Four of the six Justices participating in this opinion agreed with the outcome that portions of Act 13 violate Section 27 of the Declaration of Rights:
- The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.
2. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people,including generations yet to come.
3. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
PAGE 74 "Clause one of Section 27 requires each branch of government to consider in advance of proceeding the environmental effect of any proposed actions on the constitutionally features. The failure to obtain information regarding environmental effects does not excuse PAGE 75 the constitutional obligation because the obligation exists a priori to any statute purporting to create a cause of action." Footnote 40
"Moreover, as the citizens argue, the constitutional obligation binds all government, state or local, concurrently. Franklin Twp., 452 A.2d at 722 & n.8 (citing Section 27, Court stated that protection and enhancement of citizens’ quality of life 'is a constitutional charge which must be respected by all levels of government in the
Commonwealth'." Meanwhile, as with any constitutional challenge, the role of the judiciary when a proper and meritorious challenge is brought to court includes the obligation to vindicate Section 27 rights." Robinson at 76
Among the questions and answers distributed prior to the May 18, 1971 referendum and intended to aid voters in understanding the proposed constitutional amendment was the following:
Q. Will the amendment make any real difference in the fight to save the environment?
A. Yes, once [the amendment] is passed and the citizens have a legal right to a decent environment
under the State Constitution, every governmental agency or private entity, which by its actions may have
an adverse effect on the environment, must consider the people’s rights before it acts. If the public’s rights
are not considered, the public could seek protection of its legal rights in the environment by an appropriate law suit . . . .
Q. Will there be any “teeth” in the law, if passed?
A. It will be up to the courts to apply the three broad principles [articulated in the amendment] to legal cases.
However, having this law passed will strengthen substantially the legal weapons available to protect our
environment from further destruction . . . .Footnote 41 Robinson at 76
"Courts are equipped and obliged to weigh parties’ competing evidence and arguments, and to issue reasoned decisions regarding constitutional compliance by the other branches of government. The benchmark for decision is the express purpose of the Environmental Rights Amendment to be a bulwark against actual or likely
degradation of, inter alia, our air and water quality." Robinson at 77
Environmental Civil Rights vs. Economic & Property Civil Rights?
The Environmental Rights Amendment does not call for a stagnant landscape; nor, as we explain below, for the derailment of economic or social development; nor for a sacrifice of other fundamental values. But, when government PAGE 78 acts, the action must, on balance, reasonably account for the environmental features of
the affected locale, as further explained in this decision, if it is to pass constitutional muster.Robinson at 78
The right delineated in the first clause of Section 27 presumptively is on par with, and enforceable to the same extent as, any other right reserved to the people in Article I. See PA. CONST. art. I, § 25 (“everything” in Article I is excepted from government’s general powers and is to remain inviolate); accord 1970 Pa. Legislative Journal-House
at 2272 (“If we are to save our natural environment we must therefore give it the same Constitutional protection we give to our political environment.”); Kury, app. C (Questions and answers).42 This parity between constitutional provisions may serve to limit the extent to which constitutional environmental rights may be asserted against the
government if such rights are perceived as potentially competing with, for example, property rights as guaranteed in Sections 1, 9, and 10. PA. CONST. art. I, §§ 1, 9, 10, 27 Robinson at 78
Relatedly, while economic interests of the people are not a specific subject of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, we recognize that development promoting the economic well-being of the citizenry obviously is a legitimate state interest.
In this respect, and relevant here, it is important to note that we do not perceive Section 27 as expressing the intent of either the unanimous legislative sponsors or the ratifying voters to deprive persons of the use of their property or to derail development leading to an increase in the general welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the people.
But, to achieve recognition of the environmental rights enumerated in the first clause of Section 27 as “inviolate” necessarily implies that economic development cannot take place at the expense of an unreasonable degradation of the environment.
As respects the environment, the state’s plenary police power, which serves to promote said welfare,
convenience, and prosperity, must be exercised in a manner that promotes sustainable property use and economic development.
"accord 1970 Pa. Legislative Journal-House at 2270 (“the measure of our progress is not just what we have but how we live, that it is not man who must adapt himself to technology but technology which must be adapted to man”. Robinson page 78.
Facts: In 1955 the General Assembly enacted the Oil and Gas Lease Fund Act (Lease Fund) requiring all rents and royalties from oil and gas leases on Commonwealth-owned land to be deposited in it. All these monies were to be "exclusively used for conservation, recreation, dams or flood control...."
In 1995, the General Assembly created the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Thereafter, the General Assembly amended the Lease Fund to provide that all monies paid into the Lease Fund were "specifically appropriated to the DCNR."
Over the years, increased leasing of state lands for natural gas wells occurred. In 2009, the General Assembly amended the Commonwealth's Fiscal Code to to allow itself to amend the Lease Fund to permit it transfer Lease Fund monies to the Commonwealth's General Fund, not the Lease Fund. The General Fund is spent on state projects other than "conservation, recreation, dams or flood control..."
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court claiming the General Assembly's reallocation and the Governor's spending of General Fund monies as part of the Commonwealth's General Fund "violated the rights of all Commonwealth citizens conferred by the Environmental Rights Amendment (Article 1, Section 27)." Commonwealth Court issued an order granting summary relief to the Commonwealth and denying PEDF’s application for summary relief.
