Talk:High Plains Reader

message: The editor of the High Plains Reader, John Strand, was sued by the Cass County Commission for his part in the "Save the Jail" group that opposed the destruction of the brownstone Cass County Jail and Sheriff's Residence, among the last of the original brownstone buildings in the United States.  The group wanted to turn the buildings into a youth center or some similar project, but the county said the buildings were unfit for any use and that renovation would cost more than rebuilding.  The group believed the destruction of the buildings and the building of new properties was a single project, the budget of which exceeded the county's funds and therefore had to be put to a vote under state law.
New Paragraph The county insisted the demolition was a separate project and pointed to the fact that the architectural plans were not drawn up and the company hired to draw the blueprints was not retained.
New Paragraph The Save the Jail group sought the injunction because the county refused to wait for an answer to the question of whether or not the project had to be put to a public vote.  Their request was granted.
New Paragraph Knowing the injunction was coming, the county instructed demolition crews to do as much damage as possible before the judge issued the order, thus destroying the historic site.  Strand waited six days before dropping the injunction while surveying the damage and determining the rubble was not salvageable.
New Paragraph The county sued for $39,000 in a bid to recover the money spent on the construction workers during the six days of delay.  Speculation on the part of most Strand supporters is that the county's real goal is not to recover damages, but to punish Strand for his outspoken stance against the demolition project.  This is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
New Paragraph Among those who testified at the trial were former governor Ed Schafer, former attorney general Heidi Heitkamp, and other notable North Dakotan political figures.
New Paragraph The judge's ruling in the case was to award neither party any damages - an "anti-Solomon" decision of sorts.
New Paragraph The court then ruled less than two weeks later the county's projects were separate, and therefore did not need to be put up for a vote.
New Paragraph Both sides in the case, Strand and the county, say the lawsuit was unnecesary and blame the other for hampering the efforts of each other.  The county said Strand should have dropped the injunction as soon as he knew the buildings were already half-destroyed.  Strand said the county should have simply waited a few days for a decision to come about over whether the project needed a vote or not.
New Paragraph No new building plans have been proposed for the now-empty lots by Cass County.
===Discussion About Content Deletion===
*This section has no relevance to the entry "High Plains Reader." If it can stand on its own, the article should be split. If it cannot, and it does not appear so, then this section should be entirely deleted. --Malecasta 17:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Section: Cass County v. Strand 

message: *This section has no relevance to the entry "High Plains Reader." If it can stand on its own, the article should be split. If it cannot, and it does not appear so, then this section should be entirely deleted. --Malecasta 17:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion About Content Deletion