NIMBYs invalidate my newly purchased Divvy membership

I'd been waiting to get my Divvy membership until stations popped up near me. I work in the suburbs, not downtown, so I mainly want a membership in order to more easily get to and from the train on those days when I don't feel like riding 22 miles roundtrip to work.

I finally bought my membership on Monday when I saw new stations opening up closer and closer to me. I was thrilled earlier today to read on Divvy's Twitter feed that a station is going up very close to me, on Addison and Pine Grove.

And then I read this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-divvy-bike-sharing-lawsuit-2....

I'm furious. What can I (we) do to counter these NIMBY types? I think it's entirely unfair that a couple of cranky people can ruin bikeshare for my neighborhood.

Views: 5227

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 9:04am

Not really a surprise.  This does not mean the lawsuit is over.  It only means that the plaintiff/petitioner did not meet the elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction. 

Permalink Reply by Sean Phalen on August 23, 2013 at 9:12am

This reporter () that writes for the Chicago daily law bulletin tweeted that the city said it would cost $5000 to move the station.

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on August 23, 2013 at 9:27am

Thanks for the link!

Oh, and here is that fellow complaining on the Divvy page: https://www.facebook.com/DivvyBikes/posts/500657503337595

Edit: Haha, he deleted his comment.  Silly man.

Sean Phalen said:

This reporter () that writes for the Chicago daily law bulletin tweeted that the city said it would cost $5000 to move the station.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 23, 2013 at 9:28am

Often true.

AM 9.5 said:

When you represent yourself pro se you have a fool for a client.
 
Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

Also notable that the attorney president of the condominium association filed the lawsuit in the name of a corporation pro se which means no attorney filed the lawsuit.  Corporations need attorneys to file lawsuits.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 9:29am

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Duppie on August 23, 2013 at 9:42am

Thanks for the explanation and detail!

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on August 23, 2013 at 9:44am

One element to all injunctions is irreparable harm.  That is a showing that without the injunction the party seeking relief would be harmed and this harm could not be remedied.   Thus, for example, one can get an injunction (with other cause) to keep the City from cutting down an old tree.   One has a lot more trouble getting an injunction to keep the city from freezing a bank account.   If you win, you can get the money (plus compensation for the time that you didn't have control of the money).   I don't see what the irreparable harm would be?  If they win, the Divvy station will be moved and all will be returned to the status quo. 

Mind you lots of other reasons also would go against a successful injunction....

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 23, 2013 at 10:25am

So because the suit was really really vague in what damages were done the judge dismissed it. But they still can bring up more specifics to justify there case at a later date. Thats my understanding. It just sucks that because this "lawyer" didn't have his crap together he will be costing the city more time and money listening to his "case".

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 12:00pm

No, it is not dismissed.  The petition for temporary restraining order was denied.  jAnd it had nothing to do with damages.  The court found that they had not stated a right to relief.  That is not the same as damages.


Davo said:

So because the suit was really really vague in what damages were done the judge dismissed it. But they still can bring up more specifics to justify there case at a later date. Thats my understanding. It just sucks that because this "lawyer" didn't have his crap together he will be costing the city more time and money listening to his "case".

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 23, 2013 at 12:07pm

K thanks, the legal world is weird. still seems like the plaintiff is costing the city a lot of time and money because their lawyer was really vague in their statements. I wonder if they are collecting fees from the condo association for this or if he is doing it pro bono, can use this as tax write offs.

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on August 23, 2013 at 2:03pm

I don't know how much "money" it costs the city, as the city has a legal department that handles these kinds of claims. It did look like the city had brought some big posters with large photos of the station and intersection to the hearing (they weren't used). Those obviously cost some money. And the lawsuit does of course cost the city time.

Davo said:

K thanks, the legal world is weird. still seems like the plaintiff is costing the city a lot of time and money because their lawyer was really vague in their statements. I wonder if they are collecting fees from the condo association for this or if he is doing it pro bono, can use this as tax write offs.

Permalink Reply by pat 5.5mi on September 13, 2013 at 9:42am

I live right next to the Addison/Pine Grove Divvy station and my condo association just sent us this email. They claim that CDOT may move/remove the station if there is enough support.  As they say, please email Sean Wiedel at sean.wiedel@cityofchicago.org regarding your position on the issue.  I am emailing Sean regarding my stance in favor of the station where it stands.

Hello!

I was asked to circulate to all residents.

Listed below is an email received from one of our residents who attended the meeting held September 11, 2013 where the Divvy Bike Rack issue was on the agenda.  Contact the City liaison listed at the end of the email to voice your concern/position on this issue.

 

"Hi All,

Apologies for disrupting your email solitude, but just a quick rundown of events.

 

Apparently the Alderman attended an event Monday at a neighboring building, and consensus was, he basically told our block "Too bad, I'm not moving it". Forgive me if you are a pro-Divvy bike-racker and I am sending you this mail in error. Delete now...

 

Alderman was  not present at this meeting but CDOT was. They are willing to relocate if there is enough support. I am sending a mail offering three alternate suggestions within a block, (all of them on sidewalks). I know we've been living with it almost a month now and are maybe getting used to it, but still feel it would be nice to see it removed for parking, safety, and general annoyance reasons.

 

The liason is Sean Wiedel

sean.wiedel@cityofchicago.org

 

Thanks for contributing your voice to this issue. Apologies to anyone in disagreement with this issue receiving this email.

Dave T 3542B Pine Grove"

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service