Latest news with #PublicTrustDoctrine
United News of India
31-05-2025
- Business
- United News of India
SC upholds UPSIDC's land cancellation to Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) to cancel a 125-acre land allotment to the Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT), citing payment defaults and systemic flaws in the process of land allocation. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the Trust's appeal against the 2017 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the cancellation of the allotment originally made in September 2003 and annulled in December 2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court delivered a sharp rebuke to UPSIDC, observing that the land was allotted 'within just two months' and 'without any proper evaluation of public benefit". The Court held that such allocation practices violated the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates that state-held resources be allocated transparently, with due diligence, and solely for the benefit of the public. 'The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated purposes,' the Court said. The Bench criticised UPSIDC for failing to adopt a transparent and competitive process in allocating such a large tract of industrial land. 'This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens,' the Court remarked, stressing that state authorities must ensure accountability in managing public assets. The judgment noted that no verifiable evidence was considered by UPSIDC regarding the economic benefits, employment potential, environmental impact, or alignment with regional development objectives before making the allotment to the Trust. 'Such lapses not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue due to the appreciated value of the land but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity,' the Court observed. The Supreme Court further flagged concerns over UPSIDC's eagerness to re-allocate the land to another entity during the pendency of the litigation. 'We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest,' the Court said. In a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, the Court laid down binding directions to reform the process of industrial land allotment in Uttar Pradesh. It directed, 'The State Government of Uttar Pradesh and UPSIDC are directed to ensure that any such allotment in the future be made in a transparent, non-discriminatory and fair manner by ensuring that such allotment process fetches maximum revenue and also achieves the larger public interest like industrial development priorities, environmental sustainability, and regional economic objectives.' Also, the Court asked that the subject land be re-allotted strictly in accordance with the procedure above. The Court directed UPSIDC for transparent, non-discriminatory Industrial Land Allocation in Uttar Pradesh. UNI SNG RN
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NFR files legal answer to city bid to acquire company's 5 acres
The private law firm representing Niagara Falls Redevelopment has filed a formal answer to Mayor Robert Restaino's administration's claim that the city — not the company — owns 5 acres of the 10-acre site identified by the city as the preferred site for the proposed Centennial Park arena and events campus. The answer includes a counterclaim seeking 'consequential damages,' including reimbursement for taxes paid, for the 'value and benefit' conferred on the city as a result of NFR's 'justifiable reliance on the city's actions for more than 20 years.' Attorneys from NFR's law firm, Harter, Secrest & Emery of Buffalo, filed the company's verified answer on May 16, denying the city's contention that the 5 acres — located at the intersection of 10th and Falls streets — was designated as public parkland, served as a public park for decades and was never properly conveyed when the city agreed to turn it over to NFR more than two decades ago. In its answer, NFR argues that the 5 acres, which were transferred by the city to the company under a development agreement on Aug. 4, 2004, were not subject to the 'requirements and encumbrances' of the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal principle that designates certain resources, such as parkland, as held in trust by the government for public use. The city, through its attorneys with the Buffalo law firm Hodgson Russ, has argued in legal filings that NFR failed to obtain proper approval from the state legislature before accepting the property as its own and using it for 'non-public purposes.' In its answer, NFR suggests no such approval was necessary while also denying the city's allegation that the land transfer required authorization from the Niagara Falls City Council. 'The subject parcel is not encumbered by the Public Trust Doctrine, and its Aug. 4, 2004 conveyance from the city to NFR did not require approval from the New York State Legislature or the Niagara Falls City Council,' NFR's answer reads. 