Tag Archives: court

Bike bans declared unconstitutional in Colorado, introduced in Missouri

by um2rnxc Posted on February 5, 2013

Bike bans declared unconstitutional in Colorado, introduced in Missouri

By Susie Cagle

Bike happy, cyclists, and bike free! The Colorado Supreme Court this week overturned a ban on bikes in the town of Black Hawk, where since June 2010 cycling citizens have been forced to walk their bikes through downtown’s narrow roads or face $68 tickets. From The Denver Post:

Black Hawk’s ban forced cyclists to walk their bikes through the city’s casino-lined streets on the southern end of the famed Peak to Peak Highway, a high-country scenic by-way popular with road cyclists. …

Black Hawk had argued that its home-rule status allowed it to script its own traffic laws. The city said the 2009 state law that required vehicles to give cyclists a 3-foot berth was unmanageable for gambler-toting tour buses and casino delivery trucks navigating Black Hawk’s narrow streets. So the city’s leaders chose to ban bikes. …

The Supreme Court ruled the issue was not just local but impacted state residents. The court noted that municipalities can ban bikes — Denver prohibits pedalers on the 16th Street Mall, as does Boulder on a stretch of Pearl Street — but it must provide alternate routes within 450 feet, as required by state law.

The city’s statement on Monday said it would “look for alternatives” to address safety concerns but would not develop an alternate bike path. “The city has no plans to construct any special accommodations to address this issue.”

I wonder if Missouri State Rep. Rick Brattin (R) reads the Colorado news? Maybe he should! The state legislator is planning to introduce a bill to ban bicycling on at least some state roads. From the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation:

Rep. Brattin appeared on local TV news earlier in January, complaining about bicyclists on the newly completed Highway 150, which runs through portions of Kansas City, Grandview, and Lee’s Summit, near the northern edge of Brattin’s district.

Highway 150 is in the Longview Lake area, one of the most popular areas for bicycling in the Kansas City metro area. Numerous individuals and groups large and small hold daily, weekly, monthly, and annual rides in this area. It is a real center of bicycle activity in the metro area. …

Rep. Brattin is now working on creating a bill to ban bicyclists from certain roads in Missouri, based on his belief that bicyclists should not be allowed on roads like Highway 150. … Brattin had a bill drafted to require bicycles to be inspected, registered, and display a special bicycle license plate. There would be special requirements for bicyclists under the age of 16.

However, Rep. Brattin was not happy with this draft and has discarded it — it is not strong enough for his tastes. He indicated that he wants to introduce a bill that will actually ban bicyclists from roads like Highway 150.

Maybe grumpy Brattin just resents all those happy cyclists.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Living

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link:  

Bike bans declared unconstitutional in Colorado, introduced in Missouri

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bike bans declared unconstitutional in Colorado, introduced in Missouri

So much hope and so many problems for the L.A. river

by AshleaMelina844 Posted on January 17, 2013

So much hope and so many problems for the L.A. river

By Susie Cagle

A new, green future awaits the concrete drainage ditch that we know as the Los Angeles River. But it may have to wait for quite a while.

pmong9

The Army Corps of Engineers, which originally poured all that concrete about 80 years ago (thanks for nothing, dudes), is teaming up with city engineers on a $10 million study of the potential for restoring the river’s ecosystem, creating wetlands for animals and hang-outs for people. From The Wall Street Journal:

The study examines an 11-mile stretch of the river on the city’s east side, where some resilient plants have survived in a narrow, muddy strip of so-called soft bottom at the center of the channel.

Efforts to manipulate the river’s concrete form without losing its flood-control function will be a “delicate balancing act,” said Josephine Axt, the Corps’ local planning chief who is leading the study, known as Alternative with Restoration Benefits and Opportunities for Revitalization, or Arbor.

It’s like “setting the table,” said Omar Brownson, executive director of the L.A. River Revitalization Corp., which coordinates economic-development projects along the river. “We’re creating a more attractive destination for investment.”

Yes, well, what’s a revitalized habitat without the business it attracts? I guess?

The Corps is expected to present the results of the study to the public in June. But that public might not take so kindly to the Corps and their master plans by then. Just last month, the Corps razed dozens of acres of the river’s wildlife habitat along the Sepulveda Basin, seriously pissed off the local water agency, violated the Clean Water Act, and potentially also violated endangered species protections.

State Sen. Kevin de León, one of several local officials who has demanded an explanation from the Corps, said the Sepulveda project “doesn’t bode well” for the future of efforts to revitalize the Los Angeles River’s natural landscape.

The Journal plays down the “Sepulveda incident” with this weird statement: “The federal interest, the public’s desires and a noticeable change in recent years in the way Los Angelenos view the river have cushioned the blow of the Sepulveda Basin shearing.”

If anything, the wetlands razing may just motivate the public to push the Army Corps harder to get this one right.

