Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Recently I posted about an attack by the Maryland legislature on the environmental clinic at University of Maryland. Now the environmental clinic at Tulane is under similar fire. Here's a quote from a recent Times-Picayune article (shared with the environmental clinicians by Tulane Environmental Law Clinic Director Adam Babich) :
As I recently e-mailed Adam, I guess it's good when your opponents are really clear that they want to take you out. It does seem that this bill doesn't have much political traction, particularly in light of the Gulf Oil Spill:
Sens. John Alario, D-Westwego, A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, and Nick Gautreaux, D-Abbeville, noted that their districts include fishers and others who have been affected by industry in the past or could have claims in the wake of the oil spill, though many of those clients likely could hire private-sector attorneys on contingency. Alario and Gautreaux said they oppose the bill. Gautreaux said, "Maybe the attorney general should hire Tulane law students to sue BP. If they can scare the chemical association this bad, then they can scare BP, TransOcean and Halliburton."
Crowe said he "has a real dilemma" and is generally reticent about a proposal that could potentially limit his constituents' access to adequate counsel.
Commerce Committee Chairwoman Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, cited "the poor people in my district" who have, with the help of the Tulane clinic, beaten back attempts to locate landfills in eastern New Orleans.
The closest to a "yes" vote the LCA has gotten so far is from Sen. Mike Michot, R-Lafayette, who said he's going to listen to both sides. Michot said he's heard from constituents who were represented by Tulane students. But, he said, "There has to be a balance. ... I'm going to listen to both sides."
Jamie Baker Roskie
UPDATE: The legislature effectively killed the bill through total lack of support. Read the story here.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances