Students v. Construction
73 U.Va 17 (2021)
Justice Peterson delivered the the the opinion of the Court.
The natural beauty of the surrounding area is undeniably a calling card of Albemarle County and the University as a whole. That natural beauty functions as a public good, enhancing the quality of life of each and every individual in the city of Charlottesville. And, as the city is incredibly integrated, damage to the natural beauty of one part of the city affects the natural beauty of the whole. This, in turn, affects the denizens of this great county, and, more specifically, this great school. As such, this case is brought by the Students as a whole against the undesirable, unwanted, and interruptive construction being carried out egregiously close to the Law School.
Because I too hate construction—and because I have the power, as an esteemed Justice—I have opted to hear this case and rule on it regardless of jurisdiction, standing, and the merits. It is within my power, as overlord and ruler of this session of the Court of Petty Appeals, to make such decisions. And make them I will.
However, this ruling need not be disdained as one of judicial activism. I will not impact the legitimacy of this court by holding on emotion alone. A sturdy analysis of the facts that I prefer, while discarding some of the more positive aspects of construction brought forward by the defense, is all I need to yield the correct result: The construction must stop.
The construction in question began some time ago. The Students have been incapable of supplying the record with an accurate date; however, both parties have stipulated that it began in late January. This poses the first problem faced by Students.
January is a cold time of year. Commuting is difficult. Even here, in Virginia, as evidenced by our most recent holding, the weather is not always favorable.[1] And yet, knowing this fact full well, what do the Defendants decide to do? Block off sidewalks, adding one measly diagonal crosswalk, as if that will satiate the Student’s needs for quick access to the warmth and pleasure of climate control. This shutting down of the sidewalk, as well as half of the parking lot, is the main complaint brought in this case by the Students, who request an injunction ordering construction to halt, regardless of the stage it is in, and to return the commuting space to its former glory. Students care little for the state of the building under construction and merely request an immediate halt to both the noise and the obstructions resulting from the construction.
Hell, even I, the esteemed Justice, was adversely impacted by this issue. I, a paying (hourly) and fully privileged parking-lot-user, had to wait approximately two minutes whilst staring at a “Stop” sign, held askew by a worker (who would also benefit from this injunction by no longer needing to be outside) in the face, for absolutely no apparent reason. No cars passed. No people walked by. There were no earth-shattering quakes resulting from the nearby construction. The only impact that was felt was the one felt by my harried soul, hungry after a day’s law schooling, in need of a little snacky-snack.
Now, as the Justice, I can overlook some wrongs. If I’m not involved, really, it isn’t a huge problem. At that point, it’s just a matter of law. But this time, the construction made it personal, and I am not a 1L you want to get personal with. People avoid me like the plague. Why? I don’t know. But this Defendant is about to find out.
As such, I hereby order whatever entity has given this construction company permission to conduct its devilish workings upon our most sacred soil to immediately halt all further action and return North Grounds to its former glory. I’m talking full sidewalk, no diagonal crosswalk, and, while we’re at it, a food truck stationed at the corner perpetually.
In addition, I also demand, as compensation for the Students involved—let’s face it, I’m not solely self-interested—an apology letter from both the construction company and the administration, detailing in full not only what they did, but why they are sorry.
Briefly, the construction company argues that it is doing a beneficial service for the good of the community. They state certain things such as “think in the long term,” and “really, it isn’t even that long term, it’ll be gone soon,” and “this is absolutely essential construction for safety reasons.” Their pleas fall on deaf ears. There is no jury in this courtroom, only the esteemed Justice. And this esteemed Justice feels like he deserves a food truck.
The Defendants are ordered to halt all construction, return North Grounds to its former glory, deliver a food truck to the premises and keep it running in perpetuity, and write well-thought apology letters to each and every person they have wronged at the school (all of us).
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
[1] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021).