'For a parcel to be encumbered by the Public Trust Doctrine, there must either be an express or implied designation that demonstrates the clear and unmistakable intent of the owner to dedicate the land as public parkland. Here, no such express or implied designation ever occurred.' In its counterclaim, NFR describes the city's chances of succeeding in its quiet title claim as an 'unlikely event' while arguing that should the 2004 property be ruled null and void it is owed compensation from the city. The company's compensation list of requested compensation covers: the expenditure of 'considerable resources' related to the property, including money, services, labor, materials and equipment; paying the purchase price for the 5 acres; paying taxes on the parcel; maintaining the parcel; performing environmental cleanup work on the site moving playground equipment off-site and 'spending millions of dollars to develop a data center on the subject parcel, which the city, directly through its agents and representatives, encouraged NFR to spend.' 'NFR has expended these resources with the reasonable and justifiable expectation that, in accordance with the city's actions, NFR rightfully owns the subject parcel,' the company notes in the counterclaim found in its verified answer. The question of ownership of the 5 acres looms large in an ongoing eminent domain proceeding in which the city is poised to acquire, using its power of eminent domain, two NFR properties totaling roughly 10 acres off John B. Daly Boulevard at the intersection of 10th and Falls Street for the purpose of developing Centennial Park. NFR spokesperson James Haggerty released a copy of the company's response to the city's so-called 'quiet title claim' in response to questions from the newspaper on Thursday. The release came hours before Falls lawmakers were scheduled to vote on a request from Restaino to approve an offer of just over $4 million for NFR's land. The offer was tabled by the city council during Thursday's meeting. In a previous eminent domain case involving NFR, the company sought $75 million for the former Niagara Splash Park site, which is located across the street from NFR's 10-acre parcel. In that case, a judge determined that the state of New York, which acquired the Splash Park land for use in the development of Seneca Niagara Casino, ultimately owed NFR $17.8 million for the land. Haggerty described the city's initial $4 million offer for the proposed Centennial Park site as being based on a 'so-called appraisal' Restaino 'made up out of thin air.' 'In the end, though, it doesn't matter,' Haggerty said. 'Just as happened with the Splash Park parcels years ago, the court will decide the fair market value of this private property after considering actual appraisals submitted by both sides as this litigation moves forward — all clouded and complicated, of course, by the mayor's claims in his new quiet title action that the city already owns half the property it is seeking to acquire through eminent domain.' Haggerty also criticized Restaino and city lawmakers for not only suggesting the city's offer was based on a 'mysterious' appraisal but also for taking action before the mayor released the contents of a feasibility study conducted by a private firm to examine the potential pros and cons of building Centennial Park. He also referenced NFR's idea for the same 10-acre site, which company officials insist is needed to allow for the development of the first phase of what they claim would be a $1.5 billion data center in the city. 'The taxpayers continue to pay legal fees for all the mayor's litigation and are forced to watch as he works tirelessly on the taxpayer's dime to prevent NFR from building its economy-transforming, privately funded, $1.5 billion data center,' Haggerty said. In addition to the company's answer to the city's quiet title claim, Haggerty released legal requests sent last week by NFR's attorneys to the city that seek more detailed information about what he described as Restaino's 'scheme' to acquire NFR's 5 acres without having to pay fair market value for them. Examples of information sought by NFR include identities of individuals who may have knowledge regarding documents and information about 'any express or implied designation of the 10th Street playground as parkland,' documents used by the city to draft its legal complaint or support the city's position and identification of city officials who communicated with 'any third-party,' including New York state government agencies, concerning the action. 'Under court supervision, NFR will now see all documents, emails and text messages related to the mayor's attempt to avoid paying fair market value for this land,' Haggerty said in a statement from the company. 'Mayor Restaino may be able to ignore Freedom of Information Law requests, but he cannot ignore the courts, and we look forward to his testimony in this action,' Haggerty added. Dan Spitzer, an attorney representing the city, classified the requests as 'standard deposition notices' served in response to the city's quiet title claim. While Haggerty suggested both Mayor Restaino and his brother, City Administrator Anthony Restaino, were served 'subpoenas' in the case last week, Spitzer said that was inaccurate. He classified the requests for additional information as 'standard deposition notices' sent in response to the city's lawsuit. 'There have been no subpoenas served on the city, nor would it be proper to do so,' Spitzer said. 'While the misinformation is consistent with the legal abilities and veracity frequently demonstrated by NFR, we suspect what you are referring to are the standard deposition notices.'
