Posted on 03/02/2011 10:16:04 AM PST by Pollster1
In a move rare in the United States and perhaps unprecedented in Idaho, Boise County is filing for federal protection against a multimillion dollar judgment. . . .
James Spiotto, an expert on Chapter 9 bankruptcies, told The Bond Buyer in a Tuesday article that there have been about eight municipal bankruptcies per year in the U.S. for the past four decades. Among the most famous cases: Orange County, Calif., in 1994 and Vallejo, Calif., in 2008. . . .
BANKRUPTCY COMES ON HEELS OF JUDGMENT
A federal jury in December found that Boise County violated the federal Fair Housing Act in its handling of a developer’s proposal to build a 72-bed residential treatment facility for teens.
The jury awarded the development firm Oaas Laney $4 million, plus attorneys’ fees, which the county says total about $1.4 million. Boise County has an operating budget of about $9.4 million. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatesman.com ...
Domino #1.
There are consequences to electing morons.
They tried to build on of those "facilities" near us. They are actually youth prisons where Kalifornia tries to export their gang problems elsewhere. Don't let the shrinks put one of these crime magnets near your neighborhoods.
I find it interesting that you state that you are unaware of the details of the case, but imply the suit is frivolous. Courts are not interested in morality, only in the administration of justice based on the facts presented to them. Under our system of government, there is no higher authority and arbiter of validity than the Federal courts. The fact that they have rendered this verdict, and absent a successful appeal, makes the county’s debt valid, regardless of any moral objection.
Why can't we sue fungus attorneys for conspiring to destroy our way of life?
.
What country do you live in? I KNOW it is not the U.S.
snark
LOL!
I’m sorry to see you have such a cynical view of our judicial system. While there are undoubtedly flawed decisions or other abuses, the vast and overwhelming majority of issues that end up in any type of judicial setting are handled professionally and efficiently.
although this one appears to be the result of a wingnut court judgment rather than irresponsible spending
First, this was NOT a bill, it was an award to another firm .... $4 million of which $1.4 was for lawyers fees.
Second, they have no bond debt and $4 million represents over 40% of their annual operating budget. No way they can just come up with another 40% increase in revenues.
JURY NULLIFICATION!
Even if it's not abuse, bankruptcy is a perfectly valid reaction. I think it was DOW Chemical that did similar, following judgments relating to silicone used for body implants. Law swings both ways.
Dow Corning In Bankruptcy Over Lawsuits - May 1995.
Or perhaps the jury did its sworn duty, listened to the evidence presented, carefully deliberated, and reached their decision without bias or passion and supported by the facts...
This bankruptcy being just another example of that. When the judgment exceeds the assets, bankruptcy is the result. Time for a fresh start.
Here is the presser from the court in question:
On Thursday, December 17, 2010, an eight-person jury unanimously awarded Alamar Ranch $4 million in damages to be paid by Boise County for violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
In April 2007, Alamar Ranch filed an application for a conditional use permit to build and operate a high quality 72-bed residential treatment facility for youth. In March 2008, Boise County approved a conditional use permit for Alamar Ranch but imposed numerous conditions (including a helipad, a 24/7 manned fire station in addition to a paved exit road and a new bridge), which would have cost millions of dollars. The commissioners required these conditions while, at the same time, reducing the size of the facility from 72 to 24 beds. Alamar Ranch contended in their lawsuit that these conditions, combined with the reduction in beds, made the residential treatment center financially unfeasible.
Further, the lawsuit contended that Boise County’s conduct was unlawful because the county bowed to community pressure to exclude handicapped residents from living in their neighborhood, in clear violation of the provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA expressly prohibits this kind of discrimination by governmental entities.
Erik Oaas, whose firm Oaas Laney intended to develop Alamar Ranch, stated, “I hope this verdict sends a clear message to Boise County and other elected officials that they have a duty to follow and enforce the law. We are pleased with the jury’s verdict and believe that it is truly a shame that the commissioners prevented the development of this center, which we continue to believe would have been a tremendous asset to Boise County.”
Thomas Banducci and Wade Woodard, attorneys at Banducci Woodard Schwartzman PLLC, represented Alamar in this action. When asked about the results, attorney Woodard said, “We are pleased that our clients were vindicated and believe that the jury verdict serves as a wake up call to local governments that the rights of the handicapped should not be ignored.”
The jury heard 9 days of testimony in the case, which was tried in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and reached their unanimous verdict after 5-6 hours of deliberation.
So - the award was based on “discrimination” against “hadicapped” - handicapped ( and SSI payments) often include sociopathic (feral) youth. Not something anyone would want anywhere near there home - just as they would not want a prison full of violent criminals.
But I guess the loss of value of YOUR home is of little concern to the FedGov.
YMMV.
I could just as easily argue that the fact that Boise got away with declaring bankruptcy means that the debt is invalid. Courts are (sadly) interested only in the law, in many cases as twisted by predatory lawyers, and with little or no reference to justice. No, I don't have the time to research the details on this case. However, I am extremely skeptical of the suggestion that the county committed an act egregious enough to justify an award this large.
The bottom line: if I harm someone, I am morally obligated to pay to make them whole, whether or not a court orders me to do so. If I did no harm, then I have no moral obligations, and if I can dodge the court judgment, then that's a good thing. We place different weights on legally valid debts (which this frivolous lawsuit judgment is) and morally valid debts, which this may not be.
Speaking as someone who has had experience around the world with various judicial systems - the US is the worst(well maybe Russia is a runner up.
Absolutely. I’m not arguing that the county doesn’t have a right (or at this juncture, the responsibility) to claim bankruptcy. The issue as I see it is that some people want to blame the party that has prevailed in this case - he is not at fault - the county is. The matter has been adjudicated, the county attempted to prevail upon their insurance provider for relief and were denied, that case ended up before the state supreme court when the county lost again. The system worked. Unfortunately the real losers aren’t the county and its apparently incompetent leadership - it is the citizens of the county who will now be denied some level of service, and the guy that is owed the judgment.
Then with your vast experience, it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to find a county to move to whose judicial system is more in keeping with your personal taste...
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.