Home Depot law suit finally settled
The lawsuit brought against the City of Miami by Coconut Grove neighbors of the Grove Gate Home Depot has been settled out of court. Though not named in the original suit, Home Depot was granted permission to enter the suit in support of the City of Miami. The lawsuit was filed in October 2006 to contest permits the City issued to Home Depot enabling it to open its Grove Gate store in May 2007.
While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the City, the neighbors, and Home Depot are confident that the resolution best serves the interests of everyone and will bring about tangible and lasting results for the community.
The Grove First and Coconut Grove residents are very proud that their efforts resulted in the store being scaled back by nearly 50%, the trees were saved and Milam's the supermarket remains. In fact, there are plans to expand Milam's. (Originally Home Depot threatened to do away with Milam's if they didn't get their way).
Coconut Grove has not been severely impacted by the scaled down, non-contractor store (no wood cutting or garden center) and traffic has been kept to a minimum. The neighbors remain vigilant over the store and feel the Grove has been saved from having another SW 8th Street disaster.
Rest assured that the plaintiffs received no compensation, monetary or otherwise, as a result of this settlement.
Never doubt that a group of committed citizens can't make a difference. We should all be proud of our neighbors for standing up for what they believed in.
While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the City, the neighbors, and Home Depot are confident that the resolution best serves the interests of everyone and will bring about tangible and lasting results for the community.
The Grove First and Coconut Grove residents are very proud that their efforts resulted in the store being scaled back by nearly 50%, the trees were saved and Milam's the supermarket remains. In fact, there are plans to expand Milam's. (Originally Home Depot threatened to do away with Milam's if they didn't get their way).
Coconut Grove has not been severely impacted by the scaled down, non-contractor store (no wood cutting or garden center) and traffic has been kept to a minimum. The neighbors remain vigilant over the store and feel the Grove has been saved from having another SW 8th Street disaster.
Rest assured that the plaintiffs received no compensation, monetary or otherwise, as a result of this settlement.
Never doubt that a group of committed citizens can't make a difference. We should all be proud of our neighbors for standing up for what they believed in.
posted by Tom Falco at 2:59 PM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
21 Comments:
As major supporters of the anti-home depot movement, we would like to know why the terms are confidential. Shouldn't the details be available to all the people that spent their time helping with this movement? I realize that it was only a few people were involved in the actual lawsuit, but it seems strange that the terms are not made public. What gives? We displayed signs, stood in protest and argued with neighbors and now its over and we don't know why? Can someone share some insight with me that I'm not seeing right now?
I have the same question? Why confidential???
Louis
The lawsuit was filed by private citizens at considerable personal risk (legal bills) and settled to their satisfaction, albeit confidentially. Anyone who wanted to join the suit, share the risk and spend the countless hours in depositions and meetings with lawyers was certainly welcome to do so. Anyone who did not has zero right to complain. Further, this was a private suit and the settlement terms, whatever they might be, apply only to the participants. Anybody who still has an ax to grind can take whatever legal action they wish. Just because you spent time and effort in this very worthwhile community effort does not automatically give you the right to the terms of the result of someone else's separate initiatives, just as they will have no right to the confidential terms of whatever (successful) actions you might initiate.
This suit was brought by 3 residents who put themselves out there and not The Grove First. When you are in suit against the second largest corporation in America you play by their rules. I assume they don't want other cities to know their negotiation points. As the press release says you will see tangible and lasting results. No compensation, monetary or otherwise, was received by the plaintiffs. Be assured, the Grove has benefited from this litigation. If terms of the settlement are released, the settlement is void.
No compensation? What kind of settlement is that?
Tony,
Maybe it is a settlement in the best interests of the community. Let us know how your suit goes.
Anonymous at 8:42 - Good point. If the plaintiffs received something of value in the best interest of the community (an agreement of some sort), then that will be compensation enough..... btw, my suit is going well. Traditional navy, loose fit.
I understand that these people put forth maximum effort to achieve this settlement, and I applaud their effort. There are some cases, though, where the settlement is made with all people affected. The one that come to mind is the Engle Trust. The tobacco company was sued by a group, but the pay out will be to all Floridians that developed illness due to cigarette smoking. Also, the payout for the fire fees is now going to everyone that was affected, not the original plaintiffs. With that line of reasoning, wasn't the suit about the effect the zoning had on our entire community, or just how it affected these three people.
My thinking is that Home Depot and/or the city are the ones that want it kept quiet.
Let's not confuse this with a class action suit.
Okay, I'm hearing "this settlement is for the good of the community", but I don't know what the settlement is. If I am of this community and the settlement is for the community, then, yes, I am part of that settlement. Is it safe to assume that these 3 people have just spoken for our community when they accepted these terms? If something should happen to these three people, who would enforce the settlement?
