Judge rules for GA airports over local govt

bflynn

bflynn

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
9,822
Location
KTTA
Display Name
Display name:
Brian Flynn
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/thanks-nj-judge-ga-airports-win-collective-victory

You may have heard the news this week that a New Jersey judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by the town of Readington, which for more than a decade has tried to wrest control of Solberg Airport from the family that has owned it since 1941. But what you might have missed is what the judge had to say not just to the Readington town council but to other towns and cities across the nation that might think about trying the same dirty tricks.

N.J. Superior Court Judge Paul Armstrong issued a 54-page ruling in which he blasted the town's eminent domain land grab, a case that has dragged on for nearly 15 years, saying it amounted to a "manifest abuse of power" and a waste of local taxpayers' dollars. He ordered the town to pay the Solberg family's legal bills, which are expected to tally into the millions of dollars.
 
bflynn said:
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/thanks-nj-judge-ga-airports-win-collective-victory

You may have heard the news this week that a New Jersey judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by the town of Readington, which for more than a decade has tried to wrest control of Solberg Airport from the family that has owned it since 1941. But what you might have missed is what the judge had to say not just to the Readington town council but to other towns and cities across the nation that might think about trying the same dirty tricks.

N.J. Superior Court Judge Paul Armstrong issued a 54-page ruling in which he blasted the town's eminent domain land grab, a case that has dragged on for nearly 15 years, saying it amounted to a "manifest abuse of power" and a waste of local taxpayers' dollars. He ordered the town to pay the Solberg family's legal bills, which are expected to tally into the millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

good for the family, and us. A lot of families would have probably thrown in the towel when the bills kept piling up.
 
Certainly a long trial. This is one of those cases that make a judge's job interesting. The rest of his docket is drug court. Quite a change of pace.
 
Can the opinion of a Superior Court judge be appealed further?
 
AuntPeggy said:
Can the opinion of a Superior Court judge be appealed further?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, but I've read the opinion, and in my non-expert opinion, the judge did a good job of following the law, evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, and explaining his reasoning. He even explained how the town could do things differently to win the case. :(

However, I presume that anything can happen on appeal.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Can the opinion of a Superior Court judge be appealed further?
Click to expand...

Yes.

In fact this ruling was reached after a remand on appeal. The Superior Court originally ruled in favour of the township, the appeals court kicked it back saying "Hey, you need to look at this a little differently, buddy."
 
Palmpilot said:
Of course they can, but I've read the opinion, and in my non-expert opinion, the judge did a good job of following the law, evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, and explaining his reasoning. He even explained how the town could do things differently to win the case. :(

However, I presume that anything can happen on appeal.
Click to expand...

On appeal, the key is finding errors of law. Appeal courts are very, very reluctant to overturn a finding of fact made by a trial court, either by a jury or a judge in this case (bench trial).
 
I am going to keep an eye on the court filings to see if any appeals are filed (NJ lawyer). I hope the township lets it go but given what abuses went on around here with eminent domain I won't hold my breath.
 
I wonder if the fact that the case already went to the appeals court once makes it any less likely to get appealed again.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wonder if the fact that the case already went to the appeals court once makes it any less likely to get appealed again.
Click to expand...


Whether it gets appealed is entirely up to the non-prevailing party. The mere fact of a prior appeal does not usually make a subsequent appeal less likely. Other factors are more predictive.

In many cases, the appellate court narrows the issues to be considered on remand. This narrowed scope, plus guidance from the higher court, usually results in a new lower court decision that more explicitly addresses the higher court's perceived defect in the original decision. The new decision is therefore generally less likely to run afoul of the higher court's preferred analysis. It's usually a better decision, more nearly "bullet-proof" on review. To a dispassionate party, this is a disincentive to appeal again due to increased likelihood of losing. But litigants are rarely tentative or dispassionate; the costs and the stakes of litigation are so high that the impecunious and the tepid are soon weeded out.

In this case, both sides have shown considerable tenacity. The township has been at this aggressively and long. I would think they are still eager to win, but putting more money and political capital into it may give them pause. The trial was long, the record is voluminous, the decision is generally detailed and yeomanlike. The chances of prevailing on another appeal at this point are slim. The PR would probably be bad. The airport owners are not going to cave, especially now with new wind in their sails. Still, if the political will to fight on exists, the losers have only to file the paperwork and, voilà, it's on appeal.
 
Thanks for the thorough and informative answer!
 
Circuit Flyer said:
Whether it gets appealed is entirely up to the non-prevailing party. The mere fact of a prior appeal does not usually make a subsequent appeal less likely. Other factors are more predictive.

In many cases, the appellate court narrows the issues to be considered on remand. This narrowed scope, plus guidance from the higher court, usually results in a new lower court decision that more explicitly addresses the higher court's perceived defect in the original decision. The new decision is therefore generally less likely to run afoul of the higher court's preferred analysis. It's usually a better decision, more nearly "bullet-proof" on review. To a dispassionate party, this is a disincentive to appeal again due to increased likelihood of losing. But litigants are rarely tentative or dispassionate; the costs and the stakes of litigation are so high that the impecunious and the tepid are soon weeded out.

