Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow 71 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  ducatijoe

  Proof again that God does not run this organization. If He did,they would not have bought this property.
• 

  GLTirebiter

  This puts WTBTS in a risky position, imo (IANAL). After filing these lawsuits, they cannot deny knowing about contamination on the site. The onus is now on them to provide a safe working and living environment for their staff, no matter who actually caused the contamination. If they fail to do so, personal injury lawyers will claim that to be an act of negligence. The Watchtower Society cannot deny knowing about the environmental risk, nor that they were aware of them before bringing staff on site.
  
• 

  Listener

  Good questions incognito.

  Surely they can only sue for the actual costs that they incurred for the cleanup otherwise they are profiteering from a lawsuit and I thought that lawsuits are intended only to compensate. They would have to demonstrate to the court how they came up with the cost of remediation, that's not going to be easy if they didn't pay an outside contractor.
• 

  Incognito

  They would have to demonstrate to the court how they came up with the cost of remediation, that's not going to be easy if they didn't pay an outside contractor
  

  Perhaps WT will or have regestered a new company: 'Kingdom Clean-up Corp'. Does the court need to know the company is owned by WTBTS?
• 

  Vidiot

  Following up on my last post on the previous page, something just occurred to me.

  What if the WT higher-ups had thought that their inital cleanup (before the start of construction) had done the job, but found out after almost everything had been built that it actually hadn't?

  x

  It fits with the pattern we've heard about (wherein construction work had to be re-done and re-re-done due to inadequate work), and it would explain the lateness of the lawsuit...

  ...after all, they've already sold the Brooklyn properties and are therefore committed to moving in (i.e. they have nowhere else to go), but if the place is contaminated and toxic, then ultimately, everyone who stays there will get sick, and the site (and thusly, all the work and bloated expense they've put into it) would be rendered valueless and unusable.

  It would also explain why they're so anxious to be compensated further for the contamination... it could cost hundreds of millions more to finish cleaning it up quick enough for them to move in on schedule, not to mention potentially more difficult a job due to all the finished construction on the site.
• 

  Pete Zahut

  This intentional on the part of the Watchtower. My hope is that it will be proven in a court of law that because the Watchtower was aware of the contamination before they purchased the land and because they did their own clean-up and began building, they knowingly assumed responsibility of the existing contamination and therefore can't claim damages after the fact.
• 

  Listener

  Maybe they were unable to build their extensive underground network of tunnels because it was too expensive to clean the soil that far down.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  Maybe they should have built there Ivory Tower underground instead. If they really believed about the imminent big A the underground extensive network would be more feasible rather than a sprawling complex boasting about it above ground.
• 

  Incognito

  I don't know about NY state but here, a project such as that would be regulated by the Government. Neither the property owner nor the contractor would have authority to decide when the cleanup is good enough or too expensive.

  Engineering consultants who specialize in contamination remediation would be required to oversee the project while Gvmt inspectors would need to review the process to ensure the task was completed thoroughly and in adherence to regulated standards, regardless of contamination depth. Unlike years past, you can't just bury toxic contamination and have it leak into the aquifer for centuries. Whatever is contaminating the soil will flow downstream to populations which rely on groundwater for life.

  I know, when it comes to money, people will attempt to getaway with anything but this contamination is well known and is documented so the project should be under close scrutinty, especially by the Town of Warwick and the people residing around the area.
  

  The test and monitor wells which were mentioned previously, will remain permanently in-place to allow ongoing periodic monitoring of the spread of contamination at various depths.

  While this link pertains mostly to petrochemical contamination in ground water, it may help make things clearer: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/groundwaterremediation.html
  
• 

  RetiredLE

  I found a docket a few weeks ago that showed this case in the motion and discovery phases. It is not being heard until mid 2017, as I recall.. With the GB anxious to sell off the Brooklyn properties, and potential buyers/investors supposedly chomping at the bit, doesn't this leave them in a bit of fix? How could they occupy a contaminated sight? If they do or can get occupancy, wouldn't that in itself nullify the WTBTS claim? Or are they simply attempting to recover damages/costs of their remediation? This may be a 'rehash' of VIdiots above comments. However, it would seem to indicate that they may be 'wandering in the wilderness', perhaps for some time. Hopefully they have a good supply of 'tight pants' to make it through....