mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is certainly related to the "main question" -
> can SMART enforce a contract that says that the
> way they want to interpret it? But it's not what
> the 10/20 action was about - denying a preliminary
> injunction because there's a workaround for the
> immediate issue (the cars that aren't at
> Schellville yet) doesn't imply any particular
> answer regarding the contract itself. I wouldn't
> be a bit surprised if STB eventually does go along
> with SMART, but they have to think on it a bit
> more to work out the precedents that could be
> established.

Then you and I must he reading completely different rulings.

> Really, it's like the oil train debacles. The
> refineries want to add capacity to handle bigger
> oil trains (most can already handle some cars,
> just not 100s); they argue interstate commerce;
> but it isn't, it's a local impact issue (direct
> effect) that in California expands due to CEQA to
> cover a wider area alongside the likely
> transportation routes (cumulative effect). Some
> local agencies ignore all of that (there are ways
> to do that in CEQA; just be prepared to defend it
> in court) because they want the jobs and tax
> revenues (improvements increase property value,
> which increases taxes). Others decide they're
> willing to forego it (Benicia and SLO, recently;
> don't worry, they'll be sued for saying "No" too)
> for environmental impact reasons. Whatever SMART's
> reasons are for their part of this mess (NWP isn't
> blameless, circumstantially), they can easily play
> it in the second category.

It's not at all like it.

This dipute involves the language in the contract that was agreed upon by both parties when SMART granted NWP use of their property. The contract prohibits the storage of hazardous materials, which is what NWP is doing at Schellville. The Board cited it in their decision, and further ruled that NWP had not been "harmed" by SMART's actions to deny additional cars.