OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – The Oklahoma Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over the Access Oklahoma turnpike expansion plan between Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and Pike Off, a bunch that opposes the mission.
OTA desires the Supreme Court to approve a $5 billion, 15-year-long turnpike expansion.
In their argument immediately, the lawyer for OTA mentioned the legislature gave the authority broad discretion when constructing toll roads.
“This authority is the sole entity to construct turnpikes at such locations and along such routes as it deems to be feasible and economically sound,” mentioned the lawyer, to the Supreme Court justices.
All 9 justices have been current to listen to the arguments.
They interacted with every lawyer by asking them questions, difficult their positions.
Robert Norman, the lawyer for Pike Off, mentioned there is no such thing as a technique to learn the tea leaves after immediately’s listening to.
“Some of the justices asked questions where maybe one question you’re going, hurrah, they’re with us,” mentioned Norman. “And then the next question, you’re going, well, maybe not.”
Norman disagreed with the OTA lawyer when it got here to financing and the place the turnpike might be constructed.
He argued {that a} 1989 legislation certain the 4 main turnpikes to at least one bond, which means this new bond proposal shouldn’t be legally allowed.
“They have to bundle all four of these turnpikes together,” mentioned Norman. “And the OTA has tried to backtrack and say, ‘well, we only had to do that the first time.’ But the statute doesn’t say we only had to do that the first time.”
At one level, one of many justices requested if Norman’s argument was appropriate, what would that imply for the 2016 bond that was accepted for an OKC metro expansion to the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
Norman mentioned that it’s too late as a result of the bonds have been issued and the roads have been laid.
“Once the court makes the judgment that the bonds are validated and those bonds are going out, you can’t go back and retrieve the bonds or try to say that we revoke the bonds or something like that,” mentioned Norman.
As for this new expansion mission, the world in query is close to Norman, and course of the place the expansion is allowed was one other main argument.
OTA’s lawyer mentioned that the legislation permits for “easterly” expansion. It argues that “easterly” can imply constructing the turnpike from Tuttle to Purcell and then up into Norman.
The lawyer for Pike Off mentioned the legislature made particular language for a motive and disagrees that Purcell, within the context of OTA’s proposed expansion, can’t be thought-about “easterly.” He mentioned that the legislation will should be amended.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a date scheduled for when a call can be made.
publish credit score to Source link