MIAMI — A judge has thrown out the latest in a series of lawsuits against Brightline/Virgin Trains USA by a Florida county seeking to stop the passenger service’s expansion to Orlando.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper tossed the suit by Indian River County attempting to block the sale of “private activity” bonds, the Miami Herald reports. The bonds are intended to help finance the northward expansion of the passenger operation, which is rebranding itself as Virgin Trains USA following an agreement announced in November.
The Herald notes this is the 10th time Brightline has prevailed in rulings in cases brought by two “Treasure Coast” counties, which oppose extension of the passenger service north from West Palm Beach. The other county, Martin County, recently reached a settlement with the passenger operation [see “Virgin Trains reveals Tampa expansion details; strikes deal with Martin County, opponent group,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 3, 2018], leaving Indian River County to continue the legal battle alone. The county could consider its next move at a Jan. 8 meeting.
The ruling came after Brightline received an additional six months to sell the private activity bonds, originally approved in December 2017 with a May 31 deadline. The Florida Development Finance Corp. agreed to handle sales of the bonds earlier this year. [See “Brightline bond request approved, Orlando expansion on horizon,” Trains News Wire, Aug. 30, 2018.]
I’d be interested to see who is bankrolling these anti-passenger rail lawsuits.
So reading all this brings to mind another reason why the Chinese can build so much High Speed Rail in so short a time for a fraction of what it would cost in the US.
Well Anna, your first paragraph pretty much sums it up. We have to take responsibility for our actions and not look for someone else to blame. Unfortunately, there will always be some lawyers out there that will tell people the opposite.
And to you Mister Landey I say:
Au contraire, mon cheri. The legal system we have in the United States works just fine. What we need is a citizenry who have been taught to take responsibility for what they do and how they behave, rather than a citizenry who view all unfortunate events as an opportunity to cash in.
Is the legal profession to blame for this? Yes indeed, but only partially. It is overcrowded and many of its members whisper sweet nothings into the ears of the bereaved and/or injured. But if you die of the dumbs that should be on your own head, not considered to be the fault of whomever your heirs and assigns can throw against the wall and make pay.
Anyhow, back to Brightline. This column is about Brightline, remember?
The stage has now been set, in the legal sense. With all the screaming and yelling and hooraw about the undesirability of Brightline, not to mention the horrible, horrible [sic] safety issue it presents, that we have coming from the anti-Brightline contingent things are now ripe.
Brightline now needs to make every effort to seal their corridor, including making plans for grade separation, in the Treasure Coast. And this must not be just a token effort, but the real thing.
The reason for this is not because the current corridor is unsafe (it isn’t, no more than any other corridor is) but because sooner or later, and we all know it is coming, some dumb forker will trespass on the property and end up greasing the rails. It won’t matter that he has in him enough joy juice to stun a Beluga whale, or that he was in fact trespassing, it will be used to try to prove that Brightline is a horrible, terrible menace to mom, apple pie, and the Treasure Coast and needs to be shut down RIGHT NOW!!!
And the anti-Brightline forces who will not go away (they live there) will use the litigation history to reinforce their argument. The only defence, if even a defence would be possible once the emotions start flowing, Brightline will have is that they will have made every effort to seal their corridor. And at that, it will probably not be enough.
In a more rational society, if some dumb shmoe with a blood alcohol content in the stratosphere stumbled onto the right-of-way and got himself killed it would be his own damn fault. But that is not the society in which we live. When – not if, but when – something like this happens, he will be the beloved dead, a martyr to the cause, and the war will be on.
I am sure Brightline management realizes all this. They have a legal staff who, I am sure, have seen it and been there, and who are not stupid.
