Spokane7
61°
March 23, 2011 in City
Megaload law would put heavy load on citizens
Dick Harwood says he’s very concerned about commerce in Idaho.
Linwood Laughy says he’s very concerned about the same thing.
But Harwood and his fellow Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives ain’t all that concerned, really, about Laughy, who owns a business along U.S. Highway 12 with his wife. Or about the other businesses and residents along that route who object to what have become known as the megaloads.
The businesses these pro-business lawmakers are fighting for are a little bigger than these little Idaho concerns. Think ExxonMobil. ConocoPhillips. Anyone with a few billion dollars who wants to clog up Highway 12, the gorgeous scenic route that follows the same path Lewis and Clark took back in the days before frivolous lawsuits tied up everyone’s commerce.
Harwood has proposed a new law that would require citizens to put up a bond equal to 5 percent of a load in order to file a lawsuit opposing a transportation project – as Laughy and others along the route did. Though their suit ultimately was not successful – based on jurisdictional questions – there’s now another suit filed by an environmental group.
All of which Harwood deems, on its face, frivolous. Frivolous because it cost the state money. Frivolous because it caused a corporation distress. Frivolous because the people involved might have an environmental bone in their body.
What Harwood wants to do is redefine “frivolous lawsuit” to mean “pretty much any lawsuit.” A majority of the House agreed, passing the bill Monday.
“My reason for bringing it is we can’t let groups tie up commerce in this state,” Harwood said Monday. “It costs the state of Idaho a lot of money to fight these lawsuits.”
Well, it cost the Catholic Church a lot of money to fight lawsuits, too. That doesn’t mean you start charging people to sue.
I give Harwood some credit for calling me up and debating this. He’s a timber-country guy, and his monochromatic view of lawsuits come from his long history of seeing timber sale after timber sale tied up by lawsuits, he said.
Yet he seems unwilling to grant the possibility that a person with an environmental opinion might be a citizen. With rights.
Why should someone who can afford a 5 percent bond have a right to sue, while someone who can’t doesn’t? What does that 5 percent represent, exactly, that makes a plaintiff more legally valid than one who doesn’t?
“I can understand where you’re going with that,” Harwood said. “But we’ve been doing that for a number of years.”
Idaho law already allows the requirement of a bond for people to sue over timber sales and nuclear shipments, he said. The bonds can be used to offset the state’s costs if the case is thrown out.
Why not just allow a judge to determine what’s frivolous and what’s not? Harwood said you can’t trust the judges, because some of them have ruled in ways he disagrees with. Like Judge John Bradley, who initially ruled in favor of Laughy and his fellow plaintiffs.
“Judge Bradley – he’s an environmental judge,” Harwood said. “He’s very supportive of breaching the dams. … (Environmental groups) get people who think like they think and do what they want them to do.”
But back to Linwood Laughy. Laughy and his wife, Borg Hendrickson, have lived on Highway 12 for years, running a small publishing business and leading excursions in the area for “history tourists.” They are Idaho citizens and business owners. They’re continuing to fight, convinced that these monstrous loads will damage the roads, hurt the scenic and historic nature of the river corridor, block response time for emergency vehicles, and generally put the interests of huge multinational corporations ahead of those of the citizenry.
Wonder where they got that idea.
“Both Borg and I are pushing 70,” Laughy said. “I’ve never before been in a protest march or been involved in a lawsuit. I’ve yet to get my first traffic ticket. We’re a grandma and a grandpa, but we’re not going down without a fight.”
It’s important to remember they lost their lawsuit, though Laughy doesn’t like to look at it that way, because a larger legal battle is continuing – filed, yes, by an environmental group – and because he’s done a lot to bring attention to the issue.
Meanwhile, the loads have started moving. The initial delays have been a mere four times what they were supposed to be. And more and more oil companies are casting long, lascivious looks at the scenic Highway 12 as the cheapest route to oil sands.
