Mar 14, 2008
by Steve-O
A State District Judge Bob McGrath threw out a lawsuit that was trying to stop natural gas drilling at the Trinity Trees site. Read Mike Lee’s excellent report on this morning’s proceeding on the S-T Web site.
McGrath agreed with an argument made by a lawyer for the city that Melissa Kohout had no standing to sue, since she hadn’t been injured more than any other member of the public. “She’s merely a citizen,” Assistant City Attorney Ted Gorski said.
I guess it isn’t reasonable for “mere citizens” to expect the city to follow its own gas drilling ordinance.
Join the Discussion: Most Commented Posts
- March 7, 2008 -- Stop Drilling on Eighth Avenue, Sign the Petition
- January 9, 2008 -- Will There Be A Lone Star International Film Festival In 2008?
- March 13, 2008 -- More West 7th Tenants Announced
- April 4, 2008 -- Berkeley, Mistletoe, and Ryan Place: Are You ready for this?
- June 4, 2008 -- Let There Be Light - Chesapeake Rumored To Relight Former Pier 1 Building
- June 10, 2008 -- Gas Drilling Task Force Hearing: How About a Game of Charades? Or Maybe Where’s Mikey?
- June 30, 2008 -- Eighth Avenue Showdown Postponed
- December 12, 2007 -- Fort Worth Burrito Project
- February 13, 2008 -- Breaking News For Nerds: An Apple Store IN Fort Worth!
- March 31, 2008 -- Breaking: Chesapeake Energy Buys Pier 1 Tower
25 Comments, Comments or Pings
A "Mere Citizen"
If a government can’t protect and serve “Mere Citizens”, what is it good for? Isn’t that why we have government?
Mar 14th, 2008
SteveB
I read that “mere citizen” bit in the S-T and was shocked. Could you be more callous and condescending? How more overt can you be about your deal with the devil?
Mere citizen as opposed to what? That’s like something I would hear by a Disneyfied villain in Ratatouille or something. “You can’t cook, you’re but a mere rat.” And that would be the classic line used to incite hatred of this person in the audience.
Who is this guy who said that? Is the CEO of Chesapeake just a mere citizen? Didn’t think so.
Mar 14th, 2008
Adam S.
Doesn’t the government, including judges and assistant city attorneys, get their power from “common citizens?”
Mar 14th, 2008
John Peter Smith
It was a very poor choice of words on the part of the Asst. City Attorney. However, the judge made the right decision. On practically every decision the City Council makes someone is unhappy. If citizens are able to block every decision they disagree with in the courts, city government would cease to function.
The place to decide this issue at the polls.
Mar 14th, 2008
Max
You have to read that sentence with the preceding paragraph of the article for it to make complete sense:
“McGrath agreed with an argument made by a lawyer for the city that Kohout had no standing to sue, since she hadn’t been injured more than any other member of the public.”
“‘She’s merely a citizen,’ Assistant City Attorney Ted Gorski said.”
In other words, “[Kohout] must allege and show how [she] has been
damaged or injured other than as a member of the general public.” Quoting from the City’s reply/answer/plea to Kohout’s Petition.
This is the rule of law that says, generally, that “mere citizens” cannot sue the City for perceived wrongs. The theory is that if every citizen could trot down to the courthouse and sue to stop a distasteful action, then every single thing that the City did would be subject to legal challenge (because SOMEBODY isn’t going to like what’s decided) and nothing would get done in a timely fashion. Everything would be tied up in the courts.
Mar 14th, 2008
Beverly Humphries
I knew this would be thrown out by the Judge, based on her status
in the suit. I said this many times in the S-T blog on this
subject. This was a totally different matter than the 8th ave
issue. 8th ave has a stronger objection to stand on.
Mar 14th, 2008
Don Young
John Peter Smith and Max are acting “merely as Devils advocates.” Nothing more. They certainly have far less balls than Melissa Kahout and Jason Smith who showed up in court at 9:30 am today. Where were you guys and your cynical, childish friends? Your coy and callous words are mere shadows on an electronic screen compared with the heroics of Kahout and Smith.
Of course Kahout was injured as we all are by the ruination of this green space and she had every right to seek relief as a “mere citizen.” The evidence is in plain sight and it’s spreading relentlessly across the city! The essence of the Trinity Trees is forever lost. Other special places are in line to be ruined. Someone needed to sue the bastards.