I wish them luck.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
ANNA and BRIAN – Your posts have proven MY point which is that the courts are the biggest problem we have in our political/ economic society. All of ANNA’s cited lawsuits should have ben thrown out of court, not left to a jury. And the plaintiffs and the lawyers for the plaintiffs should have been heavily penalized. EXAMPLE: The retailer IKEA had its Swedish ar$e sued out from under it from tipping furniture causing child injuries or deaths. IKEA assembly manuals for most models clearly show in about 20 languages these models are to be secured to the wall. I can’t say, actually, for sure, that the furniture in question in that lawsuit had the same instructions as the several models I have bought. But I strongly suspect so.
Four feet to the left of my keyboard is an IKEA bedroom chest which (untypically) I elected not to secure to the wall, because this one model seems stable enough. Should something happen and a visiting child tip it over, it wouldn’t occur to me to sue IKEA.
Oh, railroad blog, ey? We remember the lawsuit against Penn Central when some kids climbed on a boxcar in Washington and got fried by the catenary. Now every post on every electric railroad in America is marked, do not climb. We’re getting to the point where we will need an entire law library printed on every object in the world.
Anna, as the great philosopher Rosanne Rosanna Dana once said, “It’s always something.” We have a great system; now if we could just get rid of the (fill in the blank), it would work as it should.
Welcome to the fight; glad you’re on our side..
Mister Thorniley:
Au contraire, mon ami. Attorneys deal in facts and logic just as much as engineers. But a litigator – and I am not a litigator if I can help it – also knows that a jury comprises the lowest common denominator and he is there to kill you and suck the marrow from your bones. And yes, I intend to be that graphic. If an attorney does not have the killer instinct he will not be a good litigator.
Having said that, there is another quote I would like to use, and it applies to juries:
“A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it.”.
This is a fact to a litigator, and he would be derelict were he to ignore it. If he can capture their emotions and blind them to the facts he can bring in a verdict seemingly completely contrary to what the facts would indicate. When you hire a litigator you are hiring a mercenary, plain and simple. His job is very simple: win it.
The Romans had the Coliseum. We have courtrooms.
Happily in my position I usually do not have to deal with that at all. My job is to make sure you do your job, in accordance with various regulations and procedures. On the rare occasion when I cannot nudge you into line (it does happen) I am required to call in the authorities and that is when we all go talk to the man in the black robe…something that I dislike intensely and try to avoid.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Since 2013 or so, I do not recall a single time where any opponent (K C Traylor, Brent Hanlon, Bob Solari, etc..) ever proposed to work with AAF if a station stop was added. It was always stop the train or have it go west away from their communities. I often read where the opponents said that even if AAF offered a station they would still oppose the project and try to stop it.
If you read the judge’s recent decision denying Indian River County’s summary motion request on the latest lawsuit regarding alleged improper authorization of PAB allocation, you will find that AAF and the FRA acted completely within the law in regards to meeting the requirements (mainly through the NEPA process) to get access to PAB or RRIF financing. IMO opinion, the opponents always wanted to prevent AAF from ever being built and used any possible legal challenge to delay and potentially stop the project.
The local politicians also mishandled the situation along with AAF (who, by the way admit they could have done things much differently early on) when you compare IRC and Martin with how Brevard County handled the matter.
In the end, it was always a “done deal”.
The opponents main mistake was not understanding the NEPA process. They felt the EIS should have made a judgement against the project (and spelled out in great detail the impacts and mitigation requirements as part of the EIS), whereas the EIS is actually used to identify and propose mitigation of any impacts, within reason. They wanted the EIS process to stop the project. That was never going to happen.
ANNA – Good post. I believe railroad ROWs are private, as you do. The railroad has the right to ram through as many or as few trains as it wants to. If a twice-daily branch becomes a heavily traveled main and the neighbors don’t like it, too bad so sad. The railroad was there first. The subdivisions came later. Even in an old house, the people who bought it are more recent than the railroad was built.
I know of two examples where the neighbors basically shook down the railroad. One was at the Conrail split in Cleveland where the Afro mayor shook down the railroads (NS and CSX), playing the race card (poor and Afro). The other, more recent, was the expensive conditions placed on CN when it bought the EJ+E. Here, the politicos played a different race card (white upper class).
