Trial Update: Closing Arguments

Closing arguments in the Northcross trial occurred today. Here is a summary of the day and a wrap-up of the week.

Closing Arguments

Both sides gave closing arguments this morning. Doug Young summarized RG4N's case relating to drainage, traffic and public safety issues, while Brad Rockwell summarized the tree protection and garden center issues.

Lincoln's attorney Bruce Scrafford led closing for the other side, followed by Chris Sileo and finally Casey Dobson for the City.

The Gist of the Arguments

The City and the developer argued that the site plan complies with the law, that the City only has to require substantial compliance (and in any case gets to decide for itself how to interpret its own codes), and that in case of misinterpretation of law only a determination of negligence on the part of the City would justify the court voiding the site plan. In addition, the City and developer argued that they should be permitted to use the administrative site plan amendment process to fix any noncompliance the judge finds.

RG4N's attorneys argued that the site plan doesn't comply with several laws, that the City is required to follow the law, and that negligence is not the standard that determines whether the court can void the site plan. In addition, RG4N's attorneys argued that the law does not permit the City and developer to use the administrative site plan amendment process to fix noncompliance. But rather that the developer should be required to submit a new site plan and begin the process anew, under regulations (including the big box ordinance) in place at the time the developer submits the new site plan.

Our Opinion of the Arguments

Well, first... Our lawyers rock! Doug and Brad did a fantastic job. Those of us who have worked closely with them to prepare for the trial and have watched them all week are really impressed with how well they handled this case. We had high expectations for them all along, and they easily met and even exceeded those expectations. The fact that they are both really nice, funny, interesting people has been a wonderful bonus.

The attorneys for the City and for the developer really seemed to rely heavily on the argument that the planned redevelopment will improve some conditions at Northcross over what they are currently and because of this, the judge should ignore any noncompliance that exists. Our perspective is that the standard is what the law says, not just anything that may be better than what currently exists (or, as some City staff testified, no worse than what currently exists). You don't get to break the law no matter how beneficial your project might be.

As Doug noted, if the developer wants to do something that doesn't comply, they can seek a variance.

While Doug acknowledged that some provisions in law do permit interpretation and discretion, he also pointed out (and City witnesses agreed) that some provisions of the law (in particular, ones that the site plan doesn't comply with) are mandatory and not open to interpretation.

Translation

We're just laypeople, not lawyers, but we walked out of the courtroom today feeling good. We believe our attorneys proved what they needed to prove, that our case was persuasive and that we have a good shot at winning. Win or lose, we are satisfied that RG4N and our attorneys have done everything possible as well as possible to get a better redevelopment at Northcross Mall.

What Next?

The judge indicated she would issue a verdict by mid-December.

Between now and mid-December, RG4N must continue to fundraise so that we can pay our lawyers. (To that point, on the day after Thanksgiving, please buy a Christmas Tree from the "Montana Fresh" lot next to St. Louis Catholic Church on Burnet Road. Mention "RG4N" when you buy your tree. A percentage of the sale will go to RG4N.)

Based on the last invoice from our attorneys, we have revised our estimate for total lawsuit expenses. We now think we need to raise a figure that is five figures to pay the October and estimated November legal bills.

These guys are giving us a cut rate and we suspect they may not even be billing us for all the hours they have actually worked for us—so we feel strongly that we need to pay them every cent they invoice us for.

Our members and supporters all over Austin made this lawsuit possible with generous and frequent donations, but we aren't quite there yet. Once again we ask you to dig deep, hit up your friends and family and neighbors, and show our attorneys how much we appreciate the stellar job they have done for us over the past several months and especially this week.

In Summation

Win or lose, we are having a party! Details to come later, but we figure we're all entitled to a drink. At least one.