Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boise County files for bankruptcy
Idaho Statesman ^ | 03/02/11 | KATY MOELLER

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: bankruptcy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Personally, I consider the failure to pay a valid debt to be immoral. However, I have my doubts on the lawsuit that bankrupted them, as I do on so many of the other the mostly frivolous lawsuits in our courts. If this gets Boise County (does not include Boise City, which is in Ada County) out of paying on a case they shouldn't have to pay, or if the lawyers and plaintiffs die of old age before they are paid, I'll consider that to be a form of justice. I have not read the details on this case, but abusive lawsuits do not constitute a morally valid debt, and this tactic is legitimate in response to such an abuse.
1 posted on 03/02/2011 10:16:06 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Domino #1.


2 posted on 03/02/2011 10:23:02 AM PST by de.rm (“I’m not angry, I’m passionate,” the sheen''..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

There are consequences to electing morons.


3 posted on 03/02/2011 10:30:33 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
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.

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.

4 posted on 03/02/2011 10:31:30 AM PST by Seruzawa (What's Democrat's legacy? Almost 1/2 million dead US soldiers and collapsed cities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

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.


5 posted on 03/02/2011 10:32:48 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
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.

Why can't we sue fungus attorneys for conspiring to destroy our way of life?

.

6 posted on 03/02/2011 10:39:38 AM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Courts are not interested in morality, only in the administration of justice based on the facts presented to them.

What country do you live in? I KNOW it is not the U.S.

snark

7 posted on 03/02/2011 10:43:57 AM PST by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Courts are not interested in morality, only in the administration of justice based on the facts presented to them.

LOL!

8 posted on 03/02/2011 10:51:14 AM PST by Roninf5-1 (If ignorance is bliss why are so many Americans on anti-depressants?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect

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.


9 posted on 03/02/2011 10:52:40 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

although this one appears to be the result of a wingnut court judgment rather than irresponsible spending


10 posted on 03/02/2011 10:56:42 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Personally, I consider the failure to pay a valid debt to be immoral. However, I have my doubts on the lawsuit that bankrupted them, as I do on so many of the other the mostly frivolous lawsuits in our courts

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.

11 posted on 03/02/2011 10:58:34 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Seems to me that the jury might have failed to take morality and fundamental fairness into account.

JURY NULLIFICATION!

12 posted on 03/02/2011 11:04:45 AM PST by oneolcop (Lead, Follow or Get the Hell Out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
-- I have not read the details on this case, but abusive lawsuits do not constitute a morally valid debt, and this tactic is legitimate in response to such an abuse. --

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.

13 posted on 03/02/2011 11:06:52 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oneolcop

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...


14 posted on 03/02/2011 11:08:16 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stormer
-- 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. --

This bankruptcy being just another example of that. When the judgment exceeds the assets, bankruptcy is the result. Time for a fresh start.

15 posted on 03/02/2011 11:09:26 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

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.


16 posted on 03/02/2011 11:14:59 AM PST by ASOC (What are you doing now that Mexico has become OUR Chechnya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
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.

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.

17 posted on 03/02/2011 11:20:46 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stormer

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.


18 posted on 03/02/2011 11:22:18 AM PST by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


19 posted on 03/02/2011 11:23:43 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stubernx98

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...


20 posted on 03/02/2011 11:26:48 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson