RM 02-17-78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Redevelopment Commission Meeting Fri day, February 17, 1978 DISCUSSIONS: Mr. Nimtz: Is there anything further? Ms. Derbeck: Mr. Brownell and Mr. Butler were saying that you thought you could go ahead now with the appraisals, etc. even under the stay? Mr. Nimtz: No, no. Absolutely not. The point is ... if the stay is gra ted, we can't get appraisals, work on relocation, or anything; the whe is stop. Ms. Derbeck: I thought you said the stay was already granted? Mr. Nimtz: A stay has been granted, but only until Monday, February 20. Ms. Derbeck: In other words, if they don't put up a bond, or if a bond is set.... Mr. Wiggins: If Judge Miller sets a bond, and they don't come up with it, then.... Ms. Derbeck: Then the stay wouldn't be in effect. If the stay is not in ffect, do you feel you can do all these things mentioned while the app al is going on? Mr. Robinson: Not necessarily. It would be up to the Judge and what his decision is. He might not require a bond, and put the stay in effect. Mr. Chapleau: If the Judge does not require a bond, and he grants the sta , and makes it known that the stay is in effect, then it is our duty as zttorneys for Redevelopment to interpret the law, and if we feel he is wro g, then we have to make a decision as to whether we are going to direct Redevelopment to proceed anyway. Whether we are going to go to the Court of ppeals or the Supreme Court to overrule the trial court. There are sev ral possibilities, and I can't tell you what we would do. Ms. Derbeck: One would be to direct redevelopment to go ahead anyway; to o to the court of appeals or the Supreme Court and to hear the matter of he stay and for immediate hearing on the stay, or to do nothing and obe the order. Mr.lNimtz: Anything further? Ms. Derbeck: Have you heard anything further about whether those women are really going forward? -11-