Laughy and other opponents say they’re not giving up, and I wish them well. If you’ve driven along that route, it’s hard to imagine that you’d want to see it become the Oil Sands Thru-Way. But if all you’re worried about is commerce, then think about this: Tourism brought more than $166 million into north-central Idaho in 2005, the state’s last report on travel spending.
“(Harwood) said something like, ‘Anytime an individual can stop our commerce from flowing, it’s not a good thing,’ ” Laughy said. “I agree with you, Mr. Harwood, completely. These megaloads are stopping our commerce.”
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com.
The draw of the unknowable 
ZagChuck on March 23 at 7:59 a.m.
Like so many of your articles, this doesn’t deserve to be filled as “news.”
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but your opinion isn’t news, no matter how big your ego is.
Articles such as these, limited on fact but chocking with opinion, that has earned you and so many of you peers the title of Cheerleaders formerly known as journalists.
Perhaps you could take a refresher course in impartiality, and maybe a little time spent discovering the difference between fact and opinion would help.
Did they teach you nothing in school?
notrich on March 23 at 8:16 a.m.
Just the fact that the megaloads went along hwy 12 caused tourism. Check the news articles about it. So obviously that arguement is wrong. Now that those same loads went through, they are now a part of history, which ADDS to these folks business.
Just exactly like Lewis and Clark going through the area.
What I have against the loads is going through during winter, when accidents are more likely.
IMO 5% is not enough. A load that strains the resources should cover not only all the expenses, but also the wear and tear on the road system.
An example that I propose for mining and oil exploration is anyone wishing to fight a business action and the business owners BOTH put up bonds to cover their actions. The anti-action group to cover the business and government’s cost of their fight; while the business covers the possible damages and wear on public resources, etc. So for BP that would have been $ billions? For the Pebble mine in Alaska the bond would have to be big enough to cover the loss of salmon in two rivers for 15 years? For the megaloads, the bond would have to cover the costs of: road repairs, police, road delays, loss of business, emergency delays, etc.
So why SHOULDN’T people fighting an action have to pay for: business losses encountered, time delays, the transport company having to store the loads on trailers at the port, forcing a delay which meant hauling during winter, etc.???
To me it is reasonable and if the transport company causes proveable problems; then they should be able to recoup from the bond. Same for the business.
Your argument that a poor person can’t afford the fee/bond to fight an action seems weak to me. They should be just as responsible as the company for their actions.
philipgregory on March 23 at 9:17 a.m.
Zagchuck, you have YOUR opinion.
But to me, a story about a house bill that makes it harder for concerned citizens to file lawsuits regarding use of PUBLIC roads qualifies as NEWS worthy to publish.
ZagChuck on March 23 at 11:02 a.m.
I’m not saying an article on the subject shouldn’t be done, I’m just saying this isn’t an article on the subject, this is an opinion piece, written from one perspective, with cherry picked facts and an obvious purpose.
“But Harwood and his fellow Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives ain’t all that concerned, really, about Laughy, who owns a business along U.S. Highway 12 with his wife. Or about the other businesses and residents along that route who object to what have become known as the megaloads.”
“Anyone with a few billion dollars who wants to clog up Highway 12, the gorgeous scenic route that follows the same path Lewis and Clark took back in the days before frivolous lawsuits tied up everyone’s commerce.”
Pure hyperbole; not fact. This is just the opinion of a cheerleader who calls himself a journalist.
It can be called SPIN, or PROPAGANDA; but it’s not NEWS.
It certainly isn’t journalism.
oneanddone on March 23 at 11:33 a.m.
Hey ZagChuck, talk about your one-sided opinion, plus propaganda. You should run for the Idaho legislature. You’d fit right in. Of course, you might have to hone your tax-evading, double-talk, lying, selfish, bentover for business skills - but I’m guessing they’re already pretty sharp.
ZagChuck on March 23 at 12:12 p.m.
Numb&dumb,
I know facts are confusing for you liberals, and they’re not your friends. They tend to get in the way of making a cogent argument or backing up a ludicrous opinion. That is why, in typical liberal fashion, you have to personally attack me, rather than addressing the issue.