Okay, having said that, ANNA, that the NUMBER of trains is the railroad’s business, I will now present a counter argument: safety. Unless grade-separated and fenced (like NEC) our rail system wasn’t designed for high speed. All the high-tech crossing gates in the world don’t change the inconvenient fact that FEC is on grade. I can’t give you a specific number for what should be the speed limit for FEC and Virgin. But there ought to be a speed limit.
Mister Landey:
There is one thing here which seems to be overlooked, and it is the proverbial elephant in the bedroom.
Because law enforcement of trespassing statutes is so minimal when it comes to railroad rights-of-way, the public perception has come to be that these ROWs, like streets, are somehow public property. Therefore the local communities and the good citizens therein feel that they should have the last word on what does or does not run on the tracks, and when.
They are not public property. Railroad rights-of-way are private property and the railroads owning them have the right to run their trains how they please and when they please. This may be a rude reality to the NIMBYS, BANANAs, and CAVEs, but it is just the way it is.
Of course, most railroads try to be good corporate citizens and try to accommodate the wishes and needs of the local community. But there is also no pleasing of some people, and when this happens you get what we have in the Treasure Coast. Some men you just cannot reach, and I don’t like it any more than you do. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
They don’t want a station. Fine, Brightline will not give them a station. Their loss. They don’t want the rail traffic. Sorry, in this particular case the railroad was there first, and the railroad is private property. Too bad, so sad.
On the other hand, if the Treasure Coast agreed to a no-cost-to-the-railroad land swap on the ROW, then Brightline might well be interested, see above remarks concerning good corporate citizen. But with no-growth the order of the day I hardly see that happening. But you never know, sanity might break out all over.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Ms. Harding, all I can say is wow… just wow. It would seem that my profession (engineering) is in constant battle with yours. In general terms, we deal in facts and logic whereas lawyers deal in emotion and tendencies to protect clients against their own stupidity. Your examples remind me of the old lady who got burned by hot coffee at McDonalds.
Mister Sheeman:
There are trade rags for the legal profession and although I am not involved in personal injury or property damage litigation I do read them, even if only for my own edification (we assume such a thing is actually possible).
When things get in front of a jury it almost matters less what the actual facts of the case are than what the perceptions held in the minds of the several jurors are. I cite several cases, all with names omitted – no names, no pack drill, with the outcomes.
The first involves a passenger car with unusual design characteristics. The manufacturer very clearly stated in the supplied literature that a certain maintenance procedure must be followed or the passenger car would not be manageable. This maintenance procedure was not normal and customary in the industry at the time and if the passenger car was serviced by someone who did not know what he was doing the result was dangerous. Several instances of improper servicing occurred at dealerships and some people were killed and/or injured. The jury found for the plaintiffs because the maintenance procedure, while well documented, was not “normal and customary”.
The second involves a passenger aircraft with an unusual engine removal sequence. This engine removal sequence was well documented in the literature supplied by the manufacturer to the airline maintenance department, and the airline maintenance department had been trained in the proper procedure by the manufacturer. The airline maintenance department improperly removed an engine and damaged the mounts. The engine later fell off the aircraft and the aircraft crashed, killing all on board. In a series of lawsuits against the aircraft manufacturer some juries found for the plaintiff and some juries found for the defendant.
The third involves a copy machine from the days when you poured liquid toner into the copy machine. A manufacturer brought out a high definition copy machine requiring a special toner and sold a unit to the customer. The documentation supplied to the customer by the manufacturer clearly stated that only the proprietary toner would be safe to use. The custodial staff for the customer bought a jug of liquid toner from a third party, said toner purported to be used in any copy machine. The copy machine burst into flames. The jury found for the plaintiff because the manufacture knew or should have known that the customer would go with the cheapest possible toner, supplied documentation notwithstanding.