Melissa did not “trot to the courthouse” without merit. Shame on you for insulting her intelligence, her good will and her right to protest, for all of us, even your useless asses.
As for Ted Gorski, he is nothing more than a well paid lawyer for Mike Moncrief’s well funded Barnett Shale Mafia. You can see the template in Coppola’s Godfather films. He skewed the meaning of words like, “citizen” and “high impact” in an Orwellian manner characteristic of the Moncrief regime. Nice guy, but on the wrong side.
This judge and this court made a mistake today that I expect will be overturned on appeal and with a better qualified judge. This is only the first round in a battle that I pray will keep the court house spinning for years.
DY
Mar 14th, 2008
SteveB
Question for Max. Max said:
“In other words, “[Kohout] must allege and show how [she] has been damaged or injured other than as a member of the general public.” Quoting from the City’s reply/answer/plea to Kohout’s Petition.
This is the rule of law that says, generally, that “mere citizens” cannot sue the City for perceived wrongs. The theory is that if every citizen could trot down to the courthouse and sue to stop a distasteful action, then every single thing that the City did would be subject to legal challenge (because SOMEBODY isn’t going to like what’s decided) and nothing would get done in a timely fashion. Everything would be tied up in the courts.”
It sounds like your saying that a ‘mere’ citizen doesn’t have a right to challenge a perceived wrong. In fact you are saying that. I’m not a reactionary, I just don’t understand why a citizen would be refused standing for what might very well be an infringement on his/her rights as a citizen for the sake of politcal expediency. If that’s the case can we fire Mr. Yett? What do we need a city attorney for if they’ll never get sued. Sorry, forgot, to negotiate sweetheart deals with corporations.
This line especially confuses me (I’m no lawyer, obviously).
“[Kohout] must allege and show how [she] has been damaged or injured other than as a member of the general public.”
So if a water main bursts and floods JUST my house I may have standing? But if it floods everybody on the block tough luck?
Mar 14th, 2008
Ben Jamin
It’s on private property and the other proposed uses would have required many more trees to be cut. If anything, your beef should be with UTRWD for signing the waiver.
Mar 15th, 2008
JW
Standing is a constitutional issue. Standing is required to bring a suit. To have standing you must be damaged/injured in a particular way, unlike what any other ‘mere citizen’ would be damaged.
So yes, if your house were to be flooded you would have standing. I would not have standing to sue if your house was flooded. You must suffer an injury in fact not a perceived or potential injury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
Mar 15th, 2008
Steve-O
I understand the argument on the issue of standing. However, there are two issues that I don’t understand. The city’s gas drilling ordinance specifies a process for awarding a high-impact permit. It may be awarded by permission of city council or by waiver. The permit in the Trinity Trees case didn’t go through this process, it was simply handed down without Chesapeake applying for it.
If the City does not follow its own ordinance, what is the mechanism for getting the City to follow its ordinance? If a “mere citizen” doesn’t have standing, who does? And what is to stop the city from selectively enforcing any of its ordinances? The high-impact permitting process was designed to offer the public a chance to comment. If the public is given that opportunity by ordinance, then denied the chance because of enforcement, how does that not afford some standing? That may sound like bitching, but I am honestly asking for an answer from the folks here.
And I actually do have a beef with the TRWD for just signing the waiver. Signing that waiver was a matter of public interest. The TRWD is supported by our tax dollars. The taxpayers of Fort Worth should have a chance to comment. However, because Chesapeake is not only offering bonus and royalties in this instance, they are also a large TRWD customer that purchases millions of gallons of water for fracking operations. There wasn’t much chance that the TRWD was going to do anything to jeopardize that drilling site.
This is one of the main issue I am concerned with right now — why is the public being cut out of the process? We live here, we pay taxes here — why are we being increasingly ignored?
Mar 15th, 2008
John Peter Smith
Mr. Young:
No matter how noble Ms. Kahout’s intentions may be, the rule of law must be followed. Wouldn’t you agree?
If you will read my post you will see that I never said the city acted properly, only that Ms. Kahout did not have standing to sue. Yet your answer is to you resort to name-calling and slandering people’s reputations. I’ve noticed that your typical response to people you disagree with is to resort to demonizing them rather than addressing the issue. Such tactics don’t really do much to advance your cause.
