Our view: Don't tie up courts with Skyline scrum

A lawsuit accusing the city of Duluth of violating state environmental laws by allowing development that blocks scenic views got tossed out of court this week.

Good.

But also bad.

That's because the judge dismissed the suit without prejudice, meaning it can be amended and filed again, something the plaintiff, Duluth preservationist Eric Ringsred, already is planning to do.

Ringsred could save himself the bother, save the court's time, and save a private homeowner the potential of massive, undeserved legal expenses by letting the case go -- at least for now, while the city is taking action that could calm his concerns, shared by many, that views are being allowed to be lost.

The city of Duluth is strengthening zoning laws that last year allowed the construction of a new home on Skyline Parkway, including a solid, view-obliterating roadside fence. That's the same home that prompted Ringsred's suit (he also cited the Beacon Pointe condominium project near the Lakewalk). The city's half-century-old zoning code is being updated and rewritten with the promise of streamlining development decisions and encouraging more responsible development. The new code is to include an overlay for Skyline Parkway, setting new standards for setbacks and other building limitations, especially on the lower side of the scenic drive.

"The whole idea is to protect views," Duluth Land Use Supervisor Cindy Petkac told the News Tribune Opinion page in October.

The whole point of Ringsred's suit.

Granted, that update isn't happening as quickly as many of us would like. The undertaking isn't expected to conclude until spring or early summer, at the soonest.

Ringsred's legal action should be all the motivation the city needs to get the work done sooner rather than later. If not, city officials can recall how helpless they were in the face of a public uproar over the Skyline house. Plans met setback, height, frontage and other requirements, including lot size. A minimum of five acres was required. The house was planned on nearly 13 acres that had been privately purchased and were privately owned. No part of the project had to even be reviewed by the city -- not even the impenetrable roadside fence because it's not taller than 6 feet. The city only was asked to -- and obligated to -- issue building permits.

If Ringsred refiles his suit, he'll include, at the judge's urging, the homeowner as another defendant.

"I hate going after individuals," Ringsred said.

Well, he doesn't have to. He could end his quest and his suit, realizing the results might include demolition and a family left homeless and facing legal debts. He could work with the city instead in completing its revised zoning code, preventing, possibly, the violations of more vistas.

Persisting with litigation, especially after the fact, hardly seems the preferred alternative here.