If you are disposed to be opposed to the proposed new YMCA on Station Road, you can choose one of the following options to describe the hearing in Bucks County court last Tuesday:
• Disaster
• Unmitigated disaster
• Total Disaster
This was the first of two lawsuits brought by Jane, Phil, and Dorothy Steeley, and Ken Hill. They are suing Richland township to try to prevent it from leasing 15 acres of land to the YMCA for a new recreation center. The second suit, which has not yet been heard, challenges Richland's decision to allow the Y to build on land designated "Open Space".
Challenging the actions of a municipality is an uphill battle. The law assumes that the township is correct, and you have to prove otherwise, using your witnesses and experts, and citing other laws. In this case, Section 1502 of the Second Class Township Code is rather clear: "The board of supervisors may.....lease, let and convey, by sale or lease, any real and personal property it judges to be in the best interest of the township". This includes open space. The Steeleys needed to show that the supervisors somehow violated the law.
The first sign of trouble for the Steeley folks was the opening statements by John VanLuvanee, the attorney for the township, and Wendy Rothstein representing the YMCA. They claimed that they could not proceed properly because the Complaint filed by the Steeleys did not state a legal basis for voiding the lease.
It soon became apparent why. The Steeleys had no friendly witnesses of their own, only the township's own engineer and manager, and the director of the Y. They had no experts. They cited no laws which supported their position. And they did not testify themselves. Instead, they relied on trying to show that the YMCA was not an intended use, and that the land should remain open space. Those arguments may or may not be applicable to the OTHER pending suit, but they do not address the legality of the lease. Disaster.
It took the judge a while, but he digested the facts, drew a conclusion, and declared, "This sounds like a legal matter". Huh? Isn't EVERYTHING in court a "legal matter"? What he meant was that he really didn't want to hear the parties' opinions on land use, or whether open fields are "better" than a recreation center. He wanted to hear municipal leasing law. And the Steeleys had little to present. Even the township's Comprehensive Plan, drafted in large measure by Jane Steeley and Ken Hill in 1997 when they were on the Planning Commission, stated that a day care/recreation center in the southern part of the township was a priority objective. Done in by their own hands.
So who won? We won't have a decision for 6-8 weeks, but if you want some clear signs, consider these:
The judge requested (and when judges "request", attorneys listen) that briefs be no longer than ten pages, double-spaced. Ten pages? Attorneys don't get warmed up until page 20. Obviously he sees this solely as a decision on the township's right to sell or lease property under state law, and doesn't want to hear any more about open space. This is very bad for the plaintiffs, who tried to rely on the open space concept almost exclusively. Unmitigated Disaster.
Section 1502 mentioned above allows Richland to sell or lease land, even open space, without public bidding, to certain types of entities. Among those listed is any nonprofit organization "providing community service". When the Steeleys did address the law on leasing and sales, they tried hard to show that the YMCA does not fall into this category. We saw some major tip-toeing by their attorney, Michael Kracht, who had to try to prove his client's case while still declaring that he personally loved the Y.
Well, if Kracht had ethical problems dissing an organization he actually liked, think about the judge. His name is Goldberg, he has been on the bench less than a year. The Steeleys are asking him to make a legal determination that the 160-year old, 18-million member Young Men's Christian Association does not "provide community service". This would be only slightly more suicidal than officially declaring that there is no Santa Claus. If Goldberg likes having the first name "Judge", he will not be issuing such a ruling in this lifetime.
Finally, the judge took a rather extraordinary step at the end of the hearing. In 99.99% of all cases, the procedure is to give both sides seven or 14 or 30 days to file briefs, and then another period of time for each to reply. However, following the testimony, the attorneys for Richland and the Y repeated the argument they made at the beginning - the Steeleys still had not made it clear why the lease should be voided. VanLuvanee and Rothstein felt that they could not write a proper brief without an adequate statement of the plaintiff's case. AND JUDGE GOLDBERG AGREED! He ordered the Steeleys to turn in their brief first, in two weeks, and then allowed Richland and the Y two more weeks to study the brief and answer it.
It is definitely not a good sign when, after four hours of hearings, a judge agrees with your opponent that you have not made it clear exactly what you are arguing. Total Disaster.