The city has asked Flathead County District Court Judge Katherine Curtis to enter a preliminary injunction stopping the county from taking any further planning or zoning action in the “doughnut,” and to make it effective from May 1, 2008.
NMAR wants the preliminary injunction to be effective beginning Dec. 23, the date when the Montana Supreme Court overturned Curtis and ordered her to enter a preliminary injunction.The impact of the CAO on property owners within the two-mile planning and zoning jurisdiction was the focus of NMAR’s amicus brief, but Phelps says the city’s lawsuit is a contract dispute over the interlocal agreement between the city and the county that created the “doughnut” area.“Although the CAO was the reason for Flathead County’s attempt to rescind the interlocal agreement, the CAO is not at issue in this case,” Phelps said.
To support his point, Phelps cited the findings of fact adopted by Curtis on May 1, 2008, which said that “the validity of the CAO is not at issue in this action, and the views of the Flathead County Commissioners concerning the ordinance is irrelevant to this court’s determination of whether or not (the city) is entitled to the preliminary injunction it seeks.”Phelps also countered NMAR’s claim that the “more than 5,000” property owners in the “doughnut” are indispensable to the case.“Under our system of government, local government units can enter into interlocal agreements without approval of voters or property owners,” Phelps said.
Phelps also pointed out that the city had warned the court that if the preliminary injunction was denied, planning and zoning actions subsequently approved by the county “might be wasted” if the district court’s ruling was reversed.“But for the national slow-down in real estate development, the situation would be far worse,” Phelps said.
As for the two “doughnut” area lakeshore permits issued by the county last year, Phelps said the city was willing to validate them even if Curtis restores the status quo back to May 1 last year.
Accompanying Phelps’ response was the affidavit of Whitefish attorney and former Montana Supreme Court justice Terry Trieweiler, who has consulted with the city in the “doughnut” lawsuit.Trieweiler said he investigated NMAR’s claim that the arguments in the amicus brief represent the interests of its 855 members
Link to Article Below..
r
I Really Must State My Opinion on Terry Trieweiler. I thought he was awesome, I researched him and thought that he was in the best interest of the Real Estate Consumer. I had a real estate client who contacted Terry Trieweiler because of his Supreme Court experience and his apparent interest in the Real Estate Consumer. He had them in tears within the hour. He is Cruel, in my opinion, he is unfeeling. He does not care about the Real Estate Consumer and makes the Real Estate Victim feel like the Criminal even when obvious, blatant and proven fraud cases are brought to him. Terry Trieweiler on NMAR's side, seemingly, is a direct attack against the real estate consumer. Possibly on the Side of the Developer, the Realtor and Big Money and assuradly NOT on the Side of the Montana Real Estate Consumer.
r
2009/02/12/news/doc499442753d615067918932.txt
2009/02/12/news/doc499442753d615067918932.txt
0 comments:
Post a Comment