[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.

[fireforeffect]

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

[Roninf5-1]

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

LOL!

[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.

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.

[Richard Kimball]

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

There is no law.

[TheConservator]

It is, in my experience as an attorney, absolutely amazing how local governments treat developers and development applications. The term “land use law” is a misnomer. Governments routinely apply the law in a completely arbitrary and capricious manner.

To get any kind of significant development approved is far more a question of “who you know,” and “who those opposed to your development know,” than whether you have in fact complied with the rules.

So, it is completely plausible to me to hear it suggested that the County may have absolutely screwed this developer, and cost it millions of dollars. It happens all the time.

I believe that a Chapter 9 bankruptcy will not allow the County to avoid paying this debt. It will authorize the County to pay it over time, pursuant to a plan approved by the bankruptcy court.