Today, there is a hearing about the Charter Propositions lawsuit in our local courthouse, and
Orcas Issues has quite a good factual summary of where those proceedings stand. Have a look at that article by following this
link. If there is anything missing from the
Orcas Issues summary, it's the sense that this is a constitutional challenge (both state and federal constitutions). In other words, as far as court proceedings go, this is pretty high drama for our little corner of the world with the CRC results being challenged in both local court
and federal court.
The local court proceedings get underway today with a hearing that starts at 10:30 am at the Friday Harbor Court House. The presiding judge is Judge John Meyer of Skagit County, who is traveling from Skagit to San Juan County to hear the case in our courthouse.
There are a lot of moving parts to this case. One of the interesting twists is that Randy Gaylord, who is defending the work of our CRC, sought to have all candidates and the current Council members named as parties to the lawsuit. That didn't sit well with some. You can read Patty Miller's response below, which I think eloquently describes her position (click each image to enlarge).
 |
| Click to Enlarge (right-click to download) |
 |
| Click to Enlarge (right-click to download) |
 |
| Click to Enlarge (right-click to download) |
KARMA
ReplyDeleteThis is an important article to read in full:
ReplyDeleteThe California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ca-coastal-commission.asp
It is a chilling description of what the FOSJ and the "property must be made common" candidate would surly do if they had the power.
It describes what the Shoreline Master Plan on steroids could become.
It describes an attempt to force a land owner to remove structures and vegetation from his property because it disturbed a boaters view of the shoreline from the water!
Be very afraid...
Any update at all? The suspense is killing me.
ReplyDeleteThey are still hearing oral arguments ... long day ... good points being made all around. No decisions or rulings, and there may not be any today.
ReplyDeleteWill give everyone a rundown when it's over.
A few weeks ago, the federal case was dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice, meaning there were no rulings issued and it could be refiled later.
ReplyDeleteWhy was the federal case dismissed or withdrawn??
ReplyDeleteThat one had the most potential.
Federal Case was withdrawn pending the outcome of the current hearing. The issues at the county hearing will frame the necessity to raise the federal issues depending upon the result.
DeleteWe are dealing with State Constitutional issues and Federal Constitutional issues which if necessary will require individual review.
A few highlights from a layman perspective, so will be careful. The day needs to be well digested by the legal eagles and will be. This thing could have legs and seems to have some basic constitutional issues at stake. Notice I am being careful.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a frivolous suit. The fact that it went all day speaks to that, everyone with standing and the several attorneys and the judge were serious, made substantial points and I think we are feeling the excitement of something really unusual. It is not often the lower courts get to grapple with basic constitutional matters.
Both the Guardian and San Juan Islander covered the hearing. However no reporter or editor from the Sound Publishing organization was present. That is a problem. The news paper of record not covering this hearing today is in a word, disappointing.
So give it time and buckle in for the ride!
How small would the Lopez centered district have to be before it would defy common sense? 1000? 500? 100?
ReplyDeleteEqual, kinda equal, not very equal, kinda not equal, sorta unequal, really unequal? Which of these is legal, which of these is just?
Earlier this week, according to CBS Los Angeles, the California county passed a 37-page ordinance that prohibits "any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll" any object other than a beach ball or volleyball "upon or over any beach" between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
ReplyDeleteCitizens caught in violation of the area's new ordinance will be fined $1,000. This means no tossing a football and no throwing a Frisbee on the sands of L.A. County beaches. They've even gone as far as prohibiting anyone "digging any hole deeper than 18 inches into the sand except where permission is granted for film and TV production services only."
Hmmm...
re LA County football, don't RUSH to conclusions on this one... what PASSED was a rule allowing beach sports... look it up.
ReplyDeleteOhh to pass the time awaiting the hearing analysis...
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/la-county-updating-beach-regulations/
Good catch! There was a mistake on the Internet! Ohhhh nooooz!
ReplyDeleteHowever, let's hope the new Council doesn't use the first erroneous report as inspiration!
Turns out the Sounder had a reporter at the hearing today. So that's good but only if they start taking this story seriously for what it is and their role as newspaper of record
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification Moana and Anonymous @7:40pm. That is exactly right.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how long the judge waits to render his decision.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting to see in the SJIslander report that the State AG argued that the 1 item per ballot measure was not applicable to the county level- only the state. That seems like an argument begging further discussion.
Is anyone ready to place odds on whether the election moves forward in April?
You are all placing too much hope on this election...get off your apathetic asses and get busy, talk to neighbors, friends, whoever, place signs, volunteer...win the election and the rest doesn't matter....
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of this case and the discussion of the election are different issues.
DeleteYes, they are linked in a way, but for those of us who are interested in the county governmental system as a significant issue, the actual election is a matter of basic politics. This issue is far greater in my mind, as it will illuminate the politics in this county for potentially decades.
So - sorry to bore you with actual academic discussions, but I don't consider my interest apathetic. If you are only interested in bashing candidates, that's your short sighted prerogative but I think a discussion of this issue is paramount to an understanding of the future of San Juan County government.
