| 1/28/99
- Anti-SLAPP Suit Legislation -- The Oregon Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC) will introduce Senate Bill 330 in the
1999 Legislation Session. The purpose of SB 330 is to protect Oregon citizens
from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits).
The legislation is being introduced at the request of Oregon Communities
for a Voice in Annexations (OCVA), the Department of Land Conservation
and Development, a number of elected officials, 1000 Friends of Oregon,
the League of Women Voters, and other citizen advocacy groups around Oregon.
SB 330 (LC 798) was prompted primarily by complaints of retaliation
in the form of lawsuits - or threats of lawsuits - by development interests
against citizens who have spoken out on public policy issues, especially
those related to growth. SLAPP suits have also been used as weapons in
school curricula, consumer protection, environmental and other public policy
debates.
Nine other states have recently passed anti-SLAPP legislation. Citing
Indiana’s anti-SLAPP law, Charlotte Robertson of the Hoosier Environmental
Council said, “The legislature wisely recognized the threat to our first
amendment rights and passed this measure as an emergency act.” Vanderbilt
University’s Freedom Forum feels SLAPPs are one of the most serious threats
to free speech and an open democratic process.
OCVA provided DLCD with written testimony from dozens of its members
documenting what OCVA Chairman Jeff Lamb called “this form of legal and
financial terrorism.” Lamb also said, “the purpose of SLAPPs is to silence
the public through intimidation and the threat of losing one’s home, business,
assets and financial security. Through SB 330, Goal #1 - citizen involvement
- is being protected by the very agency chartered to do just that.”
SB 330 (The Citizen Participation In Government Act of 1999) provides
that “a person is not civilly liable for any statement made by the person
in the course of participating in an administrative, quasi-judicial or
legislative proceeding conducted by a public body.” It also provides for
the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” and other expenses. Source:
January 15, 1999 News Release from Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations,
by Jeff Lamb. |
| May 7, 1998 - Threats
of Lawsuits - The three families who own the proposed
Fred Meyer property ran a large box ad warning Citizens For Florence to
take no further action to oppose this project. This ad/letter recognized
the over-all benigh effects of CFF participation to date, but failed to
specifically thank CFF for preventing Fred Meyer from drowning itself.
(If one were to trust their anomalous water table determination -- a minority
opinion that Fred will be built on a 79 to 82.5 foot maximum water table
-- whereas all the surrounding properties (groundwater levels) are
at 85 feet.)
The Edwards, Alberts, and Genereaux families go
on to chide interests in opposition to Fred Meyer for restraint of competition.
Does my memory betray me? Didn't the Genereaux family try to rally support
from this community to spare them the unreasonable competition of a theater
complex going in at Mr. Sneddon's shopping center? Was I wrong in supporting
Mr. Generaux?
In order to facilitate this project, the City
has stipulated that it no longer cares about risking the certification
of a long-planned adjacent well field (capable of an estimated 4 million
gallons per day, as I recall) and will instead purchase water from Heceta
Water District (probably only capable of delivering an additional million
gallons per day) -- forever. Now, what does any cost per million
gallons times a forever number of days equal, I wonder. And do Florence
citizens appreciate the magnitude of this favor to Fred Meyer?
Insisting that property owners pay their own way
and that property be used in a responsible and legal manner is not "taking".
Most of the value of any private property can be attributed to zoning,
a responsible planning authority, and use restrictions. What would be the
value of your home if I was able to dump used appliances on my lot next
door? (That's exactly what's been blamed for Fred Meyer's high water table,
by the way.) What would be the value of ANY property in this city if an
industry were allowed to destroy our water supply by injecting pollution
(that's DEQ's term for what Fred Meyer proposes) into the ground? How many
people would travel Highway 101 and visit Florence if it were one solid
uncontrolled strip development with no "viewsheds"? Why do the corporate
winners, builders, and developers themselves often endup living well out
of town or in gated communities with the most rigid property use and decor
restrictions on this planet? Craig Daniels. |
May 14, 1998 - SLAPP Suit Testimony
Before State Advisory Committee - Public testimony submitted to the
Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, (1175 Court Street, N.E., Salem,
97310): I am a practicing attorney in Florence, Oregon. I participate in
many lawsuits, primarily as plaintiff’s counsel. For 17 years, until 1995,
I served as city attorney for Dunes City. In that capacity, I attended
many public hearings. It was my perception that the city council almost
always found citizen input helpful. On many occasions, I can recall problems
being brought to the attention of the city council by citizens testifying
during hearings. On many occasions, I suspected that developers were trying
to conceal these problems from the city council. This invaluable citizen
input allowed the City, its council and its residents to take steps to
address the problems.
In our small town of Florence, I have had occasion to observe what I
see to be a very disturbing trend. Recently, it has become almost routine
for developers who are being opposed by local citizens to threaten lawsuits.
As an attorney, I am well aware that the average citizen, looking at hiring
someone like me to defend them against a frivolous lawsuit, faces the possibility
of paying thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Certainly, such a prospect
must have an intimidating impact on a citizen’s willingness to appear and
testify at public hearings.
There is a well established precedent for declaring testimony at public
meetings to be absolutely privileged. Testimony at trial is absolutely
privileged. Reports to enforcement agencies, the Oregon State Bar, etc.
are absolutely privileged. Privileged means that the person cannot be sued
for the statements they have made. In the last two years, I am aware of
at least five instances where citizens opposing developers have been threatened
with lawsuits. On at least two occasions, I have offered pro bono (free)
defense in order to enable these citizens to continue participating in
the public process, if they so chose. I must confess that those offers
were not entirely altruistic. The threat of litigation was so patently
ridiculous and obviously meant for the purpose of intimidation, that I
was confident I could obtain dismissal (from a court). Further, I expected
to successfully prosecute the offending developer in a subsequent lawsuit
for abuse of process, and obtain a handsome legal fee for my efforts.
I am not sure that my confidence was sufficient in either instance to
enable the citizen to continue their participation. But I think these stories
give some context to the problems you are attempting to address in your
draft legislation. I support that legislation whole heartedly. D. Ronald
Gerber, Attorney at Law. |
