Comments by

Vanity press

No. That's your focus.
— February 27, 2015 3:47 p.m.

Media spin and legal drama merge in Briggs battle

downtownrealist: Yes, sorry, I typed the wrong date. It was indeed an insider "rally," aka the City Council hearing on Feb **24** - Item 331 on the docket. As you explain, the purpose of the hearing was to confirm receipt of legally required **supportive** signed, individual parcel-number-linked petitions from property owners who would pay 50(+1)% of the calculated total assessments, the only way the Council can approve the next step, a legal, binding vote on ballots mailed to every parcel owner in the proposed assessment district. The State law is silent on whether it is allowed and proper for the City to sign the petition. When the law is silent, you can be sure Goldsmith will start talking shit. Goldsmith (and oddly, Briggs) made the excuse for the City petitioning itself, to make up the difference between 41% non-support and the 50(+1)% green light to vote to assess, by claiming that they only want to give the owners the chance to vote. That is nonsense! Why even have a law requiring approval of 50(+1)% of property owners if, when there isn't 50(+1)%, if the City plays games and forces the issue to a vote no matter what? And of course the City and DSDP wouldn't want every property owner to know about the required support by petition: they want to suppress early opposition and understanding of the details. It's much quieter, cleaner, and safer if only insiders know about the petition. To treat Goldsmith and Briggs with their own medicine, consider that anyone who does not vote "NO" on the final ballot is essentially voting "yes," and watch your mail for your ballot and vote "**NO**".
— February 26, 2015 6:54 p.m.

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!