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