Here's to apathy!
PS
Of course I meant this court decision....
ReplyDeleteMy check to McClerren will not bounce, and I know yours won't either.
ReplyDeleteWell now, who would want to be a county council person?? You have to provide your on legal counsel, when things go bad! You have to answer to the fiends of San Juan, and you can't hide behind the lack of coverage by the Sounder. My, My, things are getting interesting around here. Wouldn't want the fiends backing socialist's would we.
ReplyDeleteWith everyone's help, this case will get publicized quickly. There are constitutional issues here that are coming to light (hopefully in plain English) to hit the streets very soon.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how the case turns out, it can help shape this election campaign because of the issues it raises and the stories it will tell.
We need to use the interest this case will generate to show how urgent it is for our nonpartisan candidates to win, and to promote them.
The nonaligned candidates can surf the wave of publicity this case will generate for their issues. At the same time the Mean Machine will be swimming against the tide. This case in the "court of public opinion" is worth thousands of dollars of campaign contributions to McClerren, Hughes and Jarman. But it works against the Machine, regardless of how the case turns out.
McClerran needs to start making noise and getting his views known very soon.
Anyone else find it ironic that everyone is Bashing the Land Trust supporting candidates, but then supporting a candidate that has lived in CLT housing?
ReplyDeleteNo dig on Brian, buti find the hypocrisy of some of the comments here almost too much to read.
PS
It is neither ironic nor hypocritical that anti CLT folks support Brian.
DeleteLet me dumb it down for you. Brian represents a vote against Jaime S.
Brian could be a convicted felon, an Orca of J pod, or the name of a broken car and I would vote for him/it.
On the chance he gets elected, well let's hope he can learn the job and execute the duties.
I don't want to speak for Brian, but my understanding is that he never actually lived in LCLT housing. He intended to, but at the last moment, he was forced by economic circumstances beyond his control to pull out, despite having spent months building "his" home. His spot was then sold to a new LCLT participant who paid cash (instead of labor) to occupy the nearly completed home.
ReplyDeleteConvicted felons are legally barred from holding public office in Washington State. That fact might have more relevance than you now realize, but its significance may hit home a few days from now ... but thankfully not in McClerren's case.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you prophesize unfolding. I think you over estimate the importance. Like a previous poster mentioned, campaigns have started. Watch, but assume the trial doesn't help.
DeleteVoters need personal contact from campaign reps. Reach those who didn't vote. That will matter in the end.
The backers of the friends are playing in to thier hands. Got waterfront property? Want to remodel? You will have to give access to water. Look at California. They passed coastal commission to save the beache.Sure we will give you a permit, give us an easement. Work for coastal commission a couple years, then become a consultant! Don't help your client, rather point out every little thing,turn people in then send them your card. I hear you have problem's, I can help. I never had waterfront property, here nor there. But I saw itin California, where I grew up. We thought it was a save the coast thing, but it ruined it.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the points above is don't kick a gift horse in the mouth. The case now unfolding is an election campaign manager's dream ... its going to be worth thousands of dollars in free advertising for what your candidate stands for and will help you defeat the opposition.
ReplyDeleteThat's the point. And yes, the implications of this case because of its constitutional nature will in the course of time have broad impact. Remember the same case can be heard all over again in federal court if the current case does not cure the harm.
But in the meantime, all campaign managers with any brains will soak this thing for all its worth. But on balance the publicity generated by this case works in the favor of the nonpartisan candidates and works against the Lovel and Lisa show.
Now get to work! This opportunity got served up on a silver platter yesterday!
Don't **kick** a gift horse in the mouth??
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the old saying "people in glass houses are worth two in the bush".
"That train has sailed..."
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with all these "newspaper of record" references. It just means the paper that carries the legal notices.
ReplyDeleteI was once a "poster family" for the LCLT. We worked on the Common Ground project from concept to construction. The original group of owner-builders was diverse, unique, and a genuine cross-section of Lopez residents whom I would have been proud to call neighbors.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the economic collapse of 2008-09 hit home and I lost my business a few months before the occupancy date. After years of work and hundreds of hours of "sweat-equity" I was very tempted to hide my financial ruin and press forward with the home.
Instead, I choose to step aside and allow someone more financially secure to take my place. In the Co-Op housing arrangement, a missed payment from me would mean forcing everyone on my street to pony up a split of my mortgage payment. This was morally unacceptable for me.
In the end, it was for the best. My unemployment stretched longer than the optimistic "month or two" and another family with cash was able to move in with real equity, benefiting the financial health of the whole community.
I did not ask for a refund of my deposit or any compensation of my time. I did not want to harm my neighbors or create any hard-feelings in this small community.
In retrospect, it is clear that the Land Trust model would not have been a satisfying fit for me. I now rent 2.5 acres with a much larger home. I have privacy, woods, chickens, dogs, large gardens, and a chance to own it someday. I'd rather not have a co-op meeting to discuss the location of my children's tree fort. But I respect those who make community life work in tighter circumstances.