The legalistic and realities of public trust in Woodinville.
1. What is a Road Dedication? Explains the statutes in Washington State on easements and public roads. Much of this legislation was established with the Good Roads Act in 1890, one year after Washington became a state and 21 years before women had the right to vote.
2. Part 1 of how Woodinville produced an opinion for the wrong road in the Huso vs Phoenix and the City of Woodinville case.
3. Part 2 of above.
4. How Woodinville's failed court action was presented to the public.
Huso vs Phoenix & the City of Woodinville
1. The City of Woodinville vs Phoenix - A Clandestine Affair, was the beginning of tracking troubling behavior from Woodinville public officials. This piece was the city's response to the public realization that the city of Woodinville was aligned with developer Phoenix Development, after the city's several years of public denouncement of the later. Included was the city's violation of the use of executive session.
2. How the road disappeared Part 1 -This piece starts out with a patronizing CM Chuck Price making public statements to Husos' that it's in the court (system) not our court(the city council). Yet, it was the city that precipitated the need for court interference, because the city refused to acknowledge that there was a publicly dedicated road on Montevello (Summer's Addition), when they could have. The city knew about the road and did everything they could to distract from that fact including attempting to publicly humiliate the Husos.
3. How the road disappeared Part 2 - This was the August 20, 2007 Public Hearing in front of the city council on the Montevello and Wood Trails Phoenix Development project. Huso's attorney was interrupted numerous times, defraying his 6 minute time limit by half.
Perhaps more troubling though; both Phoenix and the city attorney were well aware that the public road dedication was in the public record, yet they continued to object arguing it wasn't.
During this meeting one can also see then president of Concerned Neighbors of Wellington, Jeff Glickman - now city councilman - inexplicitly interrupting Huso's attorney handing him a piece of paper that appears to have the seal of Mr. Glickman's forensic organization on it. As far as the road dedication (that CNW had put in the record themselves and also appears in their brief), CNW remained silent.
4. Short - Huso vs Phoenix Development Feb. 29, 2008 - This is a 10-minute short of the first hearing in the Huso vs Phoenix Development case where the City of Woodinville was enjoined by the court.
Mr. Hill, Phoenix attorney, makes much of a nonsensical legal argument while trying to make a Real Estate action into a Land Use Petition Action.
The judge did not agree with much of Mr. Hill's legal assessments, at times, having trouble taking him seriously, which to Mr. Hill's credit, he acknowledged. But who is watching?
It turns out everyone is watching, since UnInformed Consent was there
with cameras.
It was through these experiences and of Woodinville violating public trust with Brightwater, the community cut their teeth on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.
Full Court Hearings
1. February 28, 2008 was the first summary judgment hearing on the Huso vs Phoenix Development litigation. This is where the court ordered the City of Woodinville be enjoined into the case.
2. October 3, 2008 was the second hearing as the City of Woodinville, though a court date was already scheduled to hear the full case, exercised their "right" to bring their own summary judgment hearing.
Some felt this was a retalitory attempt to intimidate plaintiffs Huso because they had subpoenaed three sitting councilmen plus city staff.
The deposed councilpersons, Hank Stecker, Jeff Glickman and Chuck Price publicly and loudly complained that the personal service processes were "flawed" and thus attempted to avoid their subpeonas. They never publicly mentioned that all of them were served also at City Hall, in Mr. Price's case, three other locations and times of which he dodged service twice.
The October court ruling response to the City's summary judgment hearing however, ordered all the depositions be set.
However, the three above mentioned city councilmen have refused to cooperate.
To this date, the subpoenased elected officials have continued to resist sitting for their court ordered depositions, in defiance of the court.
In contrast, the subpoenaed city staff (and numerous others) have complied with the court ordered depositions.
It seems, like Watergate, Woodinville's public officials feel they are above the law.
