« Police: Keep Your Car Locked at All Times |
| Holy Mudder of God »
Get Details Here(Good coverage by Pacifica Index)
See the Case Report Here
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 05:09 PM in Government & Politics | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Chris, sounds like someone needs a hug!
todd bray |
January 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Chris, how nice to hear from you! Now you tell us that the city as a "client" is entitled to conceal public documents paid for by the public from the public? It's as Alice in Wonderland as the garbage contract. Really stinking garbage.
And have a great day!!
Lionel Emde |
January 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Lionel, you know the police report was classified as attorney/client privilege, so let's not again not give the full story. Todd and Lionel, do you ever have a positive word for anything? If the city lost this suit, you would be blaming the same people you are blaming for winning the suit.
Chris Porter |
January 15, 2013 at 04:30 PM
Great documents. I stand corrected as the Plaintiffs were asking for something outside of the city's Right of Way/Easements.
todd bray |
January 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Peter, I hope the property owners appeal. I think the court erred. I guess that's why the system has more than one level of review.
todd bray |
January 15, 2013 at 08:29 AM
With all due respect to Todd, the court did not agree that the property owners were in the right. The court said that the drainage easements are not the city's and the city is not responsible for maintaining them; they are private property.
And with all due respect to Lionel, I think the law firm did a good job of protecting the city's and the taxpayers' interests.
You can read summary statements from the ruling on Pacifica Index.
You can also read the entire ruling (it's not long) on Pacifica Index.
Peter Loeb |
January 14, 2013 at 06:20 PM
I'm sorry for the homeowners in question but relieved for the city. Thanks, Chris, for keeping us apprised of this issue.
ian butler |
January 14, 2013 at 05:21 PM
BREAKING: This morning the court has ruled in favor of the City of Pacifica's Motion for Summary Judgment. Barring some extraordinary legal maneuvers, it looks like this case is wrapping up in the city's favor.
The article has been updated to reflect the ruling and provides further details.
Pacifica Index |
January 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM
If the city has the right of way through the property for the culverts, it's on the hook to maintain them. On my street, we have a similar type of legal issue. The city owns the right of way of our street. During heavy rain storms, all the runoff water goes right for my driveway. The city has had the area surveyed, and crews, supervisors, and department heads have all been out to look at it and have promised a solution. This has been going on for close to 10 years now. I use sandbags to hold back the flooding, which creates a big lake that straddles three properties. The city has photos of the lake, sandbags, and the damage to my property.
The property owners who have brought this lawsuit are in the right. If the city has the right of way, it is the city's responsibility. The contract attorney is wrong, and so the issue goes to court rather than a reasonable inexpensive fix by city crews. Senior staff would rather waste money on our contract attorney than have our DPW schedule a fix. And people wonder why folks like me think our city manager must go. It would be comical except it's really happening. And if Ritzma gets his job next summer—man, is this kind of thinking by senior staff going to get worse, by a lot.
todd bray |
January 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM
We know that the contract city attorney's office has billed the City of Pacifica for denials of citizens' requests for information under the Public Records Act. Specifically, it has denied requests for information regarding the police outsourcing report done with PUBLIC MONEY and submitted to the City Council. This is something that could have been done through the city clerk, who is already on the public payroll.
Bilk, bilk, bilk. So now we are faced with the "bankrupting of the city" because of a duty allegedly unfulfilled ever before by the city and woe is us?
I don't trust this allegation; far better that we get rid of this contract law firm and city manager, and start anew.
Lionel Emde |
January 13, 2013 at 09:51 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address