In this case, both sides have shown considerable tenacity. The township has been at this aggressively and long. I would think they are still eager to win, but putting more money and political capital into it may give them pause. The trial was long, the record is voluminous, the decision is generally detailed and yeomanlike. The chances of prevailing on another appeal at this point are slim. The PR would probably be bad. The airport owners are not going to cave, especially now with new wind in their sails. Still, if the political will to fight on exists, the losers have only to file the paperwork and, voilà, it's on appeal.
Click to expand...

This is probably a good time for some political action body to stir the voters and ask what the board is doing with the town's money. How can they waste it on this kind of nonsense.

Whether you like an airport or would prefer a bunch of houses, hasn't the city already spent more than they're going to recoup in taxes? And therefore haven't the officials shown themselves to be incompetent as running the town?

If only there was such a group...

BTW - someone tell Santa Monica...
 
The more interesting questions:

- When will the town actually pay real cold cash to the family?

- Will the voters of the town be too stupid to realize they're actually paying that bill?
 
I have a particularly fond memory of Solberg Airport; I did a one way glider flight from Pittsburgh into there. A vulgar downwind dash done just because it was on the way home from a west coast glider meet.

But we picked up my Mom for the drive from Pgh to NJ and for her, that became the defining flight out of over 40 years of flying... and the fact that I beat them there in an aircraft without an engine cemented it!

When I left NJ 15 years ago it seemed that an airport was closing every month. Solberg was on the list even then. It's great to see the good guys winning!
 
Think we should do a celebratory fly-in!!
 
denverpilot said:
The more interesting questions:

- When will the town actually pay real cold cash to the family?
Click to expand...
When all the appeals are over and the Solberg attorneys force them to. And then, who knows, the town might declare bankruptcy.

- Will the voters of the town be too stupid to realize they're actually paying that bill?
Click to expand...
That depends on publicity. Someone has to tell them. They haven't exactly been screaming at the town to stop until now. The opinion talks about how the town used publicity in end of the battle to generate public support.
 
denverpilot said:
The more interesting questions:

- When will the town actually pay real cold cash to the family?

- Will the voters of the town be too stupid to realize they're actually paying that bill?
Click to expand...

I don't know to the first answer.

For the second, it was less a matter of stupid and more of ignorance. When the Solbergs wanted to upgrade the runway and improve the lighting, the politicians made it sound like the Solbergs were building another KEWR. They misused the term "reliever airport" for example. Some developers were throwing money at the politicos too. Someone owned a private strip just north of N51 who didn't like the Solbergs very much and supported the "anti-airport" group. There were, unfortunately, a lot of people that supported that particular misuse of eminent domain.
 
murphey said:
On a related note, recent decision in Longmont, CO (KLMO) went in favor of the jump school (and related, the airport) against the noise crowd.

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-l...-rules-favor-mile-hi-skydiving-longmont-noise

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-l...noise-expert-says-mile-hi-doesnt-have-loudest
Click to expand...

Complaint data collected between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 13, 2014, found that 1,646 airport noise complaints about operations at Vance Brand were made by 110 people, and that 52 percent of complaints were made by one person.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the other complaints were made at Mr. 52%'s urging.
 
midlifeflyer said:
When all the appeals are over and the Solberg attorneys force them to. And then, who knows, the town might declare bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Which shows a significant problem with the system. Who has the funds to go up against a municipality, or any government agency for that matter?

They find their incessant battles with taxpayer money and it's pretty rare for them to run out of it. Granted at the local level they do, but the Feds literally have a blank check.

I suspect this family has attorney friends or relatives or very deep pockets. How THEY didn't go bankrupt with "millions" in legal fees is beyond me unless someone is waiving the collection of them.

midlifeflyer said:
That depends on publicity. Someone has to tell them. They haven't exactly been screaming at the town to stop until now. The opinion talks about how the town used publicity in end of the battle to generate public support.
Click to expand...


Or they have to pay attention to what their supposed "representatives" are doing. But again, who has time? Very few pay any attention at all to actual expenditures by their "representatives".

The deck is stacked.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
There were, unfortunately, a lot of people that supported that particular misuse of eminent domain.
Click to expand...


That's epidemic everywhere. People don't seem to remember right from wrong anymore when it comes down to it.
 
denverpilot said:
That's epidemic everywhere. People don't seem to remember right from wrong anymore when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem started when a few courts ruled that increasing tax revenues would benefit the public as a whole was enough cause to claim eminent domain. Thus, they expanded the idea a taking blighted land for rehab (which in some cases was good), and started seizing low income or just plain low tax revenue land, which would be replaced by high tax generating usage.
 
drotto said:
The biggest problem started when a few courts ruled that increasing tax revenues would benefit the public as a whole was enough cause to claim eminent domain. Thus, they expanded the idea a taking blighted land for rehab (which in some cases was good), and started seizing low income or just plain low tax revenue land, which would be replaced by high tax generating usage.
Click to expand...


No doubt that was a terrible precedent, but that was not even at play in Solberg. The town said they wanted the land to prevent more development. Never mind that the Solbergs had no plane to develop any of the land outside the airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top