|
|
||
Orange asks court to dismiss lawsuit challenging decision to allow Walmart in Wilderness battlefield area say Date published: 10/14/2009
BY ROBIN KNEPPER The Orange County Board of Supervisors is asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to overturn its approval of a Walmart Supercenter in the Wilderness battlefield area. Calling the complaint filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield and six individual plaintiffs a "rambling set of allegations designed to try to avoid dismissal prior to trial," the response filed yesterday maintains that the plaintiffs have no standing or cause to sue. On Aug. 25, the Orange Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to grant a special-use permit for a 240,000-square-foot retail development on a 51.5-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20 and a quarter-mile from the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Walmart plans to build a 138,000-square-foot Supercenter as the anchor store. On Sept. 25, opponents filed a legal challenge contending the board's decision was "flawed in numerous respects." It claims that supervisors "brushed aside" mounting concerns about the negative impacts the store would have on the battlefield and park. In its response, the county says the "complaint displays a lack of understanding of Virginia land-use law." "Digested to its essentials, the complaint does not state a cause of action. Rather, plaintiffs simply have a fundamental policy disagreement with the board," the response states. The response also notes that neither the federal nor state government has prohibited development on the property, which has been privately owned and zoned for commercial development since 1973. "Plaintiffs want to prevent use of land that they do not own and this suit is a contrived effort to enable them to do so," the response states. None of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the special-use permit because none are "aggrieved persons" under the Orange County zoning ordinance, according to the response. "It is not legally sufficient to establish standing to sue that the National Trust and the Friends are attempting to advance some perceived public right or to redress some anticipated public injury," it states. Robert D. Rosenbaum, attorney for the National Trust and other plaintiffs, disputed the main points of the county's legal response.
against what the Trust wanted. They had several hearings, they listened to everyone, even foreigners who it did not actually affect. They put off making a final vote and allowed more hearings. When they did vote, they voted to what the majority in their district wanted. They voted for the good of the county yet the Trust is trying to make everyone believe they voted to harm the county. If OC residents want higher taxes, then side with the Trust, if you do not want higher taxes, Wal-Mart is the answer.
This suit is not about difference in policy views. Yes, the plaintiffs disagree with the position of the Board, but that is not reason to file a lawsuit. This is about the Board's lack of procedural compliance.
This debate really gets twisted. The BOS is not a judical body. It does not have to be "unbiased." Public Hearings are not trials. The only standard is whether the BOS acts arbitrarily and capriciously. Reachng a decision that is unpoular with some is not inherently arbitrary and capricious. I still the issue as being entirely about property rights. Maybe the effort to block the BOS rule could be focused toward raising private funds to buy the land?
This is an issue of fair decision-making by the county. When you look at the history of this debate, it is hard to argue that this was a decision made by unbiased people. Going to court is the only way to ensure a fair decision for the people of Orange County.
How much longer are they going to put up with this when they know a different location would make all these problems go away? I don't buy that this is the only site that will work for Walmart, that's just ridiculous. I hope the lawsuit forces Walmart to be more open-minded and come to the table to find an alternate location that satisfies all parties.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
