Davidson responds to Potts Street lawsuit

aShortChronicle told readers back in early November 2018 about the lawsuit filed by the Davidson Acquisition Company and Crescent Acquisitions over the Town of Davidson denying water extension to a proposed development project on the border of Davidson and Cornelius at Potts Street.

A piece of the project in its earliest version that fell in Cornelius was withdrawn in 2017 when it became clear it had little support from that town's Board.  Cornelius Commissioner Dave Gilroy was particularly strong in his opposition to it, specifically the part in Davidson which would also impact Cornelius.  After Davidson's decision in August of last year regarding the water extension approval, the entire project seemed to be destined for the trash heap.

Then came the November lawsuit which set the clock ticking for a response from Davidson.  After asking for an extension to respond the Town response was due last Friday, and aShortChronicle obtained a copy on Monday.

Davidson's response was filed by attorneys with Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, a law firm with offices in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Wilmington.  The 15 page response is relatively short and to the point.  The Town claims "governmental immunity" against the Plaintiffs bringing the case.  In the section where the Town responds paragraph by paragraph to the developers' attorneys' allegations, the Town denies all of the points other that what it considers statements of fact, not allegations.  Finally, in the sections responding to the requests for relief, the Town flatly denies all claims.

There was one response from the Town that did surprise aShortChronicle.  That was in regards to Save Davidson.  Readers will remember from the earlier post, it seemed strange the Plaintiffs even mentioned Save Davidson as part of this complaint.

In the Town response to allegations mentioning Save Davidson the Town said "it is admitted upon information and belief that an organization known as Save Davidson, Inc is opposed to development in Davidson."

aShortChronicle checked with Town Attorney, Cindy Reid, to see if she could/would clarify what seemed like a mischaracterization of the Save Davidson organization whose mission statement is "to preserve Davidson's small-town quality of life by educating and engaging citizens in Town governance, community advocacy, and activism."

Unfortunately, on Tuesday Reid only responded with "I apologize that I cannot comment on pending litigation."

aShortChronicle also checked with Save Davidson to get the group's take on this.  Below is a statement provided by the group.

"It is disappointing that the Town's response has misconstrued Save Davidson’s mission of educating, engaging, advocating for, and activating citizens. Of the many development projects in town, there are only a handful that our members (to whom we offer a voice via our platforms) take issue with. Dragging Save Davidson into the discussion is a distraction from the issue of unsuitable development and the impact this high density development would have on our town infrastructure. It also seemingly discounts that many citizens, beyond Save Davidson, have concerns about unsuitable development. It is a sad day for democracy when a citizen-run non-profit group is mentioned in a lawsuit such as this and, equally so, that the Town of Davidson through its response, has fostered the unfounded notion that Save Davidson is ‘anti-development.’"

So there you have it.  Both sides have thrown their first punches in what could be a long fight.  Unfortunately, both sides also seem preoccupied with Save Davidson who isnt even in the ring.  No date is set for further action in the case, and this process is just at the beginning.  It could be a lengthy one, and aShortChronicle will be here covering it each step of the way.