RyPNers--

in todays Brief (dated January 16) you'll find an appeal from the Northwest Railway Museum for assitance with a zoning hearing for their planned new restoration shop. They are asking for, and could really use, thoughtful e-mails expressing support for their position.

The deadline to write is 5PM Pacific Thursday, Jan 16--that is to say, tomorrow night.

If you can spare the time after reading the Brief, please consider sending off a letter.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> > If you can spare the time after reading the
> Brief, please consider sending off a letter.

It might be helpful in formulating a "thoughtful" response if we knew the objections raised by the Nimby's and what was being done to address their concerns (assuming the objections aren't just "because")

Superheater@beer.com

> It might be helpful in formulating a
> "thoughtful" response if we knew
> the objections raised by the Nimby's and
> what was being done to address their
> concerns (assuming the objections aren't
> just "because")

Some of the points against:
-Will make too much noise. These people live right next to an active gravel pit!
-Will polute the surrounding wetlands. We currently work outside. Moving restoration inside will almost eliminate the possibility of contaminating the environment.
-Just because they don't like us. Not everyone is a railfan.
-The CRC will add too much trafic to the 'quiet' road they live along. There will be no public parking initially. And the street is fairly busy, with both car and truck traffic, including trucks to and from the quarry.
-Local politics. If the museum added to the city's tax coffers, we'd be working inside already.

This is how I see it as an active volunteer at the museum. There is more to it than what I posted here, but I am not willing to hazard an opinion on the rest.

Martin N.

B&O roundhouse in East St. Louis
nitmo@nwlink.com

I live in the Pacific NW and plan to be involved in as many facilities and preservation projects as I am able. It would be nice to have enough notice to be able to formulate a response.
I won't be able to meet the deadlines imposed as I am prepping for a deposition to be taking Friday 1/17 (talk about fun in the workplace).



shawsinoly@aol.com

It would
> be nice to have enough notice to be able to
> formulate a response.

I'll take the blame for that. Richard alerted me to this on Monday but some medical issues prevented me from addressing it before last night.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Hi,

Thanks to everyone who submitted comments. I am sorry for the short notice but we originally believed this hearing and comment period would have been more of a formality. It was not.

We've been working on a plan to build an 8,100 sq ft facility to maintain our collection of cars and locomotives. Our application now consists of hundreds of pages of studies, and numerous plans and drawings. We've been pursued by several opponents for 3 years but believed all of their issues had been addressed. But that assumed they were genuinely concerned about the environment. It now appears to me that they only want to prevent the project.

Typical of what I've seen or experienced in other local land use cases, opponents try to use the element of surprise to their greatest benefit. Sadly, in my opinion, the procedures for land use public hearings discriminate against the applicant. This case was no exception. Last night I endured 3 hours of cross-examination by an attorney who continually tried to provoke and intimidate. His type are apparently known as fist-pounders by some in the legal profession. He certainly didn't let the absence of facts prevent him from making allegations of poorly conceived design or insufficient sensitive areas studies. And we had no opportunity for "discovery" of their issues prior to the hearing. This attorney representing a single opponent that owns property 1/2 mile away had no time limit placed on him.

Is there a lesson? Yes, it could happen to your museum too. Most jurisdictions have far-reaching land use regulations that give the public an opportunity to influence how or if your project is approved. Opponents of a proposed land use action do not need to be articulate or smart. They do not even need to have meritorious objections. They just need to be able to afford an attorney that specializes in killing projects. Every city has a garbage dumpster full of them.

Thanks again for everyone's support. We have a very strong application and have great consultants including competent counsel. We have a week to file a closing argument (in writing). A decision will be issued later this month. I'll try to post something then.

Richard R. Anderson
Executive Director
Northwest Railway Museum


http://www.trainmuseum.org
rra@trainmuseum.org

Richard,

Thanks for the update. Please keep the info comming.

Best of luck!

Smokebox

"orhf dot org"

>This case was no exception. Last night I endured
> 3 hours of cross-examination by an attorney
> who continually tried to provoke and
> intimidate. His type are apparently known as
> fist-pounders by some in the legal
> profession. He certainly didn't let the
> absence of facts prevent him from making
> allegations of poorly conceived design or
> insufficient sensitive areas studies. And we
> had no opportunity for "discovery"
> of their issues prior to the hearing. This
> attorney representing a single opponent that
> owns property 1/2 mile away had no time
> limit placed on him.

That is when you, your lawyers and judges or board members know that the person is trying to "baffle 'em with BS" and should sit back smile and present a lot of facts, been there done that! non illegitimi carborundum!

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Just so everyone knows, this doesn't just happen to pure rail museums who are looking to expand with newer structures, either. NIMBY's take all forms, including JAG-style lawyers. We are in the process of trying to move and restore two buildings which were once one structure to a sit near our local lighthouse. This structure was originally a part of Fort Gratiot, an early American frontier fort built originally in 1814 of logs and rebuilt in 1829 in a frame constrcution here along the shores of the St. Clair River/ Lake Huron. We have really had issues with the neighbors on exact placement of the structure, as it will potentially block their view of Lake Huron, freighters, and said Lighthouse.

This has grown worse due to a couple of articles by the local newspaper which, while not having misquoted either side exactly, have conviently left out words that change the entire meaning of a particular quote. This has enraged the NIMBY's in particular, and has made preservation of this most historic structure a real problem. How does this relate to NRM's issues? As Director Anderson points out, it can (and has) happened to anybody and everybody. Choose your words and actions carefully!

TJ Gaffney

> Hi,

> Thanks to everyone who submitted comments. I
> am sorry for the short notice but we
> originally believed this hearing and comment
> period would have been more of a formality.
> It was not.

> We've been working on a plan to build an
> 8,100 sq ft facility to maintain our
> collection of cars and locomotives. Our
> application now consists of hundreds of
> pages of studies, and numerous plans and
> drawings. We've been pursued by several
> opponents for 3 years but believed all of
> their issues had been addressed. But that
> assumed they were genuinely concerned about
> the environment. It now appears to me that
> they only want to prevent the project.

> Typical of what I've seen or experienced in
> other local land use cases, opponents try to
> use the element of surprise to their
> greatest benefit. Sadly, in my opinion, the
> procedures for land use public hearings
> discriminate against the applicant. This
> case was no exception. Last night I endured
> 3 hours of cross-examination by an attorney
> who continually tried to provoke and
> intimidate. His type are apparently known as
> fist-pounders by some in the legal
> profession. He certainly didn't let the
> absence of facts prevent him from making
> allegations of poorly conceived design or
> insufficient sensitive areas studies. And we
> had no opportunity for "discovery"
> of their issues prior to the hearing. This
> attorney representing a single opponent that
> owns property 1/2 mile away had no time
> limit placed on him.

> Is there a lesson? Yes, it could happen to
> your museum too. Most jurisdictions have
> far-reaching land use regulations that give
> the public an opportunity to influence how
> or if your project is approved. Opponents of
> a proposed land use action do not need to be
> articulate or smart. They do not even need
> to have meritorious objections. They just
> need to be able to afford an attorney that
> specializes in killing projects. Every city
> has a garbage dumpster full of them.

> Thanks again for everyone's support. We have
> a very strong application and have great
> consultants including competent counsel. We
> have a week to file a closing argument (in
> writing). A decision will be issued later
> this month. I'll try to post something then.

> Richard R. Anderson
> Executive Director
> Northwest Railway Museum


Port Huron Museum
tjgaffney@phmuseum.org