Federal defendants say Igloo preservation group's argument without merit
Preservation Pittsburgh's comparison of the planned demolition of the Civic Arena to other projects such as the disposal of contaminated water from Three Mile Island fails because there is no significant federal activity connected to the demolition project, lawyers for the federal government argue in their latest bid to have the lawsuit thrown out.
The group trying to save the arena sued seven local and federal officials and is asking U.S. District Judge David Cercone to block the Sports & Exhibition Authority's project on the grounds that the Federal Highway Administration first needs to conduct an environmental assessment of the project.
"Plaintiff's only claim of federal involvement is the mere exchange of correspondence between the SEA and FHWA and reference to SEA's unsuccessful attempts to secure federal funding," the government says in its response to the group's argument that the federal government is involved in the project.
Cercone has scheduled a hearing on Sept. 13 on Preservation Pittsburgh's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.