The fourth involves an old lady with a heart condition and a vehement objection to certain forms of power generation. When informed that her electricity supply was and had been for some time sourced from this form of power generation she had a heart attack and died. The jury found for the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendant knew that some people objected to this form of power generation and knew or should have known that the shock of such a revelation might prove fatal to someone with a bad heart.
The point is that you are responsible for what you do in other peoples’ imaginations. If you do not practice proper defensive infrastructure preparation in the course of your business you run the chance of being found liable for the actions of a third party, even if said third party was in violation of the law or acting in an improper manner. And even if you do practice proper prophylactic planning and design there is no telling what a jury will do when they get all heated up and stop paying attention to the facts.
Some of the things I have seen happen in a courtroom I would never scrawl on an underpass.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Looking over the comments to date: There are groups and individuals that want to take over the railroads and go their own way. The railroads were there first and have graciously approved grade level traffic crossings. They didn’t have to, since they owned the properties in question. They could have insisted that the individuals and governments that wanted to cross their properties should build bridges and/or tunnels to allow crossing without either side noticing the presence of the other. Instead, injuries and deaths we have are careless people that indulge in suicide by train. Stand or sit in front of a moving train and you will not satisfactorily survive.
Why the continued opposition over the centuries? Money. “Their” money or “our” money. Why not just let the railroads just run their business responsibly and let the surrounding communities live their lives responsibly? A little common sense and cooperation can profit everyone involved.
Let us remember, the railroad was likely there first. Is the local government assuming rights and powers it wouldn’t have anyway as a “Johhny-come-Lately”? Deals aren’t necessary – just forced upon the railroads when pesky defense expenses get too high.
JOHN RICE Thanks for your detailed post. I’ve never been to Florida so I can’t necessarily understand the issues; that is, not until you explained them.
People against (or for) Virgin/ Brightline have every right to petition their elected representatives. Or to hold rallies, post on news blogs, talk to their neighbors, etc. My point (below) is that I’m sick and tired of lawsuits, long since. Courts in the USA have become the most corrupt and power-mad institution we have. What’s supposed to be the Hall of Justice has become the Hall of Legalized Extortion. Compared to the courts, legislative bodies and the executive branches tend to look like beacons of rectitude.
If people in a county don’t want Virgin Trains and have a reasoned argument against it, they should go talk to their county commissioner (or whatever the title in Florida).
Mister Thorniley:
Now, Sir, I agree with you. But I believe the answer lies in the public perception that the railroad rights of way are somehow public property, which they are not. Nonetheless the perception exists and until and unless this perception is changed there will be no change in how rights of way are treated.
It is so very easy to trespass on an operating ROW and the probability of prosecution is so low, and these factors have coupled to bring us to the present perception. In many (and probably most) cases the miscreant actually does not realize he is committing a crime. But as always ignorantia juris non excusat, although it might prove to be a mitigating factor.
The reasons why Brightline might want to invest in fencing include but are not limited to that they must make a good-faith effort to restrict unauthorized access to their property (e.g., defending the title); that doing so is cheaper than the cost of defence if someone is killed or injured while trespassing; and that fencing is cheaper than hiring more bulls to patrol the property.
The image of the happy hobo ambling down the track without a care in the world is well ingrained in the social fabric in North America and as long as this image persists we will continue to have attempts to place the onus on the property owner and not on the trespasser.
Or, as it is said, “Perception trumps reality every time.”.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Ms. Harding, I might have chosen a bad argument to try to make my point in the last comment. I agree with what you say about ownership and possession of proper licenses and equipment when comparing the two examples.
I was trying to make the point that we don’t control speed limits on major highways due of the actions of the few who choose to trespass and cause harm to themselves. It seems to me that railroads are unfairly singled out for fixing the problem of trains hitting trespassers because society (and the legal system) has allowed the practice of trespassing on railroad property without much or any consequences.
Why must railroads be penalized with additional regulations because people think it is their right to trespass?
