Clackistani lawsuit thrown out on procedural grounds
Is Clackamas County selling bonds for the Tri-Met light rail system illegally? It appears we may never know. The lawsuit challenging the legality of the highly irregular mechanism that the county has used to authorize the bonds was thrown out this afternoon, on procedural grounds. The bonds are scheduled to be sold on Thursday, with a closing on the 13th. Then the county will fork the $20 million over to Tri-Met, just days or even hours before a voter initiative prohibiting the payment seems highly likely to pass. The votes on that ballot measure will be counted the night of the 18th.
Another lawsuit was filed today, but now the rebels are throwing Hail Marys. They are right as a policy matter, and right as a legal matter, but apparently there's nowhere for them to go to get justice. Ain't that Portland. How the county politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers can look themselves in the mirror these days is beyond us.
| Posted at 5:37 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
I had little doubt about the outcome of this suit once in front of the court. No local presiding judge in his right mind would want to get into the middle of this. Best move...look for any procedural way out without ruling on the merit.
Posted by gibby | September 4, 2012 5:52 PM
And politicians wonder why citizens think it's "US against THEM" ?
Turns out, they are right.
Posted by ltjd | September 4, 2012 5:58 PM
Channelling Leona Helsmley:
Only the Little People follow the laws in Oregon.
Posted by Mister Tee | September 4, 2012 6:43 PM
Why not make a federal case of it? Filing for TROs in local courts may be cheaper, but why not ask a district court judge for a preliminary injunction? All the elements are there: irreparable harm, money damages inadequate, liklihood of a win on the merits, balance of harms from a delay is in the public interest. You might need to hunt for an argument to support standing but it already sounds like the plaintiff is willing to hang his hat on due process claims so there you go.
Posted by steve | September 4, 2012 6:53 PM
RICO baby.. RICO
Posted by tankfixer | September 4, 2012 7:58 PM
OMG- it really is hard for me to grasp this happening-what the F?
Posted by K.W. | September 4, 2012 8:47 PM
Subverting the outcome of an upcoming election should invite Federal attention.
What about the people's voting rights? Where's the ever loving SPLC when you really need them? Oh, wrong victim.
Posted by Downtown Denizen | September 4, 2012 8:50 PM
and right as a legal matter
I'm no lawyer and haven't found the ruling online. How was Van Dyke incorrect about Haggenmiller's basis and wrong to throw out her case?
Posted by Aaron | September 4, 2012 10:53 PM
There's been no transcript available yet but observers said the judge bought the county pitch that the writ was seeking to stop an action vs compelling an action to occur as a writ of mandamus should be. Apparently there was enough wiggle room to find a distinction that made it appear the other way.
Yet the request was for the county to follow the law and provide the 60 period for revenue bond challenge.
Posted by rail vote 3-401 | September 5, 2012 7:42 AM
Van Dyk's blurb on the state bar
Other Community Service:
Portland Planning Commission (1992-96) (Vice-president 1994-96); Outreach Ministry in Burnside Board of Directors (1997-99) (Advisory Board: 1999-present); Environmental Zone Rewrite Committee (1993-95); Portland Growth Management Committee (1992-97); ORS Chapter 279 (Public Contracting) Rewrite Committee 2002; Little League Coach (1987, 1988, 1999); St. Maryís Home for Boys Volunteer (1987-90); Foster parent (1990).
Posted by Andrew | September 5, 2012 9:13 AM