HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1202 Doucments Submitted at Meeting
1UA+ ~(,lb~ 1z/2/oY
Ashland City Council Meeting
December 2, 2008
Public input for Agenda item X. 3.
Subject: Whether to appeal MAA lawsuit
1. An Ethics Issue:
Councilman Eric Navickas has a "personal" conflict of interest and should not
vote on the MAA appeal. He has a long history of passionately fighting MAA, and has
filed personal lawsuits against USFS and MAA (Civil No. 04-3109-PA & D.C. No. CV-
05-03004-P A). This raises an obvious question of whether he can be impartial and
separate his personal agenda in deliberating on this matter.
2. Reason to Intervene?:
There is no .good reason for the city to persist in trying to intervene in the
management ofMAA. The ostensible reason was the watershed; however there is still
not one shred of evidence that the expansion would harm the watershed. To the contrary,
evidence from environmental impact studies shows it would not.
3. Le2al Authoritv:
Clearly the city does not have the legal authority to manage oversight of the
proposed ski expansion. That is the job of the US Forest Service.
4. Cost:
These are uncertain times financially, and the city has many other, more urgent
priorities for funding. We should not "throw good money after bad." An appeal is not a
fiscally responsible choice at this time.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Frey
Ashland, Oregon
488-5867
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Awdb@aol.com>
< katejackson@opendoorlcom.ashlandfiber.net>, < morrisoj@ashland.or. us>, <...
12/1/2008 11 :09 PM
Action on Mt Ashland Appeal
I would ask each one of you to not appeal the decision by the Court on Mount
Ashland. We have spent enough already. I remember when we were partner's
working for each others success, You all know the history of the Mountain and
that up to now the City had no investment in or interest in running the
Mountain. We are all concerned with our watershed and an agreement that places
responsibility on the Ski area similar to the Forest Service agreement would be
prudent, it has served us well. What we do not want as a City is the legal
responsibilities that fall upon us a permit holder if the current area should
fail. I urge the Council to stop spending legal fees to fight the Ski Area over
an issue that we do not want to get if we win. Turn the permit over, get an
agreement on the water quality and move on. If the snow does not come this
year you will be the permit holder and the operator, we will have lost a great
economic benefit to our whole area. I hope you all realize the expansion will
only occur if donations would pay for it, probably not in my lifetime, .so we
are tilting at windmills so to speak.
Alan DeBoer 944-1600
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.coml?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
-- .--.-.- .-----.------------------.----~--------~-._...---T