To bring it back on topic, why must Brightline be forced to spend millions on fencing and other measures due to a perception that trespassing on railroad tracks is acceptable? Where is the clamor by the same opponents of AAF to demand better safety on the highways in their area? I have read about many pedestrian deaths and injuries on US1 along the Treasure Coast over the years. Yet not a word about how dangerous the speed limit or the design of the road is on that highway from those who oppose AAF on the grounds that it is unsafe due to the proposed operating speed.
Mister Thorniley:
I believe you miss the point, Sir. An interstate highway is a public highway, open to all who have the right equipment. The restriction on access is not on the basis of ownership but on possession of appropriate equipment (e.g., a properly licenced, insured, and roadworthy vehicle).
Railroad rights of way are private property. Period. They do not belong to the public, they belong to the railroad. If you come on to the lot where my home is, you are trespassing and I am within my rights to call the police and have you arrested. You are trespassing and trespassing is a criminal act. Railroad rights of way are no less protected than the curtilage of my house. They belong to the railroad and if you stray onto them you are committing a criminal offence.
Now it is true that if you are seen on railroad property it is more than likely you will simply be told to leave, but the bull would be acting within his authority if he performed a custodial arrest and took you to jail. Being on railroad property without authorization is trespassing plain and simple, and trespassing is a crime.
Railroads are private property. Period.
Be a good law abiding citizen and stay off railroad property.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Charles, there is a maximum speed limit for the portion of the route that uses the existing FECR right of way and tracks. It is 110mph. In Michigan, the 110mph route to my knowledge is not a sealed corridor with 100% fencing. Nor is the IL route that may have future 110mph operations. In the FEIS, AAF met the safety requirements that the FRA asked for in order to operate up to 110mph. This determination also considered much input from the Treasure Coast that was incorporated into the final EIS document. The bigger question that the Treasure Coast would like to see answered affirmatively is: can a state regulate certain safety aspects of a railroad that operates at speeds higher than 79mph?
Similar to what Anna says, I consider railroad tracks to be like a highway in the sense that you can’t just walk down the middle of an interstate highway! Why is it acceptable to walk within the gauge of railroad tracks yet you will be arrested for walking down I95 in the center lane? We don’t reduce highway speed limits because of the remote potential for trespassers to be in the road. Why should we for railroads? People need to take personal responsibility. What a new concept that is!
I too have followed the Brightline/AAF rail to operation since Day 1.
The constituency who argue against Brightline are made up of several interests:
1: The aforementioned “no-growth” advocates, who feel a HSR or increased passenger rail will bring unwanted growth to their area
2: Safety advocates, who believe that the addition of higher speed rail services along with an existing freight line will bring “death” to the masses
3: Anti-noise advocates. This group believes that Brightline is all a ruse to get more freight up and down the FEC and that when the passenger side “fails” the freight side will take it over. Argument based on recent Panamax expansion at Port of Miami.
4: Libertarian-Tax advocates. This group believes that railroads in general get too many tax payer based subsidies to operate. They object to the fact that local taxpayers have to foot the bill for the needed safety upgrades at crossings. Their position is that if a private entity needs more safety due to a change they initiated, then they should pay for it exclusively.
5: Boat/Marine access. The FEC ROW is basically no more than a mile or two from the ocean front all the way from Miami to Jacksonville. This means there are a great number of draw bridges to permit the exit and entry of marine craft. With 36 trains a day this means the bridges, many of which are no more than 5 feet above the waterline, will be in a down position most of the day. During the FEC freight times, these bridges only came down when a consist was in transit. Some of these bridges date back to 1926, and so their age is also a concern. Marine sports is a very large economic activity in all of Florida.
6: Access to Medical facilities. Many of the hospitals/clinics in the Treasure Coast are on the ocean side of the ROW. Fear of constant trains delaying ambulances to reaching these facilities was in play.
7: Property Values. The thought of 36 trains a day wreaked fear in real estate people thinking all of their investments would go south.
