Howard County Blog

A Blog on what is going on in Howard County

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Very Important E-Mail

Before you get to the e-mail a little discussion of the subject may be of interest.

Standing Law and Definition

Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you "lack standing" to bring the suit and dismiss your case.


The above information is not the complete law nor definition. I provide it with the hope it will bring clarity and understanding of the e-mail that follows for "Howard Issues". I am not a lawyer and do not provide any legal advice on this blog. My reference for the above was from "USLegal".

The following e-mail was sent from "Howard Issues" mona@howardcountyissues.org

Howard Land Use Group,

Howard County would be the only county in the state of Maryland
that excludes citizens from legal standing which enforces our land use and other laws, if our
State Senators do not hear from citizens who want this option know as "standing". Pls forward
this message to everyone in your group - help stop this exclusion of Howard County.

To support this bill, please send an e-mail addressed to:
Allan.Kittleman@senate.state.md.us, James.Robey@senate.state.md.us, Edward.Kasemeyer@senate.state.md.us

Please forward to Senators:

Howard County Maryland State Senators:

I'm emailing to demonstrate strong support for the HB246 which would allow Howard County citizens legal standing to appeal land use decisions, Further, I believe that passing this bill including Howard County is a show of your support for citizen residents.

Thank you.


HOUSE BILL 246

File Code: Local Government - Generally


Sponsored By:
Delegates Bobo and V. Clagett
Entitled:
Charter Counties - Land Use Appeals - Standing

Synopsis:

Authorizing a charter county to enact a local law to include among those persons authorized to appeal a decision of a board of appeals or a zoning action of a local legislative body or quasi - legislative body a person who is not aggrieved by the decision or action; providing that the local law establish terms and conditions under which the person may appeal, and the procedures for taking an appeal; etc.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Of course you are free to leave comments on this blog " Howard County Blog",
Or you could e-mail "Howard Issues" mona@owardcountyissues.org. and you can stay current by reading the local newspaper "Howard County Issues" which comes out each quarter. Even better attend the meetings.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

please to bee understanding. bobos husband has appealled standing to maryland high court and bobos introducing bill to supports changing definition of standing. ethics?

8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You had a typo in the e-mail address for Jim Robey - James.Robey@senate.state.md.us

Anon 7:34, do you think Howard County citizens should have less access to judicial redress for grievances than citizens of Maryland's other counties and Baltimore City?

If so, please explain why it's ethical to maintain an inequity that puts Howard County residents at a distinct disadvantage for protecting themselves, their properties, their communities, and their tax burdens.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me, but Howard County citizens DO have access to judicial regress if the land use issue affects them. This bill will grant unwarranted access to citizen activists that are generally anti-growth.

Be a little bit honest with your comments, anon 11:23.

Perhaps you could explain to me what is ethical about giving Jones the ability to sue over a transaction that involves only Smith and Jackson.

12:59 PM  
Blogger jim adams said...

Thank you anon 11:23 am, the correction has been made

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Show me where any of my comments were anything less than completely honest, please. The typo comment was true. The question wasn't even a statement, so it's neither true nor false (but its premise is certainly currently true). The request for explanation also bore a true premise.

Yes, Howard County citizens DO have access to SOME judicial redress, but the bill will increase the amount of access to redress Howard County residents have to equal the amount enjoyed by citizens elsewhere in Maryland. Since when is equal rights unwarranted?

Currently, the bar is set distinctly higher for citizens of Howard County than for many other state citizens, Howard County residents having to prove they are "specially aggrieved" to be granted standing to have their grievance heard. So, your statement "...citizens DO have access to judicial regress [sic] if the land use affects them" isn't accurate. Currently, it has to affect them to an extent beyond the effect upon a citizen at large.

And rather than this being an instrument providing "unwarranted access", it is merely and necessarily ensuring all citizens can protect their interests.

As for your hypothetical, if a transaction truly involves only Smith and Jackson, then Jones would have no reason to bring suit anyway. But people don't go to the trouble of bringing cases just to pass the time - it's because they are aggrieved by the effects of others' actions that they do.

11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon wants us to pass this bill because other counties do something similar. That is pretty lame use of the bandwagon fallacy. At least when I used it as a child, it was to lobby my parents for a cool bike or something. This clown wants a law passed. I heard they are jumping off bridges in Montgomery County. I guess we should do it, too.

My statement about citizens having access to legal redress if the issue affects them is correct. Anon is simply trying to define "affects them" too broadly. Lloyd Knowles, for example, should not be able to sue over the Tower. Joel Broida probably should be allowed. Get a clue, anon.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too broadly? Howard's citizens, unlike the rest of the state, are excluded from appealing many land-use decisions that DO affect them. Some land-use decisions can, have, and do affect more than just adjacent property owners, sometimes requiring additional tax revenue from the community for additional services and infrastructure, sometimes presenting physical affects upon the community either due to onsite activities or offsite-supporting infrastructure, or other ways.

Here's a pail of clues for you, too, discussing public interest standing, statutory citizen enforcement, and access to justice. If you need a little more help under standing, next-friend doctrine may also be of interest.

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How would this bill have applied in the Tower fiasco?

9:07 AM  
Anonymous jim adams said...

That was some pail of clues. I printed 18 pages, or should I say gallons.

If a cop pulls you over I hope you don't read him/her the riot act. The two of you will never get home.

Thanks for supporting your position.

6:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home