In my previous post, I offered a depressing Lesson #1 for all those who
have fought, or are fighting, the imposition of an inappropriate development in
your communities: It’s
Not Over; It Never Is.
Now:
Lesson #2: A Lawsuit is Worth a Thousand Petitions
As I observed in my previous post, the Pennrose project in Norristown
was “wired.” Municipal leaders (a
majority, at least) and planners were expeditiously removing all obstacles to
its final approval. Then everything came
to a sudden halt. Why?
At the risk of offending some dear souls in Norristown Nudge, the
Pennrose project was not stopped by the petition against it, or by the public
pleas of outraged residents. Municipal
Council might have been swayed by this expression of popular opinion had the
issue ever actually gotten to it, but I seriously doubt it. This
tactic, exercised alone, had two chances of success: slim and none. Many of you in other towns might have your
own evidence that this is true.
Don’t get the wrong idea here. I
hold that there are few rights in a democracy more precious that the ability to
petition for redress of grievances. That
right was exercised during the Pennrose Affair, in its modern, digital, form. For that, I offer kudos all around.
At this point in my life, I have long ago forgotten how many petitions I
have carried, let alone how many I have signed.
I have not kept careful track, but it is entirely possible that not one
of them was successful. Maybe I am just
the patron saint of lost causes, but I think there is more to it.
A petition has two fundamental weaknesses. First, it is virtually impossible to get an
absolute majority of any body politic to sign a particular petition. You always get far fewer than that, and in
this day of urban community apathy the percentage of signatures you get is
hugely smaller. Thus anyone can dispute your claim to be voicing "the will of the people."
The second weakness is more fundamental, and ultimately,
unanswerable. A body of elected
officials may choose to heed your petition, or they may choose not to. Their job description allows this kind of
judgment call, albeit with the attendant electoral risks down the road. It’s part of our republican form of
government (that’s small “r,” by the way), as is the deliberate inclusion of
“down the road,” via scheduled elections, to keep the people’s representatives
from being removed at the people’s whim.
Please understand: I am in NO WAY denigrating the importance of
petitions; only suggesting that people should have a realistic understanding of
how, where and why petitions are important.
Everyone who initiates or carries one believes in its cause; this
naturally leads you to believe that once its obvious rightness is brought to
the attention of your leaders, they will recognize the justice of your cause and take remedial action. When this doesn’t happen, the resulting hurt
and anger too often lead to a rejection of further efforts: “They didn’t
listen! They never do! It’s hopeless! The game is rigged!” Been there, done that.
You should treat a petition, first and foremost, as an organizing tool. Keep track of who signed; you should not only
contact them the next time something similar appears on the horizon, but also keep
them informed in the interim. A series
of ad hoc unconnected campaigns that have
to repeat the organize-and-build-enthusiasm part each time is a waste of energy and
resources that could be better applied to achieving your goal. Nevertheless, a petition is still a virtual requirement in
order to obtain the needed publicity for your cause; the fourth estate (even in digital
disguise) always pays attention when the word “petition” is mentioned.
It is important to understand, however, that the petition opposing Pennrose did not bring the project to a halt;
a lawsuit did. Opponents of the project filed a lawsuit
appealing the variances the project had been granted. That lawsuit is still pending. The simple existence of the suit, pending
though it is, was sufficient. The
lawsuit meant that Pennrose was not in position to "build by right” when a
deadline approached, a necessary precondition for construction loans,
regardless of their source.
That’s the difference between any number of petitions and one lawsuit:
confronted by petitions, a representative governmental authority has the right
to say yes or no; confronted by a lawsuit, it has no choice but to respond,
in the legal arena, not the political one.
In that arena, political skills and connections count for a lot less;
the citizen and his government are a lot more equal.
Unsure about how the lawsuit will turn out? Worried that you might lose? Don’t be.
A lawsuit is not about winning or losing; it’s about delay and
expense. You file a lawsuit to inflict
both on the other side. In our legal
system, few lawsuits are judged without merit and dismissed. “Everybody deserves their day in court.” That day will take some time to arrive, and
attorneys charge by the hour. The goal
of a lawsuit is usually to force the other side to the point where it no longer
makes financial sense to continue the struggle.
The problem here is that the developers utilize the law on a more or
less continuous basis; they have deep pockets and the names of attorneys on
speed dial. Civic organizations do
not. That’s all the more reason to keep
your ear to the ground and your people (the ones who signed your previous
petition) on standby. You never now when
or where the next one is coming from.
Next time: Lesson #3, and why Pennrose wasn’t a simple
issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment