R. Scott blames Sandra Romero for pointing out where Thurston County was wrong:
Her group filed a growth management appeal in 2005 challenging Thurston County’s comprehensive plan and cost the County an estimated 1.5 million dollars defending against this frivolous claim.
The County Commissioners have a duty to administrate the State laws and provide for public safety, heath and roads. The Commission doesn’t need to be sidetracked by having to deal with lawsuits generated by special-interest groups.
Wouldn’t a frivolous claim, that the rules in Thurston County governing growth didn’t jive with state mandates, be thrown out by the courts? It would, but R. Scott lied when he characterized the nature of the lawsuit and how it ended up. Futurewise actually won the case.
Even the local builder’s association admits this:
According to Andy Cook, BIAW Legal Counsel “the decision is a mixed bag, but mostly a loss”. The court ruled that the Growth Management Hearings Board did not err in ruling the Thurston Count’s urban growth areas were too large. Cook noted, that “the court completely dismissed our arguments and evidence showing that the Board made a clerical error in finding that the UGAs were too large.”
So is it frivolous to challenge government action that you think is wrong? Is it frivolous when two judges agree with you?
For your refernce’s here’s Washington Land Use Law blog’s post on the topic.