Monthly Archive for March, 2004

It’s been beyond insane these past few weeks, because we’ve been preparing to go into court to wrest control of my grandfather’s estate/trust from the evil bank that has had control over it. And we may just have made history today.

Part of the reason we’re going up against them is that they’ve been trying to sell the one large asset left in the trust – land totaling several hundred acres of woodland – to a developer that wants to clear-cut most of it to put up more cookie-cutter houses and more maze-like streets in a city that’s already growing too fast. The neighbors don’t want that kind of development, most of the people in the city government don’t want that kind of development, and we don’t want that kind of development on our land.

We’ve been fighting this development for over a year now; I first spoke out against it publicly in February of 2003 in what the paper portrayed as a stare-down between myself and the Mayor. We’ve lobbied against it constantly, and paid for it with a worsening relationship with a bank/trustee that already hated us. But, again, it was the right thing to do.

We had a very thin legal argument to try and stop this development going in, one that will still have to be tested in court in a couple of months, but today was the first hurdle, the first hearing. The big North Jersey developers intervened in the case, trying to squash the part of our suit that sought to keep the sale from going through until after the validity of the contracts can be judged. Their argument was that we could not prove “irreparable harm,” which under New Jersey law means something that monetary damages cannot redress.

In a phone conference with my lawyer a couple weeks ago, we tried to come up with some angle, ANY angle, that could prove irreparable harm. At one point, with the verbal equivalent of a wicked glint in his eye, he asked me what type of trees are in this wooded area. I said “mainly oak.” He pointed out that oak trees take over two hundred years to grow. He then asked me to write the brief that would be put before the court after he approved and revised it.

A. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.

Harm is generally considered to be irreparable if it cannot be redressed adequately by monetary damages, Crowe v DeGoia, 90 N.J. 126,  133 (1982). The property in question is woodland, composed mainly of hardwood, predominantly oak trees. This property has remained largely undeveloped since before the founding of the City of Vineland, and the age of the majority of the trees on the property can best be estimated at well over 100 years old. All current plans proposed by the movant for developing this property involve clear-cutting the vast majority of the property. If the sale is not enjoined, and defendants Wachovia and Casacci are later found to have acted improperly in their failure to hold Hogback Group, LLC., in default and the sales agreements as canceled as declared on July 2, 2003, there is no way that the land may be returned to its current state within the lifetimes of the Plaintiffs, nor likely in the succeeding generation. The damage done to the property, and to the Plaintiffs’ interest in it would be irreparable.

Likewise, the property currently serves to help absorb rainfall and storm runoff for the surrounding area, helping to maintain filtration for the surrounding area’s water supply. This function of the property is recognized in the designation of a large parcel of it as zone W5, one of whose main purposes is to help maintain a clean water supply. The importance of preserving natural, previously undeveloped land to protect the water supply, was best acknowledged by Chaim Melcer of the Hogback Group, LLC., in his donation of a tract of land owned by him for preservation for just this purpose. (See attached Exhibit H.) If this woodland area is destroyed, and defendants are later found to have acted improperly, there is no way that this land can be returned to its current purpose within the lifetimes of the Plaintiffs, nor likely in the succeeding generation.

Talk about a legal hail-mary pass! Claiming that environmental impact was irreparable harm? I feel that way, and many others do, too, but we didn’t have much hope that it would hold weight.

It did!

This morning, the judge in the case granted us an temporary injunction blocking the sale, stating that we had sufficiently demonstrated that we stood to suffer irreparable harm because of the potential environmental impact to an asset of ours if this sale had gone through! She also blocked the developers from even putting another site plan before the planning board while the injunction is in effect.

Chalk up one for the good guys.

This also has some potentially far-reaching effects. For the first time that I’ve been able to determine through research, environmental impact is considered irreparable harm under state statutes. We may have set a precedent today, and future people trying to stop overdevelopment may be able to refer to DeMarco-Andrews and Sungenis v. Wachovia and Casacci to block harmful overdevelopment!

Maybe we accomplished something very important today. Only time will tell.

Pi! Pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi!

Things have been hectic the past few weeks, what with the hospitalization and recuperation, and getting the show back up and running.

Not to mention the campaign. Anyone out there who would like to swing five bucks (or more) my way as a campaign donation may do so here:

>