Posted on 12/30/2004 5:10:03 PM PST by BenLurkin
FAWNSKIN, Calif. (AP) The Department of Justice will provide attorneys for three U.S. Forest Service employees sued by a developer under a law originally passed to fight drug lords and the mafia.
San Diego developer Irving Okovita sued the employees and an environmentalist in November, accusing them of conspiring to block a luxury condominium project in Big Bear Lake that he wants to build with an Arizona company.
He filed the legal action under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as the RICO Act, created in 1970 to fight organized crime.
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sullivan to represent the three, Matt Mathes, a spokesman for U.S. Forest Service, said Thursday.
The workers and their advocates said Okovita was misusing the law to retaliate after a judge temporarily blocked the Marina Point project in May.
Saying the suit is intended to harass government workers, they hailed the government decision to provide attorneys. The move came after several weeks of uncertainty about whether the Department of Justice would get involved.
A call to the agency by The Associated Press was not immediately returned.
``The thought of having to pay for private representation was weighing heavily,'' said defendant Gene Zimmerman, supervisor of San Bernardino National Forest. ``As a federal employee, I have limited resources to put into weighty litigation.''
Okovita is also suing Robin Eliason and her husband, Scott Eliason, both of whom are Forest Service biologists, as well as Sandy Steers, a former scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, who has helped lead opposition to the development.
Okovita's attorney, S. Wayne Rosenbaum said he was surprised that the Justice Department decided to intervene because the Forest Service is conducting an internal investigation. Agency officials said they could not comment on the probe.
However, Mathes said, ``These three employees are held in very high regard for their work.''
The project calls for 132 condo units, a marina and tennis courts. Developers plan to raze more than 300 pine trees that provide winter shelter to the bald eagle, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Okovita alleges that the Eliasons provided false information to government agencies to halt the development and to help the Forest Service acquire the land cheaply while also boosting the value of their own nearby property.
The Department of Justice provides lawyers for federal workers in most cases in which they are sued but initially delayed a decision over whether to represent the three, raising concerns for the workers.
This is racketeering at its finest. The enviro-weenies strike again, but maybe RICO could stop them. Hmmm.
California property rights ping!
Wow!
If he had any cojones he'd be suing the government, not the employees.
I would imagine this happened because the developer's lawyer neglected to research the matter to discover that the government generally will provide legal counsel to it's employees (or witnesses or contractors) who are sued by third parties in such cases.
This happens. I've been hit with bluebacked paper right at my desk which I simply forwarded up through channels to counsel. Never thought about it again. There is, of course, a never-ending supply of stupid lawyers who will keep trying this trick in the hope that a federal judge can be tricked.
Most government bureaucrats are pricks who see the public as impinging on their comfort. They will use capricious reasoning to block any reasonable development effort. Equal parts nimbyism and laziness. Property rights and tradition don't even enter the mix.
I'll guarantee you that if government employees were subject to being dragged into court at their own expense by upset citizens nobody would take the jobs.
The builder was initially upset when his plan was rejected by the Board with the recommendation that he come back with something real.
Rent on a garden apartment wouldn't have paid the taxes on the land.
BS. It's not the government's place to decide the economic viability of projects, nor any other buttinskis, either. I'm in the process of getting a simple task taken care of now -- something harmless that would have been rubberstamped 10 years ago. Bureaucrats have so much momentum that routine stuff is like pulling teeth.
My brother recently had a house built on a regular city lot with no issues or plan corrections. Explain to him his 6 month wait and a $12,000 building permit. It's obscene how much we power we have given these turds.
As a member of the public, what price do you think I ought to place on your running pipe and wire through my property?
You can, of course, find perfectly usable building sites that have no public access at all.
Friend of my father's bought such a "landlocked" site years ago. He used to go down in the country and climb a nearby hill on public land to look over at it from time to time.
The other landowners refused to grant him an easement to access his lot.
At some point most of us simply do not have the resources to afford our own self-sufficient island and have to put up with the neighbors. That $12,000 fee is cheap by standards elsewhere.
"I'll guarantee you that if government employees were subject to being dragged into court at their own expense by upset citizens nobody would take the jobs."
Excellent! I like that thought. Less parasites to feed.
Yeah, parasites ~ man your own prisons buddy.
Lynx Hair Biologists
Gotcha! You're a government employee aren't you. Come on now, admit it.
BTW, nothing I enjoy more than collecting bills from people who owe money to the government. It's better than riding motorcycles or flying jet fighters, even in combat.
That didn't include any hook up fees. Those were extra. All it did was pay for planning leeches at city hall. He had the option of paying a $1,500 to private reviewers in order to expedite. That kinda shows you the real cost.
If Americans want to price their kids out of single family homes, make a lot of unneccessary hurdles. There are bureaucratic critters eager to help. Our parents managed just fine without 6 month of plan review (translation: sitting in a stack). Somehow, everyone feels the need to micro-manage the activities of their neighbors with heavy-handed and expensive cockroaches at city hall. It's almost to the point where I cheer someone going postal.
Plus water retention accommodations, another $50,000 or so.
Ronald Reagan was a great believer in user fees ~ that's the idea that those who want to make use of a government service should pay for it.
Planning and Zoning, although usually not thought of by someone who wants to build or develop as being necessarily good ideas, really do serve to keep the highrise pigfarms out of residential areas.
Rotterdam, Nederland, in fact, recently faced the prospect of someone want to build a 30 story pigfarm, all properly vented, of course, adjacent to a residential area.
$12,000 is less than the price of an Hyundai Elantra, just about the least expensive small car you can get that can seat 5 adults! No doubt the house being built on the lot is going to be worth $100,000 or more when it's done. I would certainly hope I was getting the best talent money can buy in the town's planning office because they're going to be the guys who defend that new house on that lot against other folks in the area who want to do things your brother might think should be farther away!
Most of us can't afford to live in your neighborhood. Maybe you can write us all nice checks to make us feel better about it though.
There's way too much development in California and way too many people as it is.
Wouldn't bother me if they prohibited the chopping down of even a single California tree again.
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.