Remember last fall when the city issued its response to the lawyer hired by the main street merchants saying that in order to avoid litigation the beavers needed to be exterminated? It was late October. I was always surprised at the time that no one seemed to notice that the city’s “response” was dated two days before the attorney’s letter. I could only assume that he must be a very skilled attorney indeed who was used to getting action 48 hours before he asked for it.
Well, its Litigation Season again.
At last Wednesday’s city council meeting we learned that that the closed door session concerned a pending lawsuit regarding the beavers. (Gosh those critters are litigious!) There is apparently another closed session tonight. The mayor has recused himself from this action for reasons that I’m not sure I understand. Ostensibly because he has a client who owns creek property as well so might have a vested interest in the outcome.
If the complainants owned the entire creek they could have gotten rid of the beavers long ago. They own the East half of the property line, and have therefore been unable to take action to remove the beavers on their own. Even if the city were to get rid of the beavers now they have still allowed them to stay for two years and would theoretically be liable for the damage done during that time. i imagine the new threat comes with a promise of “Do it now and we won’t hold you responsible for what happened before.”
We are left with speculation.
What is known from a check of open access, is that there is no new litigation filed yet against the city. (although my-my-my the city gets sued a lot!) There was a geotechnical report filed last February claiming damage from the raised water table and burrowing activity on the bank. We were told that a “peer review” would happen to evaluate the accuracy of these claims. At the April meeting the mayor did not allow a vote on the beavers pending this “peer review” and as late as June it still hadn’t happened. However, Julian did learn from the city manager that it eventually occurred. There was an implication in that conversation that some of the findings were questionable.
More speculation.
If the geotechnical report was unconvincing when looked at by another geologist, then why the sudden panic about litigation? Possibly the city said “we’re not scared” and the complainants responded with a further expert assessment. If I were worried about tunneling on my creek I’d pay for one of those sonic x-rays where you can see for sure what’s under ground. Obviously they didn’t do that because the city wanted to lower the dam last week and “check”. Maybe there is no new expert, just a new spin on the old report.
Or maybe the city has decided that it can push back.
Which leads us to the mystery of the mayor’s recusal. I understand that there are legal reasons for him to stay out of the mix, but honestly there are many instances where all the council should have stayed out and instead stayed in, and visa versa. I think we have to look below the surface for the motivation here. Which might be that he doesn’t want to be blamed for getting rid of the beavers, or to be credited for keeping them. You guess which is more likely.
SIgh. The subcommittee gave the city every possible solution for keeping the beavers. Worth A Dam has proven its ability to raise funds and take its stewardship seriously. The beavers have continued to draw support and attention from across the nation and the world. What does it take to tip the scale?
I received an email today from someone who asked, “The fate of the beavers could be decided in a closed door session? Is that underhanded or normal?”
I shook my head sadly. Underhanded AND normal.