I'm really not trying to make trouble, but something feels strange about this whole thing. Can someone straighten me out without being too demeaning?
Why does anyone really care? If these people hadnt done anything, or if there were no results, you would all go on with your lives without thinking twice about it.
Anon at 10:29,
Say I'm walking my dog and he does his thing. I scoop it up "for the good of the community". Post your phone number and I'll give you a call to let you know since you are "of this community". Nothing "strange" or "demeaning" about that, hey?
To 4:15:
That's a funny comment since many people will scoop up the dog poo in non-biodegradable bags and then deposit it on the corner of my property. If I had my say, I would ask them to let the dog poo on my grass so it can degrade naturally instead of having the entire community look at the bag of poo. But that is a decision that was made for me without my knowledge or consent. In the end, I have to pick up their dog's poo in the stupid plastic bag. So, I guess when you pick up the dog poo, it would be nice for you to let me know what you are doing with the poo instead of assuming the entire neighborhood would love to look at it all week out on the corner.
Still, you have not answered my question in an intelligent and meaningful way without trying to demean it. To me, this means that something is not being said.
If someone could answer me in a nice way without talking about giving me their dog poo, that would be nice. The question is, why are we not allowed to know the outcome of this settlement? When someone says "We can't tell you what it is, but REST ASSURRED, it is good for you" I hear "Trust us." Sorry, but the last time someone said "Trust me", we ended up in a senseless war with our children being killed. Or, more locally, someone decided that black Kiosks were what we needed. That blunder had no public input. What if the settlement is to build more Kiosks? Shouldn't we have a say in that?
And why is it that people can't answer a simple question on this blog without slinging mud (or dog poo}. I have had two demeaning comments, but no answer.
And to 3:46
These 3 outstanding citizens filed a lawsuit that represented a movement that involved many members of this community. Since we backed these people through our efforts at city meetings and protest rallies, we want to know what happened. It's like reading a book, then losing the book before the end, and no one willing to tell you how the book ended. But "rest assured" it ended the way you would have wanted it to.
We pay waaaaay too much in taxes in Coconut Grove to sit idly by and let others make decisions for us. I would be happy to let everyone do whatever they wanted around here if someone would pay my $14000 tax bill. Anyone that thinks what happens in my community is none of my business, please leave an address so that I know where to forward my tax bill this year.
From what I understand, and I am not a lawyer, this lawsuit was not filed by any group, rather it was by three private individuals. I am also skeptical and rarely accept "trust me". But what is the outcome? I am very curious as to what these agreements would be. But the proof is in the pudding...Does the Grove have a giant "big box" with all the associated problems? No it doesn't. To jeapordize that by disclosing "mandated" tems of a legal settlement could put all gains at risk. Would you like the disclosure and the Big Box?
One more time in short sentences...
This was a suit by PRIVATE individuals.
It was settled to their satisfaction.
Your taxes contributed nothing to their efforts.
The settlement terms are none of your business.
If you have a complaint, file your own suit.
Does this mean that straggling Say No to Home Depot signs can finally come off people's lawns?
Those signs did more for brand awareness/recognition than any marketing strategy that HD could've deployed.
Next time we want to protest a corporate initiative, lets not blanket the neighborhood with their logo.
But I agree that if litigants got the community involved in "their" fight, than they should at least somehow formalize the end of that fight - even if full disclosure is not possible.
I dont know, like, throw a party.
Ditto on removing the signs from the neighborhood. Not only are they silly but they are also an eyesore.
Len Scinto:
If most people really consider the signs an eyesore then maybe I will take mine down...However, I consider mine a "Badge Of Honor" that symbolizes community spirit and cooperation and am proud to have been part of this.
Yea,
great job everyone. Not knowing when to accept a compromise has left us with the same crappy eyesore. Kmart or Home depot, walgreens no walgreens, does not matter. We could have a beautiful, Strang designed, new plaza. Good job Grove First.
Len Scinto:
Anonymous 12:22. If you so strongly support forfeiture of your zoning rights why didn't you speak up at any of the multiple meetings? Why should our community subsidize the second largest complany in America by rolling over so they can profit? If they want a Bix Box, Strang design or not, Let them spend thier $$$ and buy property properly zoned for that. Big Box store, Wal-Mart, Home Depots, etc. have been shown to benefit from subsidies not available to small locally owned businesses which results in ultimate harm to the local community, transferance of money out of the local area and mostly overseas as cheap products, and a diminishment of the quality of life in the area surrounding these places. Put a dress on a Pig and its still a Pig.
Post a Comment
<< Home