To follow up on BenJamin’s post, this land is, and had been for many years zoned for heavy industrial use. This was not “green space” as Mr. Young claims. Did the city err in this case, or did they make the best of a bad situation? People can honestly disagree over that, but ultimately the place to decide the issue is the ballot box, not the courthouse.
Mar 15th, 2008
Beverly Humphries
Steve, The public was heard. They held their protest, they got
their publicity, as is there right in America. (and Texas)
The only violation that comes to my mind is the preconceived
notion by the public that this was a Park for recreational use.
The people who protested totally disregarded the ownership of
the property and mineral rights. They ignored the zoning of
this property.
It was a protest and law suit based on Passion and Emotions.,
which left no standing to sue. I don’t see where the ordinance
was abused, based on the facts.
Mar 15th, 2008
Will
Anyone can sue. But once in the court you have to establish some basis for being there. If there are no legal reasons the case can move forward, (some could be jurisdictional, failure to state a claim upon which the court can make a ruling on, etc) the case is dismissed.
Mar 15th, 2008
Kevin
The property was zoned Mixed-Use 2. No matter what certain columnists say, that’s not an “industrial” designation. It allows *some light industrial use,* but is primarily used for dense urban development - office or residential over ground-floor retail.
All the land around the museums, where the big Museum Place, West 7th, and So7 developments are being built, is MU-2 as well. Would you want to see block after block of gas wells there?
Mar 15th, 2008
Ben Jamin
If someone was willing to spend the millions to buy a piece of property in the museum district I would expect the city to grant a permit for anything that was legally allowed under that zoning. If a city refused them the right to use property that was properly zoned for that activity, the city could get sued for reverse condemnation.
While we’re playing the “what if” game would you rather see the 9 acres totally devoted to light industrial or just the 1 + acres with the current use?
Mar 15th, 2008
Bernie
Ooh! I want to play the “what if” game!
What if the city were to hold off on issuing drilling permits next to the river until an environmental impact study was done on the Trinity? Seems like a common sense step to protecting our most precious natural and recreational resource.
What if the folks who profited from this well (i.e. the Colonial and the Railroad) found a place for the drilling on their property?
What if we just all took a step back and thought about the long term consequences of changing the landscape of our city in the name of a quick buck?
Mar 15th, 2008
Ben Jamin
The city would get sued. By state law the mineral owner has more power than the surface owner. The people that sold the property to Chesapeake may have retained an interest in the well, so they would also have standing to sue. Chesapeake would start losing leases (like Bev’s) all over town, so that would be huge damages.
How would you like it if you had bought a piece of property for a new bike shop & the city decided to put a moratorium on any new building permits. Would you just stand there & take it?
What if you already had a permit & had started work? Still wondering if anyone liked the original plans for the site better.
Mar 16th, 2008
Max
Wow, Mr. Young, that was quite a response. It was a little more personal than others that I have come to enjoy on this website, a website that derives great pride from sticking to the issues (and rightfully so). But, that’s OK. I wasn’t questioning Ms. Kohout’s manhood, nor was I disparaging her trip to the courthouse. At least I didn’t intend to. In fact, I admire her willingness to stand up for what she believes in and I was rooting for a different result.
I was merely trying to explain, in response to SteveB’s post, that Mr. Gorski’s comment was not intended to be callous or condescending, and that, to help reach this conclusion, one must read the offending comment that got set out in the FWST’s article(the “mere citizen” part) with the preceding paragraph. It helps provide a frame of reference.
SteveB, I think the answer to your follow-up question is to “throw the bums out” at the polls. That is hard to do with single-member district voting and it certainly does not provide the more instant gratification that we would want and that this subject in particular deserves.
These wells are industrializing our city and we soon will no longer be on that fabulous “most liveable” list if they continue at their current pace. But, if Chesapeake is willing to buy an entire shopping center (they are rumored to have bought the Southcliff Center at 820/Granbury - think Bicycles Inc (sorry to mention them, Bernie - everyone shop at Panther City!)) from which to drill/do whatever else it is they think they want to do there, it’s going to be difficult to preserve what we’ve got.
Max
Mar 17th, 2008
Belle Starr
Max, why would ckp buy the shopping center? what would they do
with the space? tear it down like those apts. someone bought?
am curious, there are alot of longtime business’s there.
