Mountain Park Life
   
 
Welcome

Username:

Password:


Remember me


Main Menu
 · Home
 · The Stand
 · News
 · Traffic
 · Community
 · Members
 · Forum
 · Recipes
 · Polls
 · About
 ·
 ·
 ·

Chatbox
bullet editor
Jun 01 : 17:00
Members, post announcements in the Chat that don't seem to fit in the Forum such as Happy Birthday, Welcome New Baby, etc. Get "social."

Forums
Mountain Park Life :: Forums :: City Issues
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   

Lake Litigation - a Letter to Mayor Still

Author Post
GeorgeM
Sat Apr 17 2010, 06:22pm
Registered Member #390
Joined: Wed Jun 10 2009, 10:29pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 26
April 17, 2010

Mayor Jim Still
118 Lakeshore Drive
Mountain Park, GA 30075

Re: Litigation Status and Expenses

Dear Mayor Jim:

You are aware that the lake litigation has taken an unfortunate turn with the Judge’s February 16, 2010 Order resolving the Summary Judgment Motions (document 850). In effect, the Order reduced the City’s claim for damage from the 2000 – 2007 period (as originally requested in the litigation) to the 2005 – 2007 period. The City’s attorney, Mr. Shelton, disagrees with the Court and has filed an appeal. If the Order is upheld, the result for Mountain Park will be disastrous – rather than having 37,955 cubic yards of silt removed from Lake Garrett, (if the City is successful at trial and following an eventual appeal) only 4,673 cubic yards of silt will be removed.

That is 12.31% of the silt originally claimed to be the responsibility of the defendants.

It is important to keep the lake litigation in perspective. Early pleadings in the lawsuit claimed that if 37,955 cubic yards of silt were spread across the footprint of Lake Garrett it would result in a silt depth of 6 INCHES. If the City recovers only 12.31% of this amount (4,673 cubic yards), the silt depth we are suing over is a little over ½ INCH! And for this the City has spent about $2 million … so far.

The status of the litigation is problematic for several reasons:

1. A Judge has carefully looked at the case and concluded, when the facts are considered in the light most favorable to Mountain Park, that the City has a right to recover only for the 2005 – 2007 period.

2. An appeal at this stage will delay the trial for 4 to 6 months and cost between $250,000 and $300,000 in additional legal fees (with $2 million incurred so far, and $250,000+ for trial and preparation, this will bring the total legal fees and costs to more than $2.5 million).

3. It is fair to say, at this point, that some of the battles which are being fought are the result of litigation decisions and choices made by the lawyers.

4. As legal fees continue to rise, it is getting less likely with each passing month (and dollar) that there will be a full recovery of legal fees – if the City eventually wins.

5. The City’s budget and balance sheet cannot afford this continued cost.

I implore you, on behalf of the entire Mountain Park community, to restructure the fee arrangement with the City’s lawyers. Litigation is complicated and often unpredictable, but it is well-past time Mr. Shelton and his firm had a personal financial stake in the outcome of this litigation.

Very truly yours,

George
Back to top
Yuck Obama
Sun Apr 18 2010, 02:50am
Registered Member #405
Joined: Mon Mar 08 2010, 04:13pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 36
What is the name of this Shelton guy's firm? Who else is making money off of the city taxpayer? Who the heck got us into this endless war anyway?

Karl
Back to top
EJ
Sat May 01 2010, 11:51am
Registered Member #22
Joined: Mon Jul 25 2005, 12:42pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 86
It is so obvious that this "change" should have happened some time ago since it has been talked about for a while. But, I ask someone "in the know" to tell the majority why we don't make this change. There must be some sane reason for not taking them off hourly pay, or whatever its called. So many families are sickened by this situation and have given up hope for this place we live. Moving would be a great option but with the strain on the economy, that decision is complicated as well.
I just would like to know why? Is there kick-back money floating around? Is our lawyer a relative of the board members? Does our attorney have pictures of our leadership with farm animals in compromising positions? WTF????
Thanks George! We appreciate you actions.


EJ
Back to top
editor
Thu May 13 2010, 02:40pm

Joined: Tue Jul 12 2005, 10:03pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 236
This forum thread went off topic and became a personal attack on a resident, which is not allowed. Some posts have been deleted. Please abide by the rules of the forum at link
Back to top
Client-9
Mon May 17 2010, 01:47pm
Registered Member #311
Joined: Wed Mar 12 2008, 12:36pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 30
Let's stay on topic. The law firm is bankrupting the city. There was no attack on a resident, unless you call telling the truth an attack. Does the city have a zero drug tolerance hiring policy? If not, why not? One can't sell pansies at Home Depot if they test positive, but here we can pay for legal services and just assume all minds are clear and functioning logically? IT IS PUBLIC MONEY!
Eliot
Back to top
editor
Mon May 17 2010, 02:55pm

Joined: Tue Jul 12 2005, 10:03pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 236
Client-9,
I hope you will appreciate that, over many years, there has only been one or two posting deletions due to gross inappropriateness. The recent deleted postings named a specific resident, claiming that the person engages in an criminal activity. The post violated the rules of the forum: link .

Although the forum is designed to discuss issues and ideas, perhaps someone should start a thread to discuss a community standard for discussing a resident's activities. Would it be different than the forum rules?
Back to top
Tim
Tue May 18 2010, 12:59pm
Registered Member #75
Joined: Wed Oct 05 2005, 04:23pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 59
Editor,
-You agree, through your use of this site, that you will not use this site to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.-
I guess saying someone must “have pictures of our leadership with farm animals in compromising positions” doesn’t qualify?
TC
Back to top
Yuck Obama
Tue May 18 2010, 02:34pm
Registered Member #405
Joined: Mon Mar 08 2010, 04:13pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 36
The mayor finally speaks but doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the bankrupting of the city in the name of the lake litigation. Be a leader Jim, not a spectator.

Karl
Back to top
Moderators: bt, Archive, editor

Jump:     Back to top

Forum theme loosely based on Invision Power Board

 
© Mountain Park Life 2006 All Rights Reserved

mountainparklife.com is a community site for the City of Mountain Park.
 
Render time: 0.0681 sec, 0.0114 of that for queries.