Breaking: judge enjoins city council vote on @Mpls2040 for up to 7 days.
City attorney mentioned there is no city council meeting next week. It has been cancelled. May need to be rescheduled. Judge said there's a chance he would rule by end of day if possible.
One of the city's arguments was the judge has no less power next week than he has today, regardless of council action.
Susan Segal was very unhappy after the ruling. Rose to say this wasn't necessary because the plan is headed for a months long review process with the Met Council until it's finalized.
Joseph R. Klein
My favorite exchange was when the judge asked how do you address plaintiff's argument that a city council vote is "game over"?
Assistant City Attorney: calling a tail a leg doesn't mean a dog has 5 legs, because a tail is still not a leg.
Assistant City Attorney: calling a tail a leg doesn't mean a dog has 5 legs, because a tail is still not a leg.
One thing the city is asking for is a $150k bond, related to a penalty the city says is due to the Met Council if plan isn't submitted on time. Plaintiff's lawyer disputed that penalty exists, but conceded if it does exist that the bond would be appropriate.
In making his ruling, judge made it a point to say that December 31st is the deadline, not tomorrow.
The city argues plaintiffs were "dilatory" (stalling) by taking last minute action to seek temporary restraining order. They could have acted sooner.
Plaintiff response "we had to wait until this plan was as final as possible." Citing recent amendments to the plan. (I should note virtually all changes to the plan were to water it down in the direction plaintiff prefers.)
Judge seemed skeptical of arguments related to a big fat environmental review done by Seattle, because Washington is not Minnesota.
If you like lawyerly animal metaphors I have more! Plaintiff's lawyer argued that even though this plan is just a plan and not a specific project to add more housing, the "baby elephant gets to be a momma elephant." What is the momma elephant? He said 150k new housing units.
He kept repeating 150,000 units. I think assuming that many units is pretty wild because Minneapolis currently has 190,000 units.
Plaintiff's lawyer argued the city made "no attempt to rebut" the plaintiff's engineer's report (the one with charts showing 150k "potential" new units), and said that was "killer" to city's defense.
Here's what my favorite legal analyst had to say about the temporary restraining order coming in to today.
theboutiquefirm.com/wp-content/upl…
theboutiquefirm.com/wp-content/upl…
