To read in their entirety the articles on the RAA's appeal of the Superior Court ruling denying standing to sue the city Board of Adjustment in the Lynwood Lots case,
see the March, April and May 2003 issues of The Midtown Messenger. To view the Roosevelt Action Association's appellate brief, the city's answer and the RAA's final reply, click the links at right.
The Roosevelt Action Association (RAA) has responded to the city's answer to its appeal of a Superior Court ruling last fall that denied the neighborhood standing to sue over variances granted to a Lynwood Street project. The latest brief represents the last written pleadings that will be filed in the appeal.
Cameron Artigue of Gammage and Burnham, representing the RAA, requested an opportunity to also make oral arguments to the court. Those should be held within 30 days from the filing of the reply brief on April 25 if the request is granted, but city attorney Don Jones, representing the Board of Adjustment in the case, said the court may decide to rule on the written briefs alone.
RAA's brief continues to point out what it holds as flaws in the city's position. Central is its argument that case law, other authorities and logic do not support the city's position that the plaintiffs must substantiate specific, "palpable" harms to have standing to sue, but instead must just be able to show that they are harmed differently and more substantially than the general population.RAA disputes the city's contention that because their filings, including affidavits submitted by neighbors of the project, at 29 and 33 W. Lynwood, have not made clear exactly how the variances injure them, their allegations are "conclusory" and insufficient to confer standing. Artigue's brief argues that the filings have indeed stated how the project with its variances from standard front setbacks will harm the historic character of the neighborhood and decrease their property values, but that they don't need to prove those contentions in advance just to have standing.