But even if the Corps cleans up its act, Los Angeles has a long way to go to clean up its river, which watchdog groups have found is periodically contaminated by mercury, arsenic, cyanide, lead, and fecal bacteria.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that L.A. area governments were not responsible for the polluted water that flows through storm drains and into the Los Angeles and nearby San Gabriel Rivers. But, fearing further litigation and fines (lead! fecal bacteria!), the county is looking at less painful ways to fund the clean-up. It is now considering an “ambitious” property tax to pay for pollution remediation, at about $54 per house, and up to $11,000 per big box store, per year. Not surprisingly, it is not terribly popular with the locals.

Without the cash to pay for the infrastructure to filter the water, these are going to be some dirty, dirty wetlands indeed.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

So much hope and so many problems for the L.A. river

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on So much hope and so many problems for the L.A. river

Judge orders two-week halt to Keystone XL pipeline construction

by biglermyrta910 Posted on December 11, 2012

Judge orders two-week halt to Keystone XL pipeline construction

By Susie Cagle

We’ve reported before about the Keystone XL blockade activists, but the East Texans who own the land on which the pipeline is being constructed have been some of the project’s most vocal, if less-often-pepper-sprayed, detractors. And today they actually kind of won for a change.

A Texas judge has ordered TransCanada to halt work for two weeks on the pipeline, following a lawsuit from landowner Michael Bishop claiming that TransCanada lied about transporting crude oil when it’s really hauling tar-sands oil.

TransCanada’s all, “Oil is oil, what’s the big deal?” But the judge didn’t see it that way. From the Associated Press:

Tar sands oil — or diluted bitumen — does not meet the definition as outlined in Texas and federal statutory codes which define crude oil as “liquid hydrocarbons extracted from the earth at atmospheric temperatures,” Bishop said. When tar sands are extracted in Alberta, Canada, the material is almost a solid and “has to be heated and diluted in order to even be transmitted,” he told The Associated Press exclusively.

“They lied to the American people,” Bishop said.

Texas County Court at Law Judge Jack Sinz signed a temporary restraining order and injunction Friday, saying there was sufficient cause to halt work until a hearing Dec. 19. The two-week injunction went into effect Tuesday after Michael Bishop, the landowner, posted bond.

David Dodson, a spokesman for TransCanada, said courts have already ruled that tar sands are a form of crude oil. He said the injunction will not delay the project.

Bishop filed suit against the Texas Railroad Commission last week, claiming the agency hadn’t protected the public’s environmental interest when it approved TransCanada’s permits for construction. Many previous attempts by landowners to legally challenge TransCanada’s eminent domain claim to their property have all failed.

Aware that the oil giant will have a battery of lawyers and experts at the hearing later this month, Bishop, a 64-year-old retired chemist currently in medical school, said he is determined to fight.

“Bring ‘em on. I’m a United States Marine. I’m not afraid of anyone. I’m not afraid of them,” he said. “When I’m done with them, they will know that they’ve been in a fight. I may not win, but I’m going to hurt them.”

Meanwhile, activists are planning a direct-action training for Jan. 3-8 and a national demo outside the White House for President’s Day, Feb. 18.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from: 

Judge orders two-week halt to Keystone XL pipeline construction

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Judge orders two-week halt to Keystone XL pipeline construction

Supreme Court takes on dirty water

by Myrna Posted on December 3, 2012

Supreme Court takes on dirty water

By Susie Cagle

Nobody wants to take responsibility for nasty, polluted storm-water runoff. But the Supreme Court might soon force a few somebodies to do just that.

cbcastro

Today the court is hearing two cases on runoff from logging roads in the Pacific Northwest, which environmentalists say can threaten fish.

And tomorrow the court will hear a case on Los Angeles’ filthy storm water, which contains “high levels of aluminum, copper, cyanide, fecal coliform bacteria and zinc,” the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year. That water flows into the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers and ultimately pollutes the area’s beaches.

The fight over L.A.’s dirty water began back in 2008, when the Natural Resources Defense Council brought suit against the county flood control district, hoping to force stricter measures to prevent water pollution. But the county doesn’t acknowledge that the water is its responsibility. From the Los Angeles Times:

County officials agree storm water is polluting the rivers but disagree on who is responsible. Its one monitoring station along the Los Angeles River is in Long Beach, near where it empties into the ocean.

“Yes, there are pollutants in the water, but dozens of municipalities are upstream from there. It’s a collective runoff. It doesn’t point to a particular source,” Gary Hildebrand, assistant deputy director of the L.A. County Flood Control District, said in an interview.

In court, the flood control district’s lawyers have argued that because the Clean Water Act regulates only “discharges” of pollutants, the county is not responsible for discharges that come from the thousands of drains in the county’s 84 cities.

The dispute, if nothing else, illustrates the difficulty of regulating storm water. The Clean Water Act of 1972 first targeted “point sources” of pollution, such as an industrial plant putting toxic chemicals into a creek, or a sewage plant that was leaking sewage into a river. Violators could be identified and forced to stop the pollution.

By contrast, a heavy storm sends water flowing from across a vast area, picking up pollutants along the way. There is no obvious point source.

Who will win: Clean water or municipal fiefdoms that buck collective responsibility?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit source: 

Supreme Court takes on dirty water

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court takes on dirty water