Brian Mann says the lawsuit is legit

He says the ex parte violation accusations — that APA staff had improper communication with developers and other parties that were in favor of the resort — deserve to be given the same kind of weight they were given when pro-development interests were making the same accusations against environmentalists on land deals.

He also makes the point that though at least Bob Glennon has acknowledged that the suit is being brought in part to generate the environmental base and gain attention for environmental causes from across the state, that's nothing new. I would definitely agree with that. How many people on the other side are using the lawsuit to highlight their arguments for development?

Mann also says that the lawsuit could clarify some of the fuzzier regulations. APA staff argued during the hearing that it was staff's opinion that terms like "clustered development" and "substantial acreage" should not be clearly defined, because they mean different things on different sites. But that was a key point of contention during the hearing — CAN you consider this clustered development or substantial acreage? Some did and some didn't. So how can those subjective guidelines make for policy that a person can follow when creating a plan for a development? Mann thinks it would be better to make that clearer for people, and says the lawsuit could do that.

For the record, people have been making lots of accusations about "frivolous lawsuits," so I'm going to go ahead and copy and paste the definition of a frivolous lawsuit under NYS law (found here):

"(c) For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.

Frivolous conduct shall include the making of a frivolous motion for costs or sanctions under this section. In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the (1) circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct; and (2) whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party."

It's important to know the definitions of things when you make an accusation like that.

Previous Post | Next Post