JET CITY MAVEN - VOL. 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 1999

Copyright 1999 Park Projects. Please feel free to use the article and photos below in your research. Be sure to quote the Jet City Maven as your source.

Petition signers excused from Northgate legal appeals

By CLAYTON PARK

Signers of a petition who were surprised to find themselves on the receiving end of a legal summons filed by attorneys for Simon Property Group, the developer of Northgate Mall, can now breathe a sigh of relief.

By signing a statement declaring their wish to be excused from legal proceedings regarding the Northgate matter, they can now get off the hook, thanks to a deal brokered late last month by the lawyers representing Simon and the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, a citizens group that is challenging the developer's current plan to expand Northgate Mall.

Signers of a petition supporting the Legal Defense Fund's appeal of a June 28 ruling by City Hearing Examiner Meredith Getches that struck down several of the group's arguments for why a section of Thornton Creek that they claim runs through a parking lot at Northgate Mall should be daylighted were startled to receive a July 22 letter from Simon's attorneys that read: "A lawsuit has been started against you..."

The summons letter was part of Simon's own appeal of Getches' ruling, but for a different reason: the Hearing Examiner had temporarily rejected the developer's mall expansion bid on the grounds that the proposal seemed "not completely consistent with the (City's) Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan."

Of particular concern to the petition signers was the developer's request for "an order awarding allowable costs and attorneys fees to Simon, including but not limited to the costs of preparing the record for review by this Court."

Attorneys both for the City as well as Simon and the Legal Defense Fund agree that the legal summons, despite its wording about a lawsuit, wasn't actually meant to scare the petitioners, nor would it have likely resulted in any of them being stuck with Simon's legal fees.

They were named in the "suit" because of a state law that requires any appeal of a land use case to name any parties connected with that case. The petition, as it turns out, clearly states that those signing it were agreeing to become parties in the Legal Defense Fund's appeal - not merely supporters of it.

The morale of the story: read a petition carefully before signing it.