[Durham INC] Judge Manning's order wrt the DEVELOPER lawsuit on J Lake Watershed Boundaries

[Melissa Rooney]

Thank you all for your donations to the Jordan Lake Watershed Boundary Protest Petition Appeal. We raised just over $8,000 at last tally (in December, 2009). Email receipts and a few snail mail receipts have been sent to those for whom we have contact information. If you have not received notification that your payment has been received and would like confirmation, please contact me at mmr121570 at yahoo.com

The appeal was filed in December, 2009, and we await news from the courts regarding further action.

In the meantime, you all have probably heard/read that the judge has heard and ruled on the developers' lawsuit against Durham County regarding former planning director Frank Duke's unilateral changes to the watershed boundary in 2006, which the developers have insisted are binding. 

Attached is Judge Manning's order/decision in this lawsuit -- in favor of the developers.

Two glaring questions:


1) Manning's decision was based upon 'the Joint Stipulations of Fact entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant dated December 3, 2009, though 'the cause was heard on December 16, 2009.' Guess no intervenor (i.e. the Haw River Assembly) was permitted access on December 3, 2009, when the county and the developers made their preferences clear to Judge Manning. Did the county attorneys and the developers inform Judge Manning that both sides preferred the watershed boundaries to be changed in the developers' favor? In other words, did the county effectively settle with the developers?

2) Manning's decision rules that Frank Duke's changing of the watershed boundaries was valid, but makes no statement as to the appropriateness of Duke's unilateral action -- only that, having been given in January 6, 2006, the developers having given all info requested by Duke at the time, Duke's decision is now binding. 

* There are no explanations as to why Manning ruled as he did. Just the direct commands of his ruling.

It is very disturbing that the judge chose to hear the case, after having continued it earlier in the year in order to let the county make its ruling on the watershed changes. Considering the county's decision was still under consideration (based on a valid protest petition that was erroneously deemed invalid) one would think the judge would have stayed the case further to enable the county's decision to be conclusively determined. 

The fact that the case was heard only days after Durham citizens raised the thousands of dollars required to appeal the county's decision based on the valid protest petition that was submitted (the aforementioned protest petition appeal), questions the timing involved. Were the developers, and the system at large, waiting to see if Durham citizens successfully funded and filed the protest petition appeal before hearing the developers' lawsuit in court? 
_________

For further review of where things now stand, please visit the HRA link below, and scroll down to the bottom half of the webpage, where there is an article entitled, "2010 Update -- Judge rules in favor of Jordan Lake Developer –But It’s Not Over Yet!" Be sure to click on the 'Read More' link at the bottom of this article:
http://www.hawriver.org/

Deeply disillusioned but still breathing,
Melissa (Rooney)

Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
301 Spring Garden Drive
Durham, NC 27713
mmr121570 at yahoo.com


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20100126/a1311e91/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Order filed in Durham.PDF
Type: application/pdf
Size: 106748 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20100126/a1311e91/attachment-0001.pdf>