Ogle Beauty School, Pancho’s , a police sub station, Southwest
Bank all kinds of business’s, all sitting on concrete.
What have you heard? share with us. What a strange location.
Please don’t say a mammoth compressor station is in the works.?
or an equipment, truck station road yard or heaven forbid, a
disposal well location.
Mar 18th, 2008
Max
Belle, because “there’s gold in them thar hills.” “Black gold. Texas tea” (sort of - we need to come up with a catchy nickname).
“what would they do with the space? tear it down like those apts. someone bought? am curious, there are alot of longtime business’s there.” Yeah, probably, and “so what?” You don’t think Chesapeake really cares about those longtime businesses, do you? Let me repeat, “there’s gold in them thar hills.” They spent millions of dollars on the Trinity Trees site (which, by the way, representatives now seem to insist on calling “the Pearson lease”). They spent millions of dollars on several acres off 7th Street near Montgomery Plaza. In late February, they reported fourth-quarter net income of $303 million, falling from $471 million a year ago. After just a few months of that, you’re talking some real money.
As for what I’ve heard, see Page 2B of today’s FWST, wherein they state, “Chesapeake Energy is close to buying land at the southeast corner of Interstate 20 and Granbury Road, where the T hopes to build a train station and spur transit-oriented development. T officials said it’s too early to say whether the sale would force a change of plans.” Or, for easier reference, see http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/536215.html, down under “More About the Project.” Beyond that, I don’t know what they plan to put there, but that’s potentially a big tract of land they’re buying. There’d be lots of room for lots of industrial equipment. Better go “Raise the Flag” one last time.
Sorry to be the bearer of (more) bad news.
Max
Mar 19th, 2008
Greg Hughes
Back in March, Steve-O wrote:
“The city’s gas drilling ordinance specifies a process for awarding a high-impact permit. It may be awarded by permission of city council or by waiver. The permit in the Trinity Trees case didn’t go through this process, it was simply handed down without Chesapeake applying for it.
If the City does not follow its own ordinance, what is the mechanism for getting the City to follow its ordinance? If a “mere citizen” doesn’t have standing, who does? And what is to stop the city from selectively enforcing any of its ordinances? The high-impact permitting process was designed to offer the public a chance to comment. If the public is given that opportunity by ordinance, then denied the chance because of enforcement, how does that not afford some standing?”
If the topic were other than this specific one, what would the answer be? For example, demolition delay of a historic building? Or failing to enforce zoning at a location? How can a city be forced to follow its own ordinances?
Apr 20th, 2008
Suzette
Greg - great questions. The questions I’ve been asking for two years now. I just got back from driving down Meadowbrook in East Ft. Worth, ( City Council District 8 ) taking pictures of piles of debris in yards, cars parked on lawns, dogs tied on chains, people sleeping on sidewalks, etc., all of which are against City Ordinances. I have found that taking pictures and sending them to the Mayor and every City Council member has been beneficial, at times, for addressing specific individual complaints. However, IMO, I am doing the work that our City Government is getting paid (by us) to do from the Mayor on down to the code officer (with lots of supervisors and managers in between). If you push the issues, City Departments start playing the blame game, and when you trace the blame game you will probably find that our laws (State & local) are full of loopholes and really tend to work against the enforcement of which they were written. Plus, for the most part you have a City Council that will not really stand up, speak up, lobby other Council members, understand the workings of City Departments and put their neck on the line on hair splitting issues which could greatly help with enforcing even the “pettiest” of ordinances because it may not set well with the circle of money influence in the City and may keep them from progessing their personal political agendas. You can go to the City’s website http://www.fortworthgov.org and read the entire City Code and Ordinances and see for yourself how many of the Ordinances are on the books that are not enforced. I think it’s City Council members not being focused on the “small” details that affect their constituents’ Quality of Life and holding all City Department Leaders accountable for their work. They would rather play like one big happy family at City Hall and no one wants to hold Department Heads (their “friends”) accountable or step on any toes.
Apr 20th, 2008
Suzette
My number 8 came out as a smiley face. Please excuse it.
Apr 20th, 2008
Bernie
Suzette- I fixed the 8/smiley in question.
Apr 20th, 2008
Reply to ““Merely A Citizen””