A lawsuit over whether plans for a Holy Cross grain terminal were properly shared with the public will continue despite a judge on Friday denying a request to halt recent public hearings related to the project. It turns out.
Judge Jennifer Medley agreed with attorneys for the Port of New Orleans in a request by Holy Cross residents to halt a public meeting on whether the Port of New Orleans board should issue up to $100 million in bonds. Rejected.
If approved, part of the money would go toward infrastructure costs for the Arabo Street pier, where Canada-based Sunrise Foods International plans to open a controversial grain terminal by the summer. .
The meeting was held on a Monday, so it was no surprise that the injunction was denied. That was the only option, attorney Chris Ralston, who served as outside counsel for the port, told the judge.
“As you know, failure to show irreparable injury is fatal to a preliminary injunction,” Ralston said. “From the information hearings that Plaintiffs may have attended and did attend, I have yet to hear of any injury, much less irreparable injury.”
But because a vote on the bond issue is still pending, the lawsuit accusing the port of violating state law regarding public notice of public meetings must proceed, said Holy Cross Neighborhood Association attorney Jeffrey Wittenbrick.・Mr. Senior stated. We will immediately file a response to this lawsuit and seek dismissal of the lawsuit. The judge will then make another summons.
Mr. Wittenbrick’s son, Jeffrey Wittenbrick Jr., a Holy Cross homeowner who is leading the fight to block the grain terminal, said the issue at the heart of the lawsuit is whether port officials followed the law and made a reasonable effort before Monday’s meeting. The question is whether the relevant notice was given. Before another meeting the project got approval.
He questioned the chronology of events. Port officials published notice of the meeting in the Times-Picayune. The Advocate, Saturday, December 21st. In the notice, residents are directed to contact the law firm Foley & Judell for more information. However, when the residents visited the law office during Christmas week, they were told that there were no lawyers available to consult with them as they were out on vacation.
The meeting was then scheduled for a Monday between the Christmas and New Year holidays, before residents learned more details about the grain terminal and other projects supported by the bond.
“I think this whole case is an attempt to subvert a public meeting and a public record,” Wittenbrick told the judge.
Port officials have repeatedly said that staff followed the law both at Monday’s meeting required by the Internal Revenue Service before issuing the bond, and at previous meetings. The board has already given preliminary approval for the bond issue, and final approval is expected at the board’s Jan. 30 meeting, despite the lawsuit.
Ralston said residents were never denied any information and that requests for information should have been made in writing directly to the port rather than to the law firm named in the notice.
Ms. Medley said she had no choice but to deny the plaintiffs’ initial request because the hearing had already taken place.
“I was born and raised here, not far from here, so I understand how the people feel, but it’s our job to explain it to the people because we know the law,” Medley said.
Still, Holy Cross residents will continue with their lawsuit. Wittenbrick said only the courts will decide whether the port followed the law.
“The case is still ongoing,” he said after the hearing. “Because the commission is not elected or accountable to anyone other than the governor, only the courts can hold the commission accountable.”
