Fed Court: City Failed To Consider Alternatives To Rail

by Robert Thomas, InverseCondemnation.com

Check it out here. More to follow after a chance to read it.

Our past posts on the Honolulu Rail Project: start here.

Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Honolulutraffic.com v. Federal Transit Admin., No. 11-00307 AW...

III. Conclusion and Remedy
For the reasons set forth above:

A. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) with
respect to: (1) their Section 4(f) claims that Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously
failed to complete reasonable efforts to identify above-ground TCPs prior to
issuing the ROD; (2) Defendants’ failure adequately to consider the Beretania
Street Tunnel alternative prior to eliminating it as imprudent; and (3) Defendants’
failure adequately to consider whether the Project will constructively use Mother
Waldron Park.

B. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 145)
with respect to all other claims raised in said motion.

C. The Court does not enter a final judgment and/or a permanent injunction at
this time. While an injunction may be appropriate in this case, issuance of an
injunction does not automatically follow, nor do the terms of any such injunction. See N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 842 (9th Cir. 2007). Traditional
standards of equity still govern. Id.; Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305
(1982) (sustaining district court’s refusal to enjoin Navy’s violations of Federal
Water Pollution Control Act where the district court, instead, ordered the Navy to
apply for a permit). Even assuming the issuance of an injunction is appropriate, it
must be carefully tailored to provide a balanced remedy. See Idaho Watersheds
Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other
grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

To achieve these ends, the court invites briefing on whether a permanent
injunction and/or a declaratory judgment should issue, and the scope of any such
equitable relief, in order properly to assess the balance of equities between the
parties, as well as where the public interest lies. To afford the parties the
opportunity to brief and argue these issues, concurrently with this Order, the Court
is issuing a Scheduling Order re Remedy

IT IS SO ORDERED