Summary
entering permanent injunction against Goshen and InDOT, and dismissing federal defendants for lack of a ripe claim
Summary of this case from Old Town Neighborhood Association v. KauffmanOpinion
CASE NO. 1:02-cv-1505-DFH
August 12, 2003
ENTRY REGARDING TERMS OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
The court is issuing today a final judgment and permanent injunction in this matter. This entry explains the court's reasons for the terms of that final judgment and permanent injunction. The reader's familiarity with this court's Entry on Preliminary Injunction of November 15, 2002, 2002 WL 31741477, and the Seventh Circuit's opinion of June 19, 2003, 333 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2003), is presumed.
After issuance of the Seventh Circuit's opinion, but before issuance of that court's mandate, defendant Mayor Kauffman offered an undertaking suggested by the Seventh Circuit intended to ensure that the Third Street Project in Goshen remains a completely local project. Plaintiffs objected that the offered undertaking was not sufficient to accomplish the intended purpose. On an expedited basis, the court invited further briefing and scheduled a hearing on August 7, 2003 to consider the terms of a permanent injunction and other matters before the court. The Indiana Department of Transportation has indicated that it is also willing to be bound by a permanent injunction. The federal defendants contend they should not be enjoined in this case. They have indicated that Goshen's undertaking to keep the Third Street Project entirely local will not, in the Seventh Circuit's words, "disrupt any federal plans that take precedence under the Supremacy Clause" of the United States Constitution. See Old Town Neighborhood Ass'n v. Kauffman, 333 F.3d at 736.
I. Terms of the Injunction
The permanent injunction will allow Goshen to complete the construction of the Third Street Project that was halted by this court's preliminary injunction. The injunction will also require Goshen to comply with several conditions designed to ensure that the Third Street Project remains a completely local project.
The terms of the court's permanent injunction are based upon several foundation points. First, the injunction should prevent any "swap" under which the widening and improvement of Third Street would be carried out with local money, after which the improved Third Street would become U.S. Highway 33 or some other part of the National Highway System after irreparable damage to historically sensitive areas had already been completed. Such a swap would amount to deliberate evasion of the federal laws at issue here. See Old Town Neighborhood Ass'n, 333 F.3d at 736 (noting that swap would be a "two-step" that "would subvert the federal laws").
Second, such a swap need not involve ownership of the roadways in question but could be carried out by changing their control or designation. The permanent injunction therefore is written to enjoin the Goshen and Indiana defendants from seeking or accepting any redesignation of the improved Third Street as U.S. Highway 33, as an alternate route for U.S. Highway 33, or as any other part of the National Highway System.
Third, notwithstanding this court's finding of a tacit agreement among Goshen, Indiana and federal officials, the Seventh Circuit's decision finds or assumes that Goshen can still preserve or restore the local character of the Third Street Project. Goshen can do this by undertaking, as it has agreed, not to seek or accept federal funding for the project and not to seek or accept redesignation of Third Street as part of U.S. Highway 33 or any other part of the National Highway System. Accordingly, the injunction allows Goshen to complete the Third Street Project using only local funds and to exercise control over the widened street as the city controls other local streets.
One point of practical controversy is possible signage for the completed Third Street Project. The permanent injunction bars any signs that designate Third Street as U.S. Highway 33, as an alternate route for U.S. Highway 33, or as any other part of the National Highway System. In other words, the injunction is intended to prevent Third Street from being marked or used as if it were part of the National Highway System. So long as the project remains purely local, and so long as it does not suggest that Third Street is a part of the National Highway System, however, Goshen remains free to invite any traffic to use Third Street. The result may well be a substantial increase in traffic on Third Street. This court believes the Seventh Circuit's decision was intended to allow such an increase in traffic on the condition that the project remained purely non-federal. The court's injunction does not regulate the routing or signage for State Road 15, which is not part of the National Highway System.
The injunction here is called "permanent," but there are limits based on the simple fact that things change. The court finds that an injunction ending in a little more than 30 years, on December 31, 2033, should be sufficient to prevent the intended evasions of federal law from bearing any fruit and to deter similar efforts in the future.
The city has pointed out that federal funds are sometimes available for repair and maintenance of local roads, and the city would like to be able to treat the locally-funded Third Street just as it treats other local streets for these purposes. Plaintiffs are understandably concerned about the possibility of using such federal funds as a form of indirect reimbursement for the Third Street Project. The court believes the best practical solution for this issue is to prohibit even the otherwise ordinary use of federal funds for such repair, resurfacing, or maintenance until the end of 2007. After that time, the state and the city may treat Third Street just as the treat other city streets for purposes of any such federal funds.
II. Federal Defendants
The premise of the Seventh Circuit's decision is that no federal funds have been spent on, nor federal approvals given for, the Third Street Project. The evidence shows that $2.5 million in federal funds had indeed been obligated for the Third Street Project in December 2001. The evidence at the August 7th hearing showed that the funds were obligated before compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The evidence at the August 7th hearing also showed that federal approval to obligate the funds before such compliance was contrary at least to policy, if not law, and the obligation should not have occurred.
At the request of Goshen, however, the Federal Highway Administration "de-obligated" the funds in March 2002, and no federal funds have actually been spent on the Third Street Project construction. Based on that premise, the Seventh Circuit took the approach that it is possible for the project to remain a purely local project, so long as no federal reimbursement is provided in the future and so long as the future "swap" that troubled this court can never be carried out. See Old Town Neighborhood Ass'n, 333 F.3d at 736.
Under the Seventh Circuit's reasoning, this court is persuaded that the federal defendants have not yet taken action for such funding or approval that would subject the Third Street Project to the requirements of federal law. Further, the court is satisfied that the injunctive relief against the Goshen and Indiana defendants will be sufficient as a practical matter to ensure that the swap will not be carried out. The permanent injunction orders the Goshen and Indiana defendants not to seek such a swap and to notify the court and plaintiffs immediately if the federal defendants take action to effect such a swap. So long as the Goshen and Indiana defendants comply with the injunction, the evidence shows it is highly unlikely that the Federal Highway Administration would initiate any such action itself. Under these circumstances, the court finds that plaintiffs' claims for relief against the federal defendants are not ripe for adjudication at this time, so those claims are dismissed without prejudice.