Developer Loses Round In Bid For Shops Near River Judge Guts Lawsuit Contending Roskelley Shouldn’T Hear Case

A Spokane Valley developer made his pitch Tuesday to build within 200 feet of the Spokane River.

But Raymond Hanson already had lost a big skirmish in what could be a long battle to build his strip mall the way it’s drawn on paper. That was evident from the fact that Commissioner John Roskelley presided over the hearing.

Hanson had sued the county, and Roskelley specifically, over the case. Last week, visiting Stevens County Judge Rebecca Baker threw out major portions of the suit, which could have forced Roskelley to excuse himself from hearing the case.

Baker ruled Hanson has presented no evidence that Roskelley had defamed Hanson’s character, as the suit claimed. On a second allegation, Baker ruled the county had not missed any deadlines for hearing Hanson’s request. Hanson alleged that Roskelley had worked behind the scenes to delay the matter.

Baker has not yet ruled on whether Roskelley inappropriately withheld public documents that Hanson had requested.

Following Baker’s decision, Roskelley claimed in a press release that the suit was not about whether he and the county have acted properly. Rather, he contends, it was intended solely to give Hanson’s project better odds for approval by removing a commissioner with strong environmental leanings.

“I expect to see the development community use this tactic much more frequently in the future to prevent elected officials from participating in quasi-judicial matters,” Roskelley wrote.

Hanson’s attorney, Jerry Trunkenbolz, did not return a telephone message Tuesday.

Hanson, who attended Tuesday’s hearing but did not testify, said Trunkenbolz has advised him not to comment on the matter before Baker makes her final ruling. Trunkenbolz had no such concerns in October, when he issued a press release announcing the suit.

Hanson’s proposed Market Pointe II development would include at least six stores and a restaurant, for a total of about 114,000 square feet. It would be wedged between the Centennial Trail and Indiana Avenue, just west of Sullivan Road. Across Indiana is the Spokane Valley Mall and Hanson’s Market Pointe I development. Across Sullivan is more land Hanson wants to develop into stores.

To build the project, Hanson must clear a number of regulatory hurdles, the first of which is a change in the property’s shoreline designation, from “pastoral” to “urban.” Getting that change is the only way Hanson can hope to win approval to build closer than 200 feet to the river. He could, however, change his plans and still build on the property, abiding by the 200-foot setback.

Normally, construction is not allowed within 250 feet of the Spokane River. County shorelines administrator John Nunnery granted Hanson an administrative exemption to that rule, allowing him to build as close as 200 feet. Nunnery lacks the authority to allow further encroachments to the shorelines buffer.

Nunnery has recommended commissioners approve Hanson’s request. State officials oppose the change.

Roskelley generally is viewed by developers as hostile to their projects. He made no secret of his opposition to Hanson’s request, writing in a memo to county staff that it would go against efforts to protect the shoreline.

By contrast, Commissioner Phil Harris has criticized the county’s shoreline buffers as too restrictive. On Tuesday, he proposed a resolution granting Hanson’s request.

Roskelley and Commissioner Kate McCaslin voted to delay a decision for a week.

The worst Hanson could have expected if Roskelley were removed from the case is a 1-1 vote. While that’s not a win, “Mr. Hanson’s perception may be that it wasn’t rejected, either, so it should proceed to the Department of Ecology,” the next step in getting development approval, said county attorney Timothy Durkin.

With Roskelley voting, the vote could go either way. On such matters, McCaslin is far less predictable than her colleagues.

Roskelley and Hanson have quarreled before.

Roskelley was critical of Hanson for calling a Spokane Valley Mall drainage area a park and trying to get the county to take control of - and liability for - the land. A squabble over that land almost brought mall construction to a halt in 1996.

Roskelley was outspoken again when Hanson asked far more than the county wanted to spend on an easement across a narrow strip of land. The easement was needed for an access road to the Mirabeau Point community center.

Roskelley later voted against reappointing Hanson to the Airport Board, citing “unpleasant dealings” over the easement issue. He was outvoted by Harris and McCaslin.

Roskelley called Hanson’s lawsuit a “SLAPP,” which stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

That term was coined by two University of Denver researchers in a book they wrote about suits filed against citizens who speak out against the questionable actions of government agencies or corporations.

The term is widely used by First Amendment advocates and environmental groups, who contend such suits are not based on merit, and are intended only to squelch criticism.

In their book, law professor George Pring and sociologist Penelope Canan list six causes of action that commonly are used in SLAPPs. Among them is defamation of character, which was cited in Hanson’s suit against Roskelley.

In a brief telephone interview Tuesday, Canan said Hanson’s lawsuit has all the markings of a SLAPP, except that it was filed against a public official rather than a private citizen.