« Business Partnership backs more biking | Main | DDOT extends deadline for comments on the 20th/21st/22nd Street bike lanes »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lawsuits claiming that a project should be permanently stopped because of some failure to follow mandated procedure typically fare poorly. The courts rightly think that (a) the agencies need to be given some leeway in complex matters to proceed even if there are minor failures to follow procedure, and (b) a permanent, or even long temporary, halt to force the agency to go back and properly follow procedures only to wind up in the same place, is a poor result.

I'm no planning expert but seems like that impact on all the waterways was studied in the original alternatives analysis. The one they've already sued over and eventually lost on.

So now they're saying because the ACE doesn't have that same analysis on their own letterhead is all bunk?

Man, I think the "Friends" lawyer is just milking them for billable hours. Suckers, could not happen to nicer people...

At least Ajay Bhatt's illegal fence has been torn down!


One more pathetic attempt to circumvent a project which will benefit thousands of people. Why is this brought up now months after construction began?

When I lived in Los Angeles, this all reminds me of what happened to the Cheviot Hills people and the Expo Line.
Sued until the very end. Now they have a rail near their property they can walk to.

Why is this brought up now months after construction began?

They'd been discussing this before, but then they were arguing that the permit had not been issued. My guess is that it was only recently approved, and so their arguing that it shouldn't have been.

A couple years ago in one of the stores about the story one of the main opponents went on the record saying they're just going to sue over and over again until they find something that sticks. I think it was around the time the appeals court vacated Leon's original ruling.

This is getting beyond frivolous suits that would be obligated to reimburse court costs. If the "Friends" have run up the Purple Line tab by $200M, who would have standing to sue them and recover some of those damages? Might give them a taste of their own medicine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader