Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Warwick site contaminated


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 2726 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

News Headlines:

 

Suit claims Watchtower site contaminated

 

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is suing International Nickel and several of its affiliates, which it accuses of contaminating land where the religious group is now building its massive 1.6 million-square-foot world headquarters.

...

Watchtower is seeking unspecified reimbursement for the cost it has incurred in the cleanup and remediation. It is also seeking damages, restitution and attorney fees.

 

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150608/NEWS/150609481/101008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn’t clear when Watchtower discovered the contamination. The suit says Watchtower contacted the state Department of Environmental Conservation about the pollution in 2012 and '13, and has been cleaning the property under the direction of the DEC.

Watchtower is seeking unspecified reimbursement for the cost it has incurred in the cleanup and remediation. It is also seeking damages, restitution and attorney fees.

 

When they bought the property they knew it had a waste water treatment plant on it. I saw where the remediation for that was done. 

 

Perhaps it cost a lot more to do it as the previous company dumped illegally as well and they are trying to recoup the additional costs for cleaning up the previous company's illegal dumping. 


Edited by trottigy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't read the comments its ridiculous. At any rate suites like this can go into the 100's of millions. Maybe the project can be paid out of that. Wouldn't that be nice? 

More likely the suite would be limited to actual damages, cost of the clean up, cost of delays, attorney  fees etc.

If the court determines that the previous owners had knowledge of the contamination and concealed it then punitive damages could be awarded, but not  likely scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INCO not being aware of polluting. Not very likely. Although it looks better now ( high chimney stack export pollution to other areas now -but they don't produce as much now either ) Sudbury, ON used to be use for training moon astronauts because it looked dead like the moon (td) (td) (td)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they bought the property they knew it had a waste water treatment plant on it. I saw where the remediation for that was done. 

 

Perhaps it cost a lot more to do it as the previous company dumped illegally as well and they are trying to recoup the additional costs for cleaning up the previous company's illegal dumping. 

 

I think that companies have a cradle-to-grave responsibility for hazardous waste and if more hazardous waste was discovered then the company would be responsible for the costs. I'm assuming the legal process is necessary to ensure they pay reasonable costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that companies have a cradle-to-grave responsibility for hazardous waste and if more hazardous waste was discovered then the company would be responsible for the costs. I'm assuming the legal process is necessary to ensure they pay reasonable costs.

Reasonable costs? I guessing millions and millions. I hope they get what they deserved. Maybe in all, I hope it will cover what they pay for the land and more.$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable costs? I guessing millions and millions. I hope they get what they deserved. Maybe in all, I hope it will cover what they pay for the land and more.$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I assume the legal process will just ensure they get reasonable costs. The previous owners may not have been aware the contamination was so extensive. Some times that happens when there is an undiscovered leak and the full extent of the damage isn't found during the EPA testing prior to the sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the legal process will just ensure they get reasonable costs. The previous owners may not have been aware the contamination was so extensive. Some times that happens when there is an undiscovered leak and the full extent of the damage isn't found during the EPA testing prior to the sale.

I basically know it, but when comes to lawsuits, then it comes down to  4 words and that is: SHOW ME THE MONEY!!! :D Regarding, what they know and what don't know, well that is up in air. Take for instance, PCBs was banned in 1979. Basically, i would assume they know what they did with this and kept quit about it.


Edited by Dustparticle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they bought the property they knew it had a waste water treatment plant on it. I saw where the remediation for that was done. 

 

Perhaps it cost a lot more to do it as the previous company dumped illegally as well and they are trying to recoup the additional costs for cleaning up the previous company's illegal dumping. 

 

I wonder if this might have been part of the plan all along.  Sometimes, legally, a lawsuit is required.  Perhaps they sat down with their lawyers sat down at the beginning with the initial result findings and determined that a lawsuit would be required once they reached a specified stage in construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this might have been part of the plan all along.  Sometimes, legally, a lawsuit is required.  Perhaps they sat down with their lawyers sat down at the beginning with the initial result findings and determined that a lawsuit would be required once they reached a specified stage in construction.

 

I don't know how the process works but I would think that any known issues would have been part of the price negotiation. I would think this was probably an unknown issue that was too extensive to be covered by the sale agreement. The previous owners may not have been aware of the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous owner was not INCO but a religious outfit that was going to build a college there. Jehovah had other ideas.

 

Then I assume the brothers had to sue INCO to recover the costs of remediation as part of INCO's cradle-to-grave responsibility for the hazardous waste management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've shared this before.  I apologize for sounding like a broken record.

 

There were 2 elders in my hall that went on vacation together.  While on vacation and playing golf, their golf cart went off an embankment and one of the brothers was injured. The injured brother filed an medical insurance claim.  The insurance company came back and told the brother he had to sue the other brother who was driving the golf cart.  These brothers talked to the CO and the branch.  Since this was the only way the insurance would cover the medical bill, the Branch said it was OK for this elder to sue his fellow elder.  Let the insurance companies fight it out.  It wasn't really one brother suing another, it was the legality of the situation.

 

I tell this story because it made me realize just how complicated laws, insurance and lawsuits can be.  

