THE STORY:
This week’s Nisqually Valley News (NVN) report by Megan Hansen titled HIGH COURT REVIEWING JZ KNIGHT PETITION demonstrates once again Mayor Harding’s response is not in the public’s interest:
“In response to the approval for review, Yelm Mayor Ron Harding said he believes the case will only be reviewed on whether or not Knight must repay attorney fees.
‘It (sic) going to be hard to argue the merits of the case,’ Harding said.
‘Unfortunately at the point it’s kind of redundant.’
‘Most of the developers are out of business.'”
THE FACTS:
Mr. Harding & the City of Yelm received JZ Knight’s Petition for Review on July 19, 2010 & the Supreme Court’s decision in granting that petition for review on November 2, 2010.
Knight’s website states,
“Knights petition for review asks Washington Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision on both the legal standing and award of attorney fees issues. Knights petition asserts that the award of attorney fees is contrary to a state law that prohibits an award of fees against a party such as Knight who prevailed on all issues litigated in superior court and did not file an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Knights petition states that the Court of Appeals decision is contrary to well-established Washington law. Knight contends that the Court of Appeals decision must be reversed because it undermines important requirements regarding available water supplies that state law requires cities and developers to address prior to approval of development projects.”
THE ASSESSMENT:
Mr. Harding’s belief is incorrect that “the case will only be reviewed on whether or not Knight must repay attorney fees.”
Either Mr. Harding
A. was purposefully deceptive by his response
or
B. is incompetent to understand Ms. Knight’s petition the WA. Supreme Court accepted for review.
Either option shows Mayor Harding does not protect the public’s interests by making such comments, his number one responsibility as a public servant.
BOTTOM LINE:
“Knights petition for review asks Washington Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision on both the legal standing and award of attorney fees issues.”
The Wa. Supreme Court granted Ms. Knight’s petition for review.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR. HARDING CONTINUES TO KEEP KEY FACTS ABOUT THE CITY’S BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC!
Post a comment
One comment
Unfortunately – in addition to what you have explained – there are errors in Ms Hansen’s article. i was under the impression that newspapers were supposed to print facts. The last sentence in Ms Hansen’s article states, and I quote, “The school abuts one of the challenged developments.” According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of abut is: to touch at one end or side of something; border upon. Since 93rd Ave plus a number of homes separate these properties, it is not even close to “abutting”. It woulsdbe nice to state facts instead of of aggravating the situation.
The comments are closed.