Sharp Park lawsuit postponed

[Brad Klein]

http://golfweek.com/news/2012/apr/26/sharp-park-granted-stay-lawsuit-postponed/

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for a bit of good news.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

There is work going on out there but a great architect from the area as well. I have high hopes this will end as a good story for the citizens and golfers of the area.

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm not sure I really understand it completely.  The judge ruled a stay yet she didn't dismiss the suit?

Now she has turned it over to the US Fish and Wildlife for a ruling.

It's not over yet.

[David Cronheim]

I'm not sure I really understand it completely.  The judge ruled a stay yet she didn't dismiss the suit?

Now she has turned it over to the US Fish and Wildlife for a ruling.

It's not over yet.

My understanding from the Golfweek article is that the judge has ordered a stay to allow time for the US Dept. of Fish and Wildlife to complete and then present a report about whether the populations of the endangered species are being diminished. The UDFW will be be making an administrative ruling, just presenting its findings. But you're right, it's a stay not a dismissal. It's not good news or bad news, just a "time out."

[Brad Klein]

At least it allows the case to be settled more with science and good common management sense than with political headlines and innuendos thrown in front of a jury. .

[David_Tepper]

Can anyone answer this question -

Assuming the US Dept. of Fish & Wildlife issues a report confirming that the golf course and the endangered species can co-exist under the current management practices, will the judge have the power to issue a summary judgement to dismiss the law suit?

[SL_Solow]

Absent a review of the pleadings, it is impossible to say.  However, it is likely that this is merely evidence.  It may be very persuasive and important evidence but the side which disagrees will likely be permitted to present counter evidence.  It might shock some of us to know that people can sometimes disagree with reports issued by governmental agencies.

[JLahrman]

I have very little confidence that this will EVER be over.

[Brad Klein]

USF&W has jurisdiction and their report is decisive in allowing the golf course to continue operation. But that would likely lead to an appeal to a higher court.

Interestingly, the three plaintiff organizations claiming ecological pedigree in this battle have not returned any phone calls or emails. And the Center for Biological Diversity based in Tucson, one of the three groups, is a massively well-funded organization that makes a fortune off suits in which it collects a share of punitive fees once judgments are rendered. As a big business profiting off the bureaucratic system, it is hardly a progressive group. Unfortunately, well-intentioned regulatory laws designed (and needed) to protect the environment become in this way hijacked by corporate legal entities.

[john_stiles]

Since this has been an issue, or even before then,  what have the wildlife surveys shown in regards to population growth for the two species of concern ?

I realize the report by US Dept. of Fish & Wildlife might speak to that issue,  but what have the numbers been in the past ?

I think if the citizen golfers win,  it will only be short time before the issue rises again.

[David_Tepper]

John Stiles -

Here is a link to a number of studies that have been done on the situation:

http://sfpublicgolf.com/resources.htm

DT

[Joel_Stewart]

Does anyone know if the Fish and Game has started on this study and how long will it take to complete?

Knowing the government, it seems like this could take years.

[Tony Ristola]

USF&W has jurisdiction and their report is decisive in allowing the golf course to continue operation. But that would likely lead to an appeal to a higher court.

Interestingly, the three plaintiff organizations claiming ecological pedigree in this battle have not returned any phone calls or emails. And the Center for Biological Diversity based in Tucson, one of the three groups, is a massively well-funded organization that makes a fortune off suits in which it collects a share of punitive fees once judgments are rendered. As a big business profiting off the bureaucratic system, it is hardly a progressive group. Unfortunately, well-intentioned regulatory laws designed (and needed) to protect the environment become in this way hijacked by corporate legal entities.

To expand on what Brad has mentioned is an article from a 5-part series on enviro groups from Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee. This one hits on the litigation aspect and how they profit from taxpayers.

http://enviro-lies.org/sacbee_01-04-24.htm