Federal judge tosses viaduct tunnel lawsuit

[au]

“…. reconfiguring streets, and making improvements to Seattle’s waterfront and to transit service in the area. The total price tag for the project is…”

psst… we’ll probably run out of money before we get to the waterfront ‘improvements’ and have to sell the property.

(gasp) NO!!! You don’t think anybody’s thought of that do you?

Share This

[Ken]

Posting wingnuttia (Cox) and cut n pasted pre shortened links (and not recognizing that they were already shortened/truncated on the site you lifted them from) does nothing to support your fearmongering re the tunnel.

I wanted the existing viaduct to be repaired or rebuilt but that is not a possibility at this point. Tunnels are no more vulnerable than elevated structures in the type of earthquakes expected in the Seattle area. No less either.

Anyone who thinks “standing” is a technicality when it comes to lawsuits, understands the legal system the same way a dog understands a can opener.

Standing is the core of due process and from it’s origins in the 5th and 14th amendments to the recent citizens united case, the details of “due process” fill law libraries, lawyers dreams and nightmares, and pockets.

Slandering the Judge instead of the Lawyer who took your cash, seems bizarre to me but your whole premise that a complete EIS is needed in an urban area that would be cliffside if it were not completely man made, indicates that you have other goals besides the stated ones.

Enjoy throwing money and credibility away while you can.

Share This

[KBear]

I just love the acronym “SCAT”! They could not have chosen a more appropriate name for themselves.

Share This

[JoB]

autumn…

did you ever wonder why the pockets that funded that frivolous lawsuit didn’t pay for an atty who could get the standing right? It wasn’t so difficult to craft it so that it wasn’t so easily thrown out.

someone is manipulating your anger to their benefit … it might be a good time to examine this closely enough to ask yourself if you really want to be taken on this ride.

Share This

[DP]

OK, Ken, maybe you’re right (though your tone could be more respectful); maybe legal standing is more than a technicality. But I get frustrated with judges who dismiss cases without considering them on the merits. Maybe they have to do that . . . Still, it seems silly in this particular instance.

Clearly, the people who brought suit on the Tunnel should not have overlooked the detail of spelling out that they would be affected by an improper EIS. On the other hand, I think the judge could have looked at the filing papers and reasonably inferred that the people filing the suit live in the Seattle area and would necessarily be harmed if the Tunnel EIS wasn’t done correctly. (If the judge couldn’t infer that on his own, he could always just ask: “Where do you folks live?”)

Unfortunately, what the judge did in this case was to dismiss the case out of hand, thereby encouraging another round of litigation, as the SCAT people go back to the drawing board and then refile a nearly identical suit.

How does that help the process? To me it seems like a waste of time and money.

–David

Share This

[JoB]

David…

it is not the judge’s responsibility to frame the lawsuit properly when those who initiated it chose not to do so.

The plaintiffs had legal counsel… and one would assume their legal counsel understood the legal requirements of pursuing this matter through the courts… so why would they choose to overlook such a fundamental issue?

one might ask.. who really encouraged another round of litigation and what do they stand to gain by legally stalling the process?

oh… and how much are we as taxpayers willing to pay to further that agenda?

Share This

[au]

I am not sure what the point of your analysis is, but what I do know is that I’ve looked extensively at the facts of the situation surrounding the deep bore tunnel and it’s process and have come to the conclusion that it is an extremely dangerous and destructive infrastructure solution.

Stalling the process? Wrong. We are working on stopping the process. No deep bore tunnel.

And JoB you are frustrating! You complain about govn largess, you whine about not being heard, you go on about corporate greed etc, etc, etc, and now, when people truly are concerned and trying to do the right thing by Seattle and making a stink to get heard you complain about that too.

Agenda? Our agenda is to have a real solution to the waterfront. And No, I do not have the precise answers. I am not a engineer. I am not an architect. I am not a lawyer. I am a citizen who cares.

I am lousy at citing sources and remembering detailed facts but that in no way means that the facts aren’t available. When I return from camping perhaps I shall put together a researched and cited cost/benefit analysis (or not).

Anyways, google for yourself, dig deep and read.

Instead of analysing my words and the legal movement of scat, investigate the doings of our local and state politicians in this matter.

We are not lawyers, we are not techies (with a slick website), rather we are citizen’s who have seen a wrong and are going about resolving it in the Legal way our culture/society has set before us.

We can do better than this.

Be the movement that helps create the change that we all so desperately want.

If not now, when? If not this issue, which one?

Share This

[JoB]

autumn…

lets see…

You don’t know what would work…

but you are sure that the solution that has been arrived at is the wrong one.

I know what would have worked better and why…

but that horse isn’t running. it wasn’t the project chosen… it isn’t the project that has state and federal funds backing it.

The tunnel is not the perfect solution..

but it is the solution that has funding.

sometimes you take what you can get.

Your protest is too little.. not well thought out (re: the failed lawsuit) and too late.

It’s not like this subject came up yesterday and you and those who are trying to stop the tunnel now were blindsided by the idea…

there was plenty time for debate and plenty of time for public discourse… a lot of it happened here. use the search engine.

Those who oppose the tunnel had plenty of opportunity to do so… and they lost.

wasting the city’s money and frittering away the time line for public funds for the opportunity to start the discussion over isn’t going to get much sympathy from me. it doesn’t take much to realize that a solution to the viaduct is a decade or two past due.

Dumping traffic on Marginal Way while someone figures this out is not in the public’s best interests…

nor is delaying this tunnel until the viaduct collapses on someone.

the tunnel is not the ideal solution.

But it is the one that got approved.

Share This

[DP]

OK, JoB. You’ve convinced me.

I suspect the lawyers are indeed making a killing off this one . . .

There’s a strongly worded Op-Ed piece in the

“Times” about this today; they’re really ripping McGinn.

I just cannot fathom the guy.

Share This

[JoB]

DP..

do i really really have to read the Times?

i don’t want to.

i bet someone will rip him here tomorrow

and i can save myself the aggrevation

Share This

[Author]

Posts