JUNEAU — A conservation group says a bill that would require parties seeking to halt resource extraction or construction projects post a security is unconstitutional and would put corporate interests above those of Alaskans.
The Alaska Conservation Alliance submitted testimony ahead of Tuesday’s Senate Labor and Commerce Committee hearing on HB168.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Eric Feige, passed the House last year. Feige says it seeks to impose a penalty on frivolous lawsuits that delay worthwhile projects and curtail employment.
The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports HB168.
The conservation alliance’s Andy Moderow says courts only issue restraining orders, preliminary injunctions or orders voiding or halting use of permits if it determines a plaintiff is likely to win and irreparable harm would occur without a stay.
He calls the bill bizarre.
Comments (9)
Add commentThere certainly is an
There certainly is an assault on the Democratic process here in Alaska.
I am glad some Alaskans are awake and putting brakes on the attack. My thanks go out to these Alaskans, god speed to all of you.
This bill drowns out the voices of average people that might be opposed to a project for good reason, it's pitting an individual's concern against powerful corporate interests.
It tilts favor to industry.
one voice, one vote,
Each citizen has an inalienable right to full and effective participation in the political process , this bill gives greater weight to those with power and money
Sounds good
Mr. Moderow said that the only time a project is halted is when there is good cause. If that be the case, why is he and his group afraid of a law that is designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits? Could it be that there are envi groups that would act without care to virtue and go beyond the bounds of truthfulness? If so, let the law shine in on those who game the system.
@haineschris
I have to agree, If the only projects that draw lawsuits are "bad projects" that will of course not stand a test in court then why not post a large bond? You get it back after you win in court.
Kensington is a very good example of how this would have allowed a good project to go forward without the wast of millions in legal fee's.
AH AH?the Kensington Mine's
AH AH?
the Kensington Mine's win was a loss for the people in our country.
Their so called "win" to dump toxic waste in water bodies as long as it is labeled "Fill-Material" weakened our countries Clean Water Act that protects our rights to clean water bodies. Kensington Mine's "win" pushed back 30+ years of progress that was made via a Democratic Process in Congress.
The Kensington so called "win" was and is a disgrace to Alaska. The suits against Kensington were NOT frivolous suits - and Kensignton's "win" was only because our Supreme Court is now stacked to favor the interests of Industry and the wealthy.
This bill would prevent average Joe from taking action because of the costs to him, It does not as stated in the bill -" level the legal playing field".
Jumpstart
I gotta go with Jumpstart on this one. It looks like this bill is just another way to silence the opposition. This bill assumes that ones lawsuit is frivolous without being heard. Or to be heard one would have to come up with huge sums of money as "security". Corporations and backers of big projects have big money, Most environmental groups or activist don't. The peoples voice is being eroded bit by bit every time a bill like this is passed
House Bill 168 We should all
House Bill 168
We should all watch and make note of the Reps. that favor this bill, its an assult on the voice of concerned Alaskans.
The billed Passed in the House - and here is a list of supporters:
Sponsored by Rep. Eric Feige
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Chenault, Rep. Johnson, Rep. Thomas, Rep. Wilson, Rep. Fairclough, Rep. Keller, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Costello, Rep. Millett, Rep. Hawker, Rep. Lynn, Rep. Olson, Rep. Saddler, Rep. Dick, Rep. Wilson, Sen. Giessel
I like the concept
First, it's irrelevant how deep the pockets of the developers are because it is the state or federal agency that is making the permitting decisions for the project and therefore the one being sued. So in other words, when my state or federal government has to spend a ton of money (our money) defending a lawsuit for a permit decision that already went through a public review process of several months or years, it better be for a valid reason. Some litigants have a valid issue; many do not. And here is the kicker, when the suit is brought by a non- profit group representing the public, they dont't have to pay legal fees if they lose. That means there is a monitory loss to the fed or state government with every suit, regardless of ruling. Why wouldn't groups opposed to development litigate every chance they get when they have no real consequence if they loss the judgment? If this bill prevents the misuse of the legal system by groups fundamentally opposed to development, then I say great. I respect a fair fight.
You-Know-Juneau ?? Thats
You-Know-Juneau ?? Thats quite a spin you got going there, good lord.
The "losing side" does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose.
This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case. In contrast, in England and other countries, the losing side is often required to pay the other side's attorney's fees after losing a trial.