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Enbridge is at critical juncture for Line 5 tunnel — and Michigan must push back
Enbridge is pushing forward with a series of permit applications that ignore the risks of running a 4-mile oil tunnel through the heart of the Great Lakes ― the Straits of Mackinac. In March, Enbridge submitted several permit applications to Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) as part of its push to replace the aging Line 5 pipeline into a tunnel it wants to construct in the Straits. But by a plain reading of Michigan environmental law, the application is woefully incomplete. Rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the project's full impact on the Great Lakes, Enbridge's submission narrowly focuses on the tunnel's north and south ends — ignoring vital ecological, cultural and hydrological consequences of drilling into the gravel-like lakebed. Michigan's law is clear: The Great Lakes belong to the public, and the state has a legal obligation to protect these waters under the Public Trust Doctrine and the Michigan Submerged Lands Act. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and EGLE Director Phil Roos now have a critical decision to make. Will they stand with the millions of Michiganders who rely on clean water, healthy fisheries and a thriving tourism economy? Or will they allow Enbridge to cut corners, ignore environmental risks and endanger our state's most precious natural resource? More from Freep Opinion: How much of Project 2025 has been implemented? Enough to break us beyond repair. Here's how the EGLE permitting process works: There are EGLE must deem three major permits administratively complete, and ultimately approve, for this project to move forward. The first is under Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit, previously granted under the Snyder Administration, revealed Enbridge's plans to discharge up to 5 million gallons of wastewater and other construction liquids per day into Lake Michigan during tunnel construction. The second permit they are pursuing is under Part 303, Wetlands Protection. This permit has been recently filed and must be scrutinized by EGLE to ensure that critical wetlands are not negatively impacted by the project, along with rare plant species ― which have been identified in the project area. Currently, the application only considers the north and south ends of the proposed tunnel. The company is seeking a reissuance of this permit, in part because of the company's failure to disclose delineated wetlands in the first round. Finally, the third permit falls under Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, which explores whether the proposal will negatively impact fisheries and navigation. Enbridge submitted a letter expressing that it believed Part 325 did not apply, but begrudgingly did submit a limited application. The scope of that application was restricted to a small area near the wetlands considered in the previous permit's scope. The company claims that the project will cause no harm during the three to five years that they are drilling and blasting through our Great Lakes bottomlands. Now, EGLE must rigorously scrutinize this to ensure that this project serves the public interest — not just the financial interests of a foreign oil company. More from Freep Opinion: After 30 years in Detroit journalism, I can't stop thinking about this story The risks of this project are not hypothetical. Enbridge's lengthy history of environmental disaster proves the company cannot be trusted. The catastrophic 2010 Line 6B spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River remains one of the worst inland oil spills in U.S. history, contaminating nearly 40 miles of waterways and requiring over $1 billion in cleanup costs. More recently, during the construction of its Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, Enbridge breached multiple aquifers, releasing millions of gallons of groundwater and inflicting long-term damage to local ecosystems. In November of 2024, Enbridge's 70,000-gallon spill on Line 6 in Wisconsin marked the largest oil spill in that state's history. Plus, don't forget that Line 5 itself has already spilled more than a million gallons during its lifetime. These disasters are not anomalies; they're the predictable outcome of a business model that, in my estimation, is built on negligence, incompetence and a propensity to operate until failure. Michigan cannot afford to gamble with the Great Lakes by allowing Enbridge to drill a tunnel beneath one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world. Environmental hazards aside, approving this 99-year oil infrastructure would lock our economy into decades of continued reliance on fossil fuels at precisely the moment when we must be accelerating our transition to clean energy. The economic and environmental costs of this outdated infrastructure would be borne by Michigan residents, while the profits would flow to Enbridge's corporate headquarters in Canada. It's worth remembering that Enbridge petitioned and won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to pass the costs of tunnel construction onto their shippers, which may then be passed onto consumers ― i.e., you and me. Plus, the Line 5 tunnel would be owned by the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA), a state entity, while Enbridge would lease and operate it. This financial structure raises concerns about liability, as Michigan taxpayers could ultimately be responsible for costs associated with potential pipeline rupture cleanup, maintenance or unforeseen damages. The tunnel also represents a direct affront to indigenous sovereignty and threatens to desecrate indigenous sites of immense cultural and spiritual significance, violating treaty rights and perpetuating a long history of environmental injustice. Efforts to fast track this permit on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers behind closed doors have led seven Michigan tribes to withdraw from continued federal discussions. Expert review of Enbridge's deficient Michigan Public Service Commission application has already highlighted serious risks — including potential methane intrusion, explosion risk and unstable geology. Given these significant threats, EGLE must not only demand a more rigorous review, but ultimately reject this application outright once the scope of harm is fully accounted for. The Great Lakes are the heart of our region. They provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, fuel a $6 trillion economy, and support industries that are the backbone of Michigan's prosperity, from tourism and fishing to shipping and recreation. These waters are not just a resource; they are our way of life. But today, these waters ― comprising more than 20% of the world's fresh surface water ― stand threatened by Enbridge's unvetted proposal to build an oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. EGLE and Gov. Whitmer must recognize Enbridge's application for what it is: An attempt to push through a deeply complicated and ultimately flawed project without proper scrutiny or oversight. To date, no single agency, state or federal, has completed an assessment of whether the tunnel is actually feasible, safe or cost effective. By deeming their permits administratively incomplete, the agency would send a clear signal that Michigan takes its duty to protect the Great Lakes seriously. Ashley Rudzinski is the Climate & Environment Program Director for Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Latest Enbridge info for Line 5 tunnel isn't good enough | Opinion
