Legal Services Involved In Controversial Dallas Environmental Lawsuit
In 1998, Legal Services of North Texas (LSNT) represented a Dallas group
that successfully sued to overturn an environmental permit granted to a
local company. As a result of the lawsuit, environmental groups will
likely find it much easier to stall environmental permit applications in
Texas by requesting formal hearings that will cost both the affected companies
and state taxpayers a great deal of money while making it more difficult
for companies to do business in Texas. In winning the lawsuit, LSNT
convinced a Texas appeals court to overrule the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission’s denial of a formal hearing in a case involving
a company seeking a permit to recycle commercial waste into industrial
fuel. By requiring a formal hearing on the permit, opponents will
find it easier to tie up the application in red tape because “formal hearings”
usually involve the presentation of evidence in a manner similar to courtroom
proceedings that is extremely costly in time and money even if the final
decision ends up being the same. Apart from the impact that the decision
will have on Texas businesses, it is disturbing that LSNT has apparently
chosen to become an environmentalist law firm rather than trying to meet
the everyday legal needs of the poor in the Dallas area.
See Randy Lee Loftis, “Environmental Group Favored in Court
Ruling,” Dallas Morning News, September 9, 1998
Legal Aid Prevents Laredo From Keeping Loiterers Out Of Historic Plaza
Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA), funded by federal taxpayer dollars, represented
a group of day laborers who sued the City of Laredo in federal court claiming
that the city violated their constitutional rights by refusing to allow
them to gather on the historic San Agustin Plaza to seek employment.
TRLA successfully convinced the federal judge hearing the case that the
laborers’ rights were violated. The city had sought to require people
soliciting work on the plaza to receive permission from the City Council
beforehand. But this permit requirement was held unconstitutional.
Having made the plaza “safe” for large groups of loiterering laborers,
TRLA handed out leaflets explaining the decision: “Nobody can arrest
you. Nobody can bother you -- not even the city [sic] of Laredo.”
It does not appear that TRLA has passed out any leaflets yet explaining
the adverse impact that this decision will undoubtedly have on other users
of the public plaza, however.
See “Laborers Win Court Ruling,” Houston Chronicle, February
12, 1999
Legal Services Files Suit On Behalf of Disgrunted Ex-County Auditor
In a bizarre and protracted case, Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA) sued
the Refugio County government, as well as several current and former county
judges on behalf of a county auditor who was not reappointed due to concerns
over the quality of his work and possible political bias. The auditor,
Ernest Guerrero, filed suit in state court in 1994 alleging that the failure
to reappoint him was based on illegal age and national origin as discrimination,
as well as “political” discrimination in violation of federal law.
In a series of decisions, the state trial and appellate courts overruled
his various allegations in several stages and ultimately found in 1998
that his case was completely without merit. The involvement of legal
aid in this case is highly questionable, given that it seems unlikely that
a longtime county auditor, such as Mr. Guerrero, would have a low enough
level of income and assets to qualify for legal aid assistance. As
a result, it is conceivable that the local politics at the heart of this
dispute made TRLA, noted for political-based lawyering, want to get involved.
See Lewis v. Guerrero, 978 S.W. 2d 689 (Tex. App. 13th Dist.
1998)
Legal Aid Attempts To Thwart San Antonio Public Housing Reform
Bexar County Legal Aid (BCLA), which receives taxpayer money from the
Legal Services Corporation, filed suit against the San Antonio Housing
Authority (SAHA) attempting to stop the demolition of the Victoria Courts
public-housing complex to make way for a mixed-income housing development
on the site. Such mixed-income developments have been built across
the country in an attempt to provide safer, more stable neighborhoods for
the poor. In June 1999, at the time the suit was filed, over half
of the residents of Victoria Courts had already been moved out to other
housing and the other half were scheduled to be out by August. But
BCLA filed suit anyway, alleging that the planned demolition violated federal
law because SAHA “failed to work with” Victoria Courts tenants in the redevelopment
process. The federal judge hearing the case declined to issue an
injunction against the demolition, for the logical reasons that no demolition
had yet been scheduled and that BCLA’s clients in the suit had not even
received eviction notices yet. Unfortunately for SAHA, it is still
possible for BCLA to resume the lawsuit once these two conditions change.
It is disturbing to see legal aid trying to derail an innovative program
designed to better the lives of the very poor that legal services claims
to represent.
See Maro Robbins, “Bid To Halt Victoria Courts Razing Fails,”
San Antonio Express-News, June 11, 1999