Indiana sues county over I-69 noise ordinance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Transportation is suing the commissioners of a southern Indiana county, saying they have no authority to limit construction of the Interstate 69 extension near Bloomington with an ordinance that restricts overnight noise.

The lawsuit filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis says the Monroe County ordinance limiting noise between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is hindering the project that's behind schedule and where some work goes on overnight to catch up.

Contractors already are bound by noise restrictions under their contracts, INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield told The Indianapolis Star. The ordinance approved June 20 has caused delays and it's difficult to say when new stretches of the freeway near Bloomington might open to traffic, he said.

"Certainly, we won't be able to put out an updated estimate until this matter is resolved," Wingfield said.

The agency's complaint filed Friday says "at least one INDOT contractor has threatened to alter its work schedule and cease work during certain hours in reaction to ... the ordinance."

INDOT alleges the ordinance violates Indiana's Home Rule Act, which prevents a county from imposing burdens on the agency or regulating matters that fall in INDOT's purview. INDOT is asking for a temporary restraining order barring the ordinance. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

A message seeking comment was left for Monroe County attorney Dave Schilling.

Contractors currently are working on the fourth section of the extension that eventually will link Indianapolis and Evansville. The section stretches from Greene County to Bloomington and goes near the homes of some of the project's most strident opponents.

Thomas Tokarski, who has helped file legal challenges to stop the entire I-69 extension, said he and others often called the sheriff to complain about the nighttime noise before the ordinance went into effect. He said INDOT's request for a restraining order was another example of INDOT bullying him and his neighbors.

"It's simply not acceptable," he said. "It's a complete lack of consideration for the lives of people who live out here. You would not believe the noise that goes on at night. All night long when they're working like that. You cannot sleep."

Under the ordinance, violators can be fined up to $2,500 for a first offense or up to $7,500 for additional violations.

INDOT has butted heads with Monroe County officials previously over the extension. The Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization approved a local transportation plan in 2012 that omitted 1.75 miles of the project, threatening federal funding, before later narrowly approving its addition to the local plan.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.