|
|
||
Orange County urges court to reject bid by park advocates, Civil War trust to support Wilderness Walmart lawsuit Date published: 1/29/2010
By CLINT SCHEMMER Orange County supervisors oppose allowing Wilderness Walmart foes to file a "friend of the court" brief in the lawsuit over a retail center planned at the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. The motion by the National Parks Conservation Association and Civil War Preservation Trust is untimely and doesn't address any of the legal issues in the case before the Orange County Circuit Court, the Board of Supervisors argues. The two organizations want to support the National Trust for Historic Preservation and six local residents in their legal effort to overturn Orange's approval of a 240,000-square-foot development anchored by a Walmart Supercenter. On Wednesday, they asked the court for leave to file an amicus brief in the case--which is due to be heard by a judge next Wednesday. DISMISS LAWSUIT, ORANGE SAYS Yesterday, the Orange board filed its response, reiterating its earlier argument that court should dismiss the lawsuit because the National Trust and Orange and Spotsylvania residents fail to state a claim. "The Amicus Brief at best makes even more clear that the challenge is a public policy, not a legal, issue," the board's rebuttal states. Its filing, by County Attorney Sharon E. Pandak, notes that neither the plaintiffs nor CWPT and NPCA, nor the National Park Service, have tried to enlarge the national park by buying the 51.5-acre retail-center site. "Therefore, the Amicus Brief again supports the County's position that this litigation is without legal merit but rather is a back-door way to preclude development of private land without acquisition and compensation to the landowner," the board's response states. "Without any legal authority, the CWPT and NPCA join the Plaintiffs in attempting to prevent use of land that they do not own, and to improperly override a valid legislative decision." The board acknowledged that the court has broad discretion as to whether to grant an amicus brief, and what weight to give to one. Spokesman Jim Campi said the Civil War Preservation Trust took the supervisors' response in stride. "It comes as no surprise, since it was the county board's ill-conceived actions that led to this point," Campi said. "However, we felt it was worthwhile to extend the courtesy to the county and give them the opportunity to review our amicus brief." CWPT is a major partner, with the Fredericksburg-based Central Virginia Battlefields Trust, in purchasing the 94-acre Link-Atkins property on the Wilderness battlefield. The Link-Atkins acreage lies in Spotsylvania County across State Route 3, a short distance from the Walmart tract. It neighbors Ellwood Manor, a historic home that's a much-visited site within the national park. Clint Schemmer: 540/368-5029
The problem with that sentance, Walter, is that it was never an option for the board to move Walmart. The Board had two options before it, aprove it or reject it. They could have tried rejecting the plan on that site and trying to work out a deal with Walmart on a different location, But Walmart had said publicly they had no interest in that. How can the Board agree to move it if Walmart didn't want to move it?
either thru public session, face to face, email, telephone and letters to the editors. They even allowed foreigners who aren't immediately affected by this voice their opinions. What more can they do? Sure about that Walter, Walmart wanted that spot in particular, if you make them move then they aren't happy. Don't call it dumb because it wasn't the way you wanted the BOS to vote. It's not that they do not agree with the opposition, they want facts not hearsay and opinions, facts have not been given.
Amici briefs may make sense at the Supreme Court level, but they make no sense at the trial level. Your proposal would mean that everyone would have a right to file a brief in divorce suits, real estate boundary disputes, custody disputes, and every other case coming beofre our Circuit Courts. This would open the floodgates, and the judges would be overwhelmed by the flood of paper.
Why oppose the amicus brief? Everyone who cares about this issue should have the right to express their opinion. This is the latest example of the BOS's unwillingness to engage with preservationists, historians, and other people who want to improve Orange in their own way. With the BOS, it's their way or the highway, with no room for compromise.
No surprise that the BOS rejected another notion that they don't agree with. Glad to see support for the litigation.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