Appeal Issue: PEDF appealed to the PA Supreme Court claiming the General Assembly's reallocation and the Governor's spending of Lease Fund monies as part of the General Fund, violated the Environmental Rights Amendment. PEDF claimed both state agencies failed to act within their roles as "trustees" of our public natural resources. The General Assembly and Governor did not act in a prudent, loyal or impartial manner regarding the Lease Fund monies.
Court's Holding: Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.
Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.
As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
"This is not the first time we have been called upon to address the rights and obligations set forth in the Environmental Rights Amendment. We did so in Robinson Township and we rely here upon the statement of basic principles thoughtfully relied upon in that plurality opinion."
" By arguing that proceeds obtained from the sale of our natural resources are not part of the corpus of the trust, the Commonwealth improperly sees itself as a mere proprietor of those natural resources, rather than as a trustee."
According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "proprietor" is one who has the legal right or exclusive title to something: owner.
"In the Commonwealth's view, it may dispose of our public natural resources as it so chooses and for any such purpose it so conceives, so long as such disposition broadly benefits the public (apparently without regard to the "generations yet to come")...as such it urges us to substantially diminish it's fiduciary obligation to prevent and remedy the degradation of our natural resources. We decline to do so."
"Springdale Council members say they legally had little choice in data center approval" 12-20-25 Valley News Dispatch by James Engel Link to article
I believe Council members felt obligated to follow the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code (MPC) Section 508 or the Borough could be sued by Springdale DC pursuant to MPC Section 617 .
Link to PA Municipalities Planning Code produced by Governor's Center for Local Government Services
Article V – Subdivision and Land Development: Approval of Plats Section 508:
Section 508. Approval of Plats. All applications for approval of a plat (other than those governed by Article VII), whether preliminary or final, shall be acted upon by the governing body or the planning agency within such time limits as may be fixed in the subdivision and land development ordinance but the governing body or the planning agency shall render its decision and communicate it to the applicant not later than 90 days following the date of the
regular meeting of the governing body or the planning agency (whichever first reviews the application) next following the date the application is filed, or after a final order of the court remanding an application, provided that should the said next regular meeting occur more than 30 days following the filing of the application, or the final order of the court, the said 90-day period shall be measured from the 30th day following the day the application has
been filed.
(1) The decision of the governing body or the planning agency shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the applicant personally or mailed to him at his last known address not later than 15 days following the decision.
(2) When the application is not approved in terms as filed the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or ordinance relied upon.
(3) Failure of the governing body or agency to render a decision and communicate it to the applicant within the time and in the manner required herein shall be deemed an approval of the application in terms as presented unless the applicant has agreed in writing to an extension of time or change in the prescribed manner of presentation of communication of the decision, in which case, failure to meet the extended time or change in manner of presentation of communication shall have like effect.
In this case, I believe if Springdale Borough had not approved Springdale DC's Conditional Use Permit within the time period set forth in MPC 508, Springdale DC could have instituted a lawsuit provided for below in MPC 617.
Article VI - Zoning: Causes of Action Section 617
Section 617. Causes of Action. In case any building, structure, landscaping or land is, or is proposed to be, erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, converted, maintained or used in violation of any ordinance enacted under this act or prior enabling laws, the governing body or, with the approval of the governing body, an officer of the municipality, or any aggrieved owner or tenant of real property who shows that his property or person will be
substantially affected by the alleged violation, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such building, structure, landscaping or land, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation. When any such action is instituted by a landowner or tenant, notice of that action shall be served upon the municipality at least 30 days prior to the time the action is begun by serving a copy of the complaint on the governing body of the municipality. No such action may be maintained until such notice has been given.
If this lawsuit had been found in the Developer's favor, I don't know if Springdale Borough would have have the ability to impose conditions to the operation of the Springdale DC.
Now that the Conditional Use Permit has been deemed approved, I believe next Springdale DC is required by the MPC to submit a Land Development Application. As Springdale Borough does not have a Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) Springdale DC will need to submit their application to Allegheny County Economic Development.
Allegheny County Economic Development (ACED) website Link
I visit this site to read the County's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. I think this is one of the most important stages for the Springdale AIDC proposal for residents to understand.
It is my understanding, once Springdale DC Property Company submits it's Land Development Application to Allegheny County Economic Development (ACED), all Allegheny County residents will be permitted to participate in a public meeting hosted by ACED. ACED may also schedule a public hearing to listen to public comment.
I believe the SALDO will control this process. This is how to find a digital copy of the:
- SALDO itself; and
- A Summary of the SALDO also produced by ACED. From ACED's homepage, I type Land-use Planning into the Search box;
- On this page, I scan straight down to four blue boxes. The bottom box is Land Use Approvals. Click it.
- Next l look for 2012 Allegheny County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance or SALDO link; and
- When I click on the link, I see Allegheny County Charter's Chapter 780 Subdivision and Land Development or SALDO.
ACED published a summary of their SALDO. It is a good resource. To read it, follow this link. I believe the ACED SALDO to be the single, most important document for Allegheny residents to become familiar with.
The SALDO has five sections called Articles: Article 1 General Provisions
Article 2 Definitions (Specific & General)
Article 3 Procedures for Review, Approval & Recording Plans
Article 4 Application Information
Article 5 Design Standards
I believe all Allegheny County residents who wish to participate in this SALDO process should read Articles 3 and 5. They explain in detail the siting issues ACED will be examining to see if they should accept the Developer's applications.