Friday, June 17, 2005

Taxpayer's League Disintegrates



At 6:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would they withdraw the lawsuit due to public pressure? What kind of gutless unprincipled life do you lead? I have no knowledge of the merits of the League's position, but kudos to the League for taking a stand and not cowering to angry rich people and clueless coddling news media.

At 9:07 AM, Blogger Fred said...

There is some merit to the League's complaints, as best I can tell. However, one should resort to a lawsuit as a last resort, not start off with one. Why wait until a project is ready to break ground before making an issue out of a couple developments that most people, including the Board and membership of the Taxpayer's League, are in favor of?

As far as public pressure: If other attempts to remedy the situation had failed, then more people might have supported the lawsuit, again as a last resort. I get the impression the majority of rank and file members of the League oppose the suit, although I have no way of proving it. As I've mentioned, the County Board of Realtors has withdrawn its membership in the League and the Eureka Chamber of Commerce seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to the lawsuit, just to mention the few groups related to, or involved with the Taxpayer's League that I know of.

As it stands now, it looks like the League will be having a special meeting, Monday, to determine how to proceed. Seems to me they should have done that some time ago.

At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"one should resort to a lawsuit as a last resort, not start off with one."

Hogwash. If you're convinced talking won't do any good, don't waste your time. If, as you say, their lawsuit has some merit, then they are in the clear. Talking first? That's simply shallow PR for what you know will end up in court.

At 9:06 AM, Blogger Fred said...

That's a troubling attitude, to me. Suggesting that one go straight to court on something is the kind of attitude that's cost so much to so many people in this country- an ambulance chasers creed, if you will.

At 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But we're not talking about chasing ambulances. We're talking about a case with "some merit." (Your words.) Don't associate a case that has "some merit" with money-grubbing opportunists. Guilt by inaccurate association?

The ensuing media drivel that came out after the lawsuit was announced was quite annoying. Instead of debating the merits of the case, let's all talk about how the plaintiff didn't go through the motions of talking nice before the litigation.

People were surprised by the lawsuit? OK, so the plaintiffs didn't follow political protocol. What's done is done. Get over it and deal with the real issues instead of blankly invalidating the "some merit" that exists in the case.

At 8:46 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Yes, a case with some merit that is being handled by an ambulance chaser. Ambulance Chaser if only because he takes a case only hoping to cash in on a settlement.

I realize that sort of arrangement can be helpful for someone who lacks the funds on their own to pursue litigation. I still don't think much of lawyers who try to make a mountain out of a molehill and hope for a settlement or a large award.

You are correct, the media did seem to blow over the specific complaint, only referring to some California code that was supposedly violated. But, I get the impression that that's what the crux of the Leagues' complaint was- a violation of conflict of interest laws.

Seems to me they didn't have any real problems with the developments in question, they just didn't like the fact the developers were on the Advisory Board, a legitimate concern. But, complaint seems to be more along the line of procedural or legal error than of any harm done.

I'll admit I'm not in the loop, but I haven't heard anyone from the League say that the proposed developments are wrong because they should have gone to some other contractors or developers for a different project which would have benefitted the City more than the projects that have already been approved.

I'm sure there's someone, somewhere that believes the properties in question should have been used for some other purpose. I haven't heard from them, though. So until then, with the exception of possible violation of conflict of interest laws, no harm- no foul.


Post a Comment

<< Home