Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Item #2e <br /> <br />ATTORNEY¢; & COUNSELORS <br /> <br /> CLIFFORD M. GREENE <br />DIRECT DIAL NO. (612) 373-834 I <br />CMG REENEC~G R-ESP EL.COM <br /> <br />August 22, 2001 <br /> <br />Via Messen.ger <br /> <br />Betsy Wergin, Chair <br />Northstar Corridor Development Authority <br />13880 Highway 10 <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />St. Anthony Square Northeast Condominium Association, et al. v. Northstar <br />Corridor Development Authority, et al <br />Our File No. 2043-205 <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Wergin: <br /> <br /> Recently, the NCDA and its co-defendants defeated a lawsuit filed by residents in Northeast <br />Minneapolis who objected to procedures for locating a commuter rail station in that community. As <br />litigation counsel representing the NCDA in that case. I want to be sure that the Executive <br />Committee understands the nature of the lawsuit and the extremely favorable outcome achieved. <br /> <br /> A four-count lawsuit was brought against the NCDA, the Mirmesota Department of <br />Transportation and the City of Minneapolis by certain residents suing through their townhome or <br />condominium associations. These plaintiffs objected to the possible location of a commuter rail <br />station in the vicinity of their residences. The lawsuit sought an injunction preventing the ongoing <br />planning of the commuter rail station until the planning agencies had returned to "square one," in <br />order to "comply" with laws and procedures allegedly violated. Specifically, these residents <br />contended that procedures under environmental statutes had not been followed. They also argued <br />in their complaint that provisions of the Commuter Rail Transportation Act had been violated, <br />especially procedures that required the approval or input of each city regarding proposed commuter <br />rail station locations. <br /> <br /> Our strategy at the outset was to nip this lawsuit in the bud. The first step in that process was <br />to confront plaintiffs' counsel with the fundamental weakness in his case: residents cannot resort <br />to litigation to influence or thwart an open and ongoing planning process. However, plaintiffs' <br />counsel refused to abandon his lawsuit. <br /> <br /> 333 SOUTH 7TH STREET / SUitE 1700 / MINh~EAPOLtS. M~ 55402 <br />6 I 2-373-O~330 / ~AX 6 I 2o373-092~ / E-MA~L DI~(~G~-ESPEL.MSPHUB.COM <br /> <br /> <br />