Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Columbia citizens' group sues borough over loan program, tax hike | Local News | lancasteronline.com

A citizens' group in Columbia is suing the borough to end an economic development program and roll back a tax hike that they claim funds the program.

The action, filed by the recently formed Columbia Concerned Citizens Association, claims the borough's Commercial Loan Program, started last year, violates the state constitution and that the borough is violating state law by investing money in the program.

MORE:

https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/columbia-citizens-group-sues-borough-over-loan-program-tax-hike/article_8f391bc8-50c2-11e9-9278-e7c2a062be55.html

15 comments:

  1. Thank God, best wishes and thank you

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reading the document recorded with the Prothonotary and I noticed a few things. The ordinance that created the revolving loan fund does state that entities requesting funds must show they are current on property taxes. It has already been established that Cimarron does not pay taxes until they are already at least 7 months late. So Cimarron would not have been able to obtain this loan until after their taxes were paid. The receipient of the initial loan was Murphy Acquisition Group. Was this new entity created to skirt the tax currency requirement of the ordinance?

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to Cornell Law - a Declaratory Judgment does not require anything to be done.

    A declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before the court.

    Typically, a party will first send a cease and desist letter prior to seeking declaratory judgment from a court.

    A declaratory judgment is often prior to the filing of a lawsuit, and as such, courts are sometimes hesitant to issue declaratory judgments, as they would prefer to see the case develop more before issuing a judgment. Further, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a federal court may only issue a declaratory judgment when there is an actual controversy.

    Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, Section 2201 of the U.S. Code govern declaratory judgments in federal court.

    A declaratory judgment is also called a declaration.
    Enforceability

    A declaratory judgment does not provide for any enforcement, however. In other words, it states the court's authoritative opinion regarding the exact nature of the legal matter without requiring the parties to do anything.

    Above Definition provided by Cornell Law School.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since we are playing amateur attorney this is from Wikipedia:
      A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication[1] by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).[2] The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States,[3] and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity.[4][5] A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

      A declaratory judgment is generally distinguished from an advisory opinion because the latter does not resolve an actual case or controversy. Declaratory judgments can provide legal certainty to each party in a matter when this could resolve or assist in a disagreement. Often an early resolution of legal rights will resolve some or all of the other issues in a matter.

      Delete
  4. Let's put the blame for this lawsuit exactly where it belongs, on the council members. They crafted and passed the ordinance as well as the tax hike. Thank your borough council.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So does this mean all the taxpayers have share in Hinkle's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, this just means Don owns the council and the mayor. They are his puppets.

      Delete
  6. Despite the outcome, this suit should uncover facts and details about how this exactly how this came about that will made public. Hope no one on council did anything they hoped would be kept secret.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The sad thing is, Hinkel’s doesn’t appear to be as popular as it once was. Cafe 301 generally has three, zero, or just one lone soul there. Good luck to a restaurant in the market house. They’ll need it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 301 and hinkles should start taking the ACCESS card, locals will not support them because that is what we mostly have here. Then there are businesses like CHI who cater to the poor with free dental clinics and low cost daycare. I know the elitists of this town want it to be something else, but it's not and you can't have it both ways. What a juxtaposition of businesses within blocks of one another. It just doesn't work.

      Delete
  8. So what money is used by council to defend itself?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I cant wait for tumbleweed and dust and abandonment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already here. That's the reason why change is needed.

      Delete
  10. Probably our tax money

    ReplyDelete