Opinions
As the Friends of the Springfield Panhandle, a group of Montgomery County land preservationists, organize to oppose a land development proposal this week, some of the area’s most vocal environmental activists are growing silent. Their voices were quieted by a Montgomery County Court ruling last week that narrowly defined a state statute intended to protect citizens’ right to speak out on environmental issues.
Judge Richard Hodgson refused to dismiss a developer’s lawsuit on Oct. 12 against two Lower Gwynedd Township residents who fought a townhouse development. The lawsuit, activists say, is a classic example of a SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
The developer sued the residents when they filed a land use appeal, in addition to speaking with neighbors and the media about possible contamination from nearby chemical plants. The developer contended that the opposing residents were using the court system to hinder the 36-unit townhouse development.
In the early 1990s, State Rep. Camille “Bud” George (D., Clearfield) introduced a bill to protect against such measures after a coal baron sued an elderly constituent for filing a complaint with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection when her home suffered acid mine-water damage.
But the bill languished with little support in the Senate until State Rep. Brett Feese (R., Lycoming) worked with George on a bi-partisan compromise bill. Taken up by State Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R., Dauphin), the bill’s original language was changed, and a significantly weakened version passed into law in 2000.
According to last week’s ruling, only communication with a government agency was protected under the anti-SLAPP law. In accordance with that decision, citizens who speak out against developers at public meetings, to their neighbors or to the press could find themselves in court.
Robert Sugarman, the Lower Gwynedd residents’ lawyer, called the ruling “an unduly narrow interpretation that destroys any value or purpose of the statute.”
The American Civil Liberties Union agrees, but is not actively involved in any court challenge. The organization is hopeful an appellate court will broaden the law’s definition. Statements outside government communication are covered, said Larry Frankel, legislative director of the ACLU’s Pennsylvania chapter.
While the ruling is being appealed, local environmental groups like Roxborough Greenspace Project are on edge and uneasy about vocalizing their support for the Springfield residents who plan to fight the rezoning of a 41-acre site called the Tecce tract at the Springfield Board of Commissioners hearing on Thursday, Oct. 21.
The new development plan proposes an age-restricted community of 137 total units, more than three and a half times the number permitted under the land’s current zoning, the Friends say.
The anti-SLAPP case ruling should also concern those rankled by the recent announcement of a new proposal for an apartment development in the Wissahickon Watershed.
When their statements are not clearly malicious or knowingly false, citizens should not be subject to the bankrolls of corporate developers who can silence their voices in costly court proceedings.
State Rep. George has vowed to introduce legislation in January that would extend immunity to citizens for speaking to both their neighbors and the press. Prior attempts have died in committee. Legislators should value citizens’ First Amendment rights over the lobby of Harrisburg’s special interests.