8: Inadequate First Responders: No FD or EMT team along the ROW had been trained in passenger rail emergencies, who was paying for the needed training and equipment?
You have to remember that when AAF originally came through and discussed this plan with the TPO’s (regional transportation planners) and the politicians, they were completely onboard with the entire plan. Since the proposed changes were on private property (the FEC) and the fact the road crossings had to be upgraded, they properly alerted the TPO’s to make sure they notified the local highway entities to fund the needed upgrades.
When this came up as a discussion item in county board meeting agendas, this is when the uproar started. All of these costs were going to be born by them and they weren’t even getting a station. These people reached out to their politicos and they said it was already a “done deal” and this inflamed them further. Suddenly local politicians under intense pressure from their constituents began to change their minds.
Because some of these communities contain some very wealthy former executives and attorneys, and no executive likes to be dealt with outside of their terms, and no lawyer has ever walked away from an argument, this lead to several groups set up to oppose the service.
On the flip side, some of the issues these groups have raised have been excellent discussion points, especially on first responders. Neither Brightline nor the county governments had put a great deal of consideration into this critical piece of passenger rail operation. If anything, it brought concerns and concepts to Brightline that they either didn’t feel obligated to address or weren’t legally bound to.
So while I had no concerns with many of the issues that were raised, if anything, that they were “out on the table” for all to see and discuss. And good discussions they have been.
Brightline made some significant concessions (and provided big bucks) to Martin and Broward counties to make the new service work. However, Indian River County has been much too emotional about the entire activity and in the absence of a working crossing agreement, it would be within the FEC’s right to close the crossings permanently. They don’t want to, but they could.
The money they have spent with lawyers, would have paid for all the needed safety upgrades required at the crossings. Indian River even went to the legislature to get FDOT to pay for the crossing upgrades, which of course was rejected. If they had money to file a suit, then they have money to pay for crossings argued their peers.
Brightline, in some cases, acted like the typical railroad and could have done a little bit better in the PR and education front. I think they were excellent when compared to their peers on certain items, but fell short in others when they didn’t feel legally obligated to. In other words, when it suits us, we will reach out, but if we don’t want to and we aren’t legally required, then we won’t.
BTW: I am pro Brightline/Virgin Trains USA.
But if you want to use PAB’s or RRIF money, then you have to show some accountability to the surrounding public. If they had truly financed the entire effort through PIK’s, private commercial bonds, or internal funding (from selling assets), then they are only obligated based on what the laws allow for railroads. Can’t have it both ways.
I don’t live in that part of FL, and don’t have a lot of knowledge of the goings-on there, but I always thought those counties’ opposition to Brightline stemmed from the fact that no stations were planned there, so residents would have to drive somewhere else to board or leave the train. I can tell that they have taken every opportunity to try to delay or defeat Brightline, spending considerable taxpayer funds while doing so. They sound and act like typical mindless BANANA zealots.
ANNA – Well thank you! You accurately described the process of environmental lawsuits by the NIMBY luddite crowd, which primarily consists of the upper middle class if I might add.
I won’t get into the pros or the cons of the state economic subsidy package for the Foxconn factory now being built in Racine County, Wisconsin. I will note that adjunct to the economic package (pushed through by outgoing Governor Scott K. Walker, one of several reasons why he lost the recent election for another term) was putting a cap on environmental lawsuits. You have so and so many months to file a lawsuit and the various appeals. After that, you’ve had your chance and you’ve run out of time.
The Walker administration, for that move, was falsely accused of weakening environmental protections. That was a lie. The environmental protections are the same. The amount of time that the process can drag through the courts was capped.
As a student of history, I measure time in quanta of four years, the amount of time we won World War II starting from a destroyed Navy , no real munitions industry, and a very weak Army and Army Air Corps. Four years. Now we can’t build anything or do anything in four years. We’ve got one war that’s last over four times four years (starting from our strongest-ever military) and we don’t seem to be winning it. Ditto, doing anything at home. How many four-year quanta will go by until we see funding for the northeast gateway.
