Posted on 11/21/2019 6:45:33 AM PST by Twotone
The state of Oregon breached its contract with 13 rural counties and 151 local taxing districts by failing to maximize timber harvests on state forests and resulting payments to those counties during the last two decades, a jury in Linn County found on Wednesday after nearly a month-long trial.
The jury found that the state owed those counties $1.1 billion in damages, including $674 million the counties contend they lost since 2001 because the state didn’t cut enough trees. The verdict also includes $392 million in future damages, which assumes the state will continue to manage the state forests in the same fashion, and fail to maximize timber revenues for the next 50 years.
The verdict, delivered mere hours after deliberations began, is a blow to the state, its beleaguered Department of Forestry, and environmental and recreational groups around the state. But the decision was not entirely unexpected. Observers say the plaintiffs aggressively venue-shopped the case to find a sympathetic judge and jury, and the state had lost almost all the significant pre-trial rulings.
The state is likely to appeal the verdict, but the judgement will accrue interest at 9%, or $90 million a year, which ups the ante considerably to resolve the case quickly.
Charles Boyle, a spokesman for Gov. Kate Brown, said “the verdict was not an unexpected first step in what will be a lengthier legal process, and it would be premature at this point to make budget decisions based on the jury’s decision. ODF and the Department of Justice will be reviewing options for next steps” including appealing the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Environmentalist-whacko-controlled state gets comeuppance. Good. Bad that the citizens have to pay the money, though.
Oregon ping
Trees are nature’s renewable resources. If those managing the States forestry service do not understand that, they should be fired and people who do understand it replace them.
We (the US) has more trees today then 100 years ago.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer state gov.
At least this might force them to use the increased taxes they’re already getting & do something productive with it. Instead of building homes for vagrants & taking care of illegals.
$1.1 billion is a worthwhile price to pay to keep the forests pristine and to protect the delicate habitats of the Nurovian leaping lemurs and the spotted owls safe from loggers and other racist and homophobic Trump types. Sure, when it burns it will completely incinerate the environment and kill all the lemurs and owls, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Besides, orange man bad!
Means absolutely nothing since the envioro lunatics that made the policy were not held personally accountable for damages. The correct legal tactic is to sue state officials especially those who work for state funded universities personally in Federal court when the violate free speech, free assembly, free association and other constitutional rights. Then they personally are on the hook for aggravation and damages.
This is just an early event in a process that will continue to bounce through the courts for at least another 15 years.
Good news.
Why is it when the whackadoo left LOSES, the topic of “venue shopping” is brought up.. but rarely is the fact most of their wins come from that behavior, and its NEVER mentioned.
Seems to me that this is just an excuse to raise taxes. TO quote Adrian Rogers, “The government cannot give to anybody anything that it does not first take from someone else.”
What does the Federal Govt owe these counties for not allowing them to use their forests?
“Trees are nature’s renewable resources.”
NO! Trees are gods. They must be worshipped as they grow (and as they burn in massive forest fires).
We must sacrifice one child at the base of each tree (we’ll harvest their organs for the elite first of course) and heal the planet. If they are not enough children we will gleefully round up everyone who violates the orthodoxy (it changes daily!) and plant them!
So, one can't keep the environment healthy or have any recreation due to logging?
Why can't all needs be met by having a fair use plan for all?
Gov could care less since it’s all taxpayer money anyway.
But, but... Trees have feelings too.
Good for them.
NYS has 3 times as many than what we had in 1800.
If you drive up to Mt St Helens, to Johnston Ridge, (It's coming up on 40 years, now.), you see a LOT of replanted trees, in nice, neat, regular lines, all of them the same height, the same color, the same genus. It's easy to spot artificial second growth, because it's so ORDERLY.
Just saying...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.