Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

September 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin In so concluding, the court explained that in order to have constitutional standing, WELAG had to show: (1) it suffered an injury in fact, (2) that was fairly traceable to the challenged action, and (3) that was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The court noted that an organization or association "has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose, and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Here, the court found that WELAG's members had adequately alleged injury in fact. WELAG had alleged that implementation of the PUD would cause its members to lose the use and enjoyment of the current library and that the replacement library would be inadequate. Specifically, one WELAG member stated that she has used the West End Library for almost 30 years and expressed concern that the proposed replacement library would lack adequate facilities. "Such an allegation of specific and concrete interference with the use and enjoyment of a recreational or aesthetic resource suffice[d] to support a conclusion of injury in fact," said the court. EastBanc had argued that WELAG had failed to adequately allege injury in fact because the alleged harms were speculative and asserted "without explication." However, the court found it was "neither speculative nor conclusory to suggest that WELAG members' use and enjoyment of their neighborhood library would be adversely affected if that library were demolished and replaced by a new library that WELAG alleges would lack ' adequate facilities." The court also found that WELAG's alleged injury was also traceable to the Commission's order approving the PUD (i.e., the challenged action) because EastBanc's plan to demolish and replace the library was contingent on that approval. For the same reason, the court found that the alleged injury was capable of being redressed by a favorable decision of the court. Finally, as to organizational standing, the court concluded that WELAG's legal claims and its requested relief —remand to the Commission for further proceedings —did not require its members to participate as parties in this appeal. Thus, the court concluded that WELAG had adequately established constitutional standing. As to prudential standing requirements, the court noted that WELAG could "not attempt to litigate generalized grievances, and [could] assert only interests that [fell] within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the stat- ute or constitutional guarantee in question." Here, the court found that WELAG's alleged injuries were not generalized grievances: "Demolition and replacement of the West End Library would 'not fall indiscriminately upon every citizen,' but rather would adversely affect only those who use the library." Also, the court found that WELAG also had alleged injury to an interest that was "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by' the statute . . . in question." The court explained that "to establish standing,. 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters ),%