Mister Thorniley:
Let me explain how it works in the nuclear industry. A plant is proposed and some site acquisition occurs. Funding is committed and the money is hired. Considerable expenditure, all of it time sensitive, is committed to.
And then…
The Friends of the Screw-Tailed Bottle Fly go to court claiming that irreparable harm will come to the Screw-Tailed Bottle Fly if the plant is allowed to proceed. An injunction is ordered while the matter is litigated. Down tools, but the clock is ticking on the time sensitive costs and the cost of the plant keeps going up and up. Eventually, several levels of appellate court later, the case is thrown out. The Friends of the Screw-Tailed Bottle Fly disband. Work restarts.
A new advocacy group is formed, the Friends of the Bottle-Tailed Screw Fly.
The Friends of the Bottle-Tailed Screw Fly go to court claiming that irreparable harm will come to the Bottle-
Tailed Screw Fly if the plant is allowed to proceed. An injunction is ordered while the matter is litigated. Down tools, but the clock is ticking on the time sensitive costs and the cost of the plant keeps going up and up. Eventually, several levels of appellate court later, the case is thrown out. The Friends of the Bottle-Tailed Screw Fly disband. Work restarts.
Rinse, repeat. Eventually the utility gives up and swallows the loss because, ten years after it all started, the costs are now twice or three times the original estimate, the plant is not economic, and it is cheaper to just build a coal plant and take the loss than to proceed.
If it were simply the same advocacy group over and over the utility could (depending on jurisdiction) obtain relief on the basis of barratry, maintenance, or abuse of process. However the key is that the Friends of the Bottle Tailed Screw-Fly (Inc) is NOT the same entity as the Friends of the Screw-Tailed Bottle Fly (Inc).
The same people may be involved, but the corporate persons are different and that is the key.
A couple of years after the coal plant starts the Friends of the Striped Tail Bandicoot forms and litigates against the coal plant on the basis of ecological destruction due to acid rain…
You now know one of the leading causes of high utility bills in many parts (including Florida) of the United States. The utility is a regulated monopoly – it has to provide service and even in bankruptcy is not allowed to discontinue service. Yet, someone has to pay for all this, and the costs eventually wind their ways down to the ratepayers.
I may be mercenary and in a much (justly) maligned profession, but at least I am not the kind of gunslinger that gets involved in this sort of thing. But I have seen plenty who would, if only for the employment.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own damn lawyer.
Michael, maybe not so much in IRC or Vero Beach but they do have more restrictive rules on new development in place than most other counties in Florida. The opponents have used the argument that Brightline will bring unwelcome development and growth to the area. That is why I mentioned it.
One misconception promoted by the opponents is that the major cities of the Treasure Coast will see Brightline trains operating at 110mph within most city areas. In the rural areas yes, but Stuart, Ft Pierce and Vero Beach won’t see trains running through at those speeds. That info is based on the track charts included with the FEIS that show passenger trains have a MAS of 40 mph in Stuart and Ft Pierce mainly due to bridges. I believe Vero has a 60 or 79 MAS.
IRC recently removed any possibility of negotiating for a station there by rejecting the deal that Martin County accepted. With the IRC board of commissioners planning to consider further legal action on January 8th, I doubt Vero will ever get a station. IMO, they have boxed themselves into a position that will be hard to get out of and save face.
With a 0-10 record on winning their lawsuits against AAF/Brightline, it appears they have been receiving bad legal advice. I read the judge’s memorandum and he cited established case history to support his opinion on every point. IRC really does not have any good options left at this time to stop Brightline.
Family members have a condo in Vero Beach, Indian River County. While I know the county is against rampant development and high-rises, I never heard that they were against growth. The FEC bisects the population centers of the county, and I think the main issue is that they don’t want dozens of high speed trains barreling thru town all day, especially since Brightline had no intention of serving the town.