This article from the New York Times outlines the issues in New York surrounding the debate around drilling of the Marcellus Shale site.
The article provides numerous problems with the decision to allow local governments to ban hydro fracking, even if the state government allows it. Problems include a possible “checkerboard effect” of regulations that would be difficult for mining businesses to comply with. Also, a local landowner complains that “the cours is sending a message to New York towns that it is acceptable to deny New York landowners the right to market their minerals.”
On the other hand, there is only a small section at the end (the last paragraph) and near the beginning (the fourth paragraph) that show any kind of support for opposition to hydrofracking. All it says about those who support the decision to allow local governments to ban the procedure is that they’re happy to have this decision in their arsenal against hydrofracking.
Do you think there could have been more balance to the article? What could the author have included in support of the decision to allow local governments to ban fracking?