More Comment on the Schwab Comments to the Press

Isn't it odd that all the times the case has been heard or in the court house, that the Judge didn't kick the case out as being unfounded. A plaintive in the case could not find a lawyer to take a case pro bono if the Lawyer didn't think there was a chance, and in this case the Lawyer would be at fault if it is a frivolous case, as they are obligated to advise a client on the validity of filing a case from the onset.

The Public Naming of one of the citizens bringing suit, and the "Search" for others indicates the disdain for individuals who desire the City to listen to their concerns, and to manage public business in a professional and legal process. The name calling and the lack of comprehending that the issue is not only the old OAC plan, but the methods and workings of CITY HALL, demonstrates a defensiveness and an attempt to misdirect attention away from those whose actions are being questioned in the suit.

So, my read is that the article is an attempt of the City Manager, and therefor the City and the City Council to intimidate any other citizens which may find themselves outraged by mismanagement and improper actions by the City Government. Trying to find out who else is in the "Group", is not relative is there is no attempt to intimidate, or file counter suit. It could only be to intimidate future plaintiffs or persons desiring to hold the City Responsible for Proper Governance.

It is clear there was a problem or there would have been no negotiation. It is also clear there is substantial changes to the OAC and yet, we have no plan. What we have is a piece of property the RDA has purchased. The purchases themselves are questionable. What we have is no plan as previously described. If there is no plan then there can no longer be a Environmental Impact Report.

However, what we do have is evidence that the City, City Staff, City Manager, the Developer, and possibly various persons in the Realty Business have violated Good Governance Practices. They may have perhaps gone beyond the veil of legality and transgressed into criminal conduct. This does not go away if the OAC is discontinued. This poor governance is the suit. This is where the value is, even if the OAC area reverts to nature. The City NEEDS to improve its Management. It that costs the citizens $20,000.00 that is money well spent.

Go Forth David and Fight the Giant.