For your sake, I’ll use smaller words. It won’t change the FACTS, but it may make them easier for you to follow.
This piece was posted as “ news.” but it is an opinion piece. I posted two of the several paragraphs that make the point clear. It’s pure propaganda and spin, written in a one sided manner, with a specific purpose and specific political bent, with cherry picked quotes to support that specific political bent and purpose.
That’s not journalism, nor is it reporting. It’s called SPIN and PROPAGANDA.
Please show me where I’m wrong.
You are correct in that I am writing my opinion, but even then I used facts to base my logical position. The big difference is; I’m not trying to convince people I’m a journalist reporting the news.
Again, the cheerleaders formerly known as journalists continue to make attempts to shape the news to fit into their view of how things should be, rather than reporting the issue and allowing people to decide for themselves.
This is typical of liberals, who think free speech only matters when it’s someone who agrees with them.
hwygirl on March 24 at 7:49 p.m.
zagchuck i agree with your first point that this article isn’t news it’s opinion but i also think that the bill presented by Hardwood was equally based on opinion and not on facts.
many of the things he said to get the bill passed were not facts. here are two examples:
he said the oil companies posted a $250mil bond - the truth is they posted a $10mil bond.
he said the loads traveled from 11am -4:30am - the truth is they traveled from 10am-5:30am
if liberal and conservative citizens bicker back and forth with each other instead of looking into the facts of this issue we risk weakening our democracy.
my opinion is that these loads are a bad idea for highway 12 because they disrupt normal commerce (ITD had to ask 7 trucking companies to keep off the road for Conoco’s 2nd shipment in order to avoid major delays), they unfairly inconvenience locals (many people travel highway 12 in the very early hours of the morning in order to make dr. appointments, planes, etc in spokane), and they exponentially increase the wear and tear on highway 12 - both the road surface and the bridges. ultimately the tax payers will be footing the bill for these loads - why are our elected representatives trying to keep us from using the courts when our legislative and executive branches aren’t listening to local concerns?
straighttalk on March 30 at 7:27 a.m.
Now this is interesting:
MISSOULA, Mont. — Missoula County commissioners have voted to file a lawsuit seeking to stop an oil company from moving oversized loads of refinery equipment across Montana to Canada.
The commission on Tuesday unanimously approved the lawsuit against the Montana Department of Transportation.
Commissioners say the state agency did not sufficiently analyze the effects of moving hundreds of oversized loads through the state.
Deputy county attorney James McCubbin says the lawsuit will be filed in Missoula district court as early as this week.
The Missoulian reports the county will be joined by the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Montana Environmental Information Center as plaintiffs.
Imperial Oil, an ExxonMobil Corp. subsidiary, plans to transport 207 “megaloads” through Idaho and Montana to the oil-sand fields of Alberta
Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/03/30/1585747/missoula-county-approves-megaloads.html#ixzz1I5nkdKBg
straighttalk on March 30 at 7:27 a.m.
Now this is interesting:
MISSOULA, Mont. — Missoula County commissioners have voted to file a lawsuit seeking to stop an oil company from moving oversized loads of refinery equipment across Montana to Canada.
The commission on Tuesday unanimously approved the lawsuit against the Montana Department of Transportation.
Commissioners say the state agency did not sufficiently analyze the effects of moving hundreds of oversized loads through the state.
Deputy county attorney James McCubbin says the lawsuit will be filed in Missoula district court as early as this week.
The Missoulian reports the county will be joined by the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Montana Environmental Information Center as plaintiffs.
Imperial Oil, an ExxonMobil Corp. subsidiary, plans to transport 207 “megaloads” through Idaho and Montana to the oil-sand fields of Alberta
Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/03/30/1585747/missoula-county-approves-megaloads.html#ixzz1I5nkdKBg
straighttalk on March 30 at 7:28 a.m.
Excuse the double post — once was all that was intended or necessary.