 

In this particular case, the Watchtower Society may have been required, legally, to sue the former nickel company.  That may have been a stipulation in acquiring this land.  There were many obligations the Branch had to follow and obey in regards protecting the environment and minimizing their footprint when they were given permission to purchase this land.  

 

I'd bet this was planned from the start and not something that was discovered as building continued.  It's all just the legal process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've shared this before.  I apologize for sounding like a broken record.

 

There were 2 elders in my hall that went on vacation together.  While on vacation and playing golf, their golf cart went off an embankment and one of the brothers was injured. The injured brother filed an medical insurance claim.  The insurance company came back and told the brother he had to sue the other brother who was driving the golf cart.  These brothers talked to the CO and the branch.  Since this was the only way the insurance would cover the medical bill, the Branch said it was OK for this elder to sue his fellow elder.  Let the insurance companies fight it out.  It wasn't really one brother suing another, it was the legality of the situation.

 

I tell this story because it made me realize just how complicated laws, insurance and lawsuits can be.  

 

In this particular case, the Watchtower Society may have been required, legally, to sue the former nickel company.  That may have been a stipulation in acquiring this land.  There were many obligations the Branch had to follow and obey in regards protecting the environment and minimizing their footprint when they were given permission to purchase this land.  

 

I'd bet this was planned from the start and not something that was discovered as building continued.  It's all just the legal process.

 

You know more about this than I do and I agree 100% about the legal process but I just don't personally assume that it was a known issue and the legal process was planned. It could have easily been discovered during construction and the legal process is just part of the process to get it resolved.

 

Just my opinion and it's based on my experience working in oil refineries and seeing old oil and chemicals releases being discovered even after an extensive EPA report was done. Other than that I have no experience with sales agreements and the possibility the lawsuit was planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bad situation with INCO that the Watch Tower has to work with.

I'm sure they really don't want a lawsuit.

I look at these bad situations as something to not get into taking sides with one side or the other.

 

There is a tone "I hope that INCO "get's theirs", meaning they lose the lawsuit.

 

For a Christian that doesn't sound right. It is like taking sides in nationalism.

 

I prefer to let Jehovah (and the courts) to get this straightened out.

 

Let's preach and let Jehovah to do the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Justice" implies wrongdoing, and there may have been none under the laws at the time.

 

This case is not about justice or punishment, it's about civil liability. It's entirely possible that the contamination occurred at a time that it was legal to do so, meaning INCO committed no wrongdoing and deserves no justice.

 

Under the law of the land, those who contaminate ground are monetarily liable for cleanup efforts, and for paperwork reasons this typically goes through the courts when dealing with multiple owners. In cases where the contamination site is still owned by the polluting organization, there is no court battle at all, simply cooperation with the relevant environmental agencies and a self-funded cleanup, as happened at the Wallkill branch a few years ago. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111227/NEWS/112270319

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points Shawn. I know when my moms cong was considering a piece of property to build their KH on, it was found to be contaminated. This was in the works for over a year, we had to hear every gory detail in our local needs talks during these years. We as a cong, finally voted to let that piece of property go, it was sooo expensive to fix, and such a legal mess, we (especially me! lol) didn't want to have anything to do with it after a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Justice" implies wrongdoing, and there may have been none under the laws at the time.

 

This case is not about justice or punishment, it's about civil liability. It's entirely possible that the contamination occurred at a time that it was legal to do so, meaning INCO committed no wrongdoing and deserves no justice.

 

Under the law of the land, those who contaminate ground are monetarily liable for cleanup efforts, and for paperwork reasons this typically goes through the courts when dealing with multiple owners. In cases where the contamination site is still owned by the polluting organization, there is no court battle at all, simply cooperation with the relevant environmental agencies and a self-funded cleanup, as happened at the Wallkill branch a few years ago. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111227/NEWS/112270319

Stavro

 

 Igorance can play a role of we all do things. Yes, the brothers made a mistake and took care of it and Jehovah make sure of this too. 

 At that time, ink had chemicals that was dangerous to ones health and envirment too.

 

 The problem with Walkill is totaly differant. Here is why?

 

 1. After 1979, did the companies that were involved notify EPA, etc that they contanimated their land? NO!! Yet, we did. 

 

 2. Did Interantional Nickel gave WTBS the impression that the land they going to buy was good land? Yes.

 

 3. Did Nickle Co. was ever planning to clean up the land especailly after 1979? NO.

 

 These questions are reasonable when comes to legal and enviromental matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stavro

 

 Igorance can play a role of we all do things. Yes, the brothers made a mistake and took care of it and Jehovah make sure of this too. 

 At that time, ink had chemicals that was dangerous to ones health and envirment too.

 

 The problem with Walkill is totaly differant. Here is why?

 

 1. After 1979, did the companies that were involved notify EPA, etc that they contanimated their land? NO!! Yet, we did. 

 

 2. Did Interantional Nickel gave WTBS the impression that the land they going to buy was good land? Yes.

 

 3. Did Nickle Co. was ever planning to clean up the land especailly after 1979? NO.

 

 These questions are reasonable when comes to legal and enviromental matters.

 

Are these facts or assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.10.29 (changelog)