Support Anti Sue and Settle Legislation

forrest · Since 21 Jun 2005 4329 Posts Hood River Hick **CGKA Member**

We all saw it go down locally, the so called Friends of the Hood River Waterfront tried to force the developers of the cable park into private meetings through a appeal lawsuit. Now we're seeing the exact same thing with the Timberline Bike Park. We all knew it was about money but couldn't be 100% sure. Even though we didn't get a cable park in the end, I'm very pleased that the developers didn't settle with so called Friends. They don't get to set public policy in private, closed door meetings.

A new law is up for consideration that would ensure that all stakeholders (You and I) have an opportunity for input in these "sue and settle" cases.

Please take a moment and tell your congressional representative to support this:
https://secure3.convio.net/arra/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=507

For more information, see this:
https://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2013/05/09-lorber-sue-and-settle.html

Hein · Since 08 Mar 2005 1314 Posts Possessed

If you voted for Obama then please take this opportunity to punch yourself in the face.

MikeZ · Tue Jun 25, 13 10:21 am

Sorry, I can't support this, and I sent emails to the Oregon Congressional members to say so. While I expect there are actually abuses of this sort of thing, I don't believe that's the true goal of this proposed legislation. Here's another viewpoint:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aalexander/sue_and_settle_legislation_a_c.html

Apparently, not only would this legislation impact the potential abuses that you're discussing, they would greatly complicate the legitimate enforcement of a great many environmental (and other?) regulatory processes. No thanks.

In truth, I look on pretty much anything coming out of the Republican leadership with suspicion these days. It wasn't always so, but they've really become way too reactionary. Seems like most things they put forward look good on the surface, but only as an attempt to push through their real agenda - one that's usually far less benign.

Hein · Since 08 Mar 2005 1314 Posts Possessed

Mike is right. You can't pass legislation to reign in the EPA. Not with Obama crony wackos like these (see below) at the helm. They'll just find some other way to force their agenda on us.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/03/05/epa-nominee-gina-mccarthy-another-radical-tapped-to-replace-lisa-jackson-aka-richard-windsor-etc/

backtoCaLi · Since 15 Mar 2008 74 Posts Nor-Cal

Hein is an idiot..... the sky is falling, its all Obama's fault!

Dakine is way better than NSI...

Slingshot sucks compared to North....

and my dad can beat up yours! Rolling Eyes

It must still be raining in the Gorge

MikeZ · Tue Jun 25, 13 11:23 am

forrest · Wed Jun 26, 13 8:13 am

We can only view the world from our own reference frame. Your world looks flat, mine looks curved.

Hein isn't that serious, he's just taking a moment to make a jab.

My sharing of this information is about the behavior of a couple (Linda Maddox, Derek Bell, Brent Foster) people in our community who stole our choice through a lawsuit, and attempted to go into closed door meetings so we didn't even get to know about the settlement. And the behavior of a few people who run organizations like BARK, Mazamas, and Friend of Mt Hood who are continuing these tactics at the expense 1,000s of people in the entire Pacific NW.

I'm neither Dem or Rep, I'm just a fucked bystander, and I think requiring these settlements to be public is a worth goal of legislation.

Locke · Since 16 May 2012 19 Posts The State of Jefferson

Reading the actual bill as submitted is important to any judgment on the merits.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1493/text

Unfortunately, the bill does somewhat more than it's title claims.

1) It definitely would require publication of all consent decrees and settlement agreements (section 3(d)).

That's a good thing.

2) The other thing it does is to create a rebuttable presumption that someone who petitions the court in the matter has standing (section 3(c)). This is more troubling. It allows basically ANY person to object at the last minute - and that drags things out more than the litigation process already does. Parties to the matter could spend years getting to an agreement, only to have somebody else pop in - and that somebody could be on **either** side (or neither side, and just have an axe to grind on a tangential matter).

Courts can see through transparent interference, but still, this part of the Act is bad law.

Settlements are a public good. So is public disclosure on matters affecting the public. Unfortunately, as written, the Act would increase litigation costs and uncertainty; it will also tend to (at least in some cases) reduce the probability of parties' reaching a mutually agreeable solution.

With that said, it's not over 'till its over. If the bill passes, it could be heavily modified in the process.

pollywog · Since 07 Aug 2009 291 Posts Obsessed

People don't give a crap about the environment. Don't be fooled by their "limiting of uses" for the sake of Mother Nature. They do it for their own greed. They save it for their own uses. "Oh, I climb up the mountain and it's so low impact so it's okay" (mazama's). "I ride my horses and cuz they are animals made by momma nature it's okay for me to ride on any trail". "Oh, i ride my bike everywhere so I am righteous and in touch with Nature". Insert any user group. IF people really care about their impact on nature, they'd STOP using/playing in it.

What we all know is this: people don't like to f-ing share! These bull crap people who hide behind "saving the environment" from man obviously forgot they are "man". Unbelievable. The only way to fight these jack wagons is with REAL science and, of course, money.

Unless you engage in their kind of fun, they consider you a raper of nature. I really dislike those kinds of self-righteous elitist fake environmentalists.

Rant over!