DUG;299103 wrote: Don't really know many specifics about this case, but the typical legal process that ensues in matters such as these is as follows.
1. Similar venue is planned, under construction, or recently completed.
2. An ECO-NUT, Old Person, Motor Sport Hater, or someone irrationally believing that such a venue will depreciate land values hires a very cheap attorney to file an injunction.
3. The Owner or Attorney representing the owner responds, challenging the injunction which almost always has ZERO legal precedent or merit.
4. The injunction is removed allowing operations to proceed as planned barring anything outrageous. (i.e. noise under a billion decibels, normal operating hours, proper waste disposal, etc. - common sense protocols)
Now, depending on location and the courts case burden this can take a while... but it usually always ends the same....Track = WIN
However, I always get kick out of people trying to shut tracks down. Especially when they hate you, but have no ethical or moral issues taking your money while you're there.
1. NYST has deviated significantly from the plan. As there are no zoning or noise laws on the books, and it's reasonable that plans evolve and change due to business needs and constraints, unforeseeable events, etc.
TAKEAWAY: We'll see. This sounds like something where the deeper pockets might win (long, drawn out, lots of legal fees.)
2. As with other posts, there's little merit in the argument "devaluing land", based on the run-down nature of surrounding properties. Additionally, realtors themselves have begun advertising nearby property with selling points that specifically mention the track (and other tracks like Monticello).
http://kellieplace.wordpress.com/ To the part about the attorney, sometimes it isn't so much about cheap, but also local versus "big law". The local guy might navigate the local courts better.
http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/douglas-hector-zamelis-1194143 NYST . The lawyer representing the town happens to work at a top environmental law firm:
http://www.youngsommer.com/ .
TAKEAWAY: Big (or medium) law usually wins... the "The Rainmaker" is of course Hollywood.
3. In fact, there is no precedent for one of the rulings mentioned in the Daily Star. The Open Meetings law is very new. I'm no expert (just a nerd), but how fair use of unzoned land comes into play may even make some of what was in the meetings irrelevant. There a new legal question to be answered. The open meetings law probably wasn't drafted with this specific set of circumstances in mind.
TAKEAWAY: It has some merit.
4. This is the interesting one. To the noise piece, Laguna Seca actually installed noise monitors (check out the test in 2013 Cycle World with Bostrom on the Duc and BMW). I was trying to see how the judge ruled in prior cases. Is he a loose cannon, hard-nosed, balanced, any pet issues? A ten second google search found this link
http://coophallofshame.com/burns.htm and this one
http://www.thedailystar.com/localnews/x650359870/Main-Headline . Who knows. The real kicker was reading comments about the latter article. They illustrate how irresponsible, uncoordinated and incomplete the Daily Star has reported in the past. TAKEAWAY: Don't get your info from the Daily Star.
I think we'll be riding at NYST as we're being told. My first ever track days were here last season. I look forward to coming back.