Losing. Perhaps the better question is why are you apparently not afraid? I read all the time in here about nut jobs and their 10 commandments/gay marriage issue and the costs to the taxpayers of litigating those matters. Where is that crowd on this subject
And I wonder how many people at that last meeting I saw video from would be willing to pony up the attorneys fees/costs/possible damages if litigation were to happen?
There is no litigation to take toward individuals opposing a zoning change. Get serious.
The only thing actionable would be if someone directly tried to interfere with a contractual agreement between the buyer/seller or the proposed buyer and their potential tenants. That is not happening, at least not anyone affiliated with TUWC.
Last I checked, advocating for smart development and zoning is not a crime, nor is it subject to civil penalty.
Simon is being quiet because what they have presented so far sucks. They are trying to make it suck less. What they have submitted so far cannot pass the zoning requirements at this time, per what their attorney and INCOG said the other night. There are development recommendations in the Mooser Creek Watershed Study published in 2004 they may not be able to comply with at all and this may be moot. Can they go back and sue planners and engineers of 10-12 years ago for preempting their Prada and Nike dreams?
Would you say they have a cause to sue the YMCA because the YMCA has submitted to them a list of items they must address before they would approve of a zoning change? Keep in mind, the Y has very real concerns about polluted stormwater run-off, erosion, light pollution, trash, sight lines, all actionable items in our zoning and permitting process.
From purely a PR perspective, a company like Simon would draw seriously bad PR on a national scale if they sued a bunch of individuals for opposing their zoning request. That kind of PR is kryptonite to their investors and potential tenants.
What's the point of going into that environment? It's not like there is any actual objectivity by those opposing the development. My fear is that there are litigation wheels turning.
Their meeting Monday was considered “friendly territory” since it was only open to District 2 residents or invited guests. Many thought residents of the west side want this due to prestige and jobs. They still didn’t send anyone in from HQ for that one.
The fact that corporate personnel had been meeting face-to-face with the Y and trail users and trail user groups has the risk of being more hostile. You are literally asking people who you know oppose your project to sit down and tell you what they dislike about your project.