On another uncomfortably warm day I slowly strolled to Superior Court, managing to avoid Nathan Nayman, who left an invisible trail behind him as he scurried to City Hall, cell phone pressed to his ear (he returned to the court). This second hearing before Judge Quidachay on the “Hail Mary” Prop I lawsuit farce was to focus on the status report filed by the City Attorney’s office on July 13.
His Honor opened with a quip apparently parroting the plaintiffs’ pleading, that the City is only moving because a judge is involved, to which Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass countered that of the eight pieces of legislation noted in the status report, only three had not undergone economic impact analysis. He noted that one of those remaining three was Board President Aaron Peskin’s gross receipts tax, which President Peskin publicly announced was on hold and probably will not be pursued for the November election.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, James R. Sutton, accompanied by his sidekick Ion B. Meyn, claimed that the City and in particular the Board of Supervisors (especially President Peskin) do not have the discretion to determine what legislation should be reviewed, and that the City is not following the 30-day-rule of performing economic analyses. Additionally, Sutton asserted that no extension has been granted on any of the pieces of pending legislation.
The Dark Prince of Campaign Finance (a title given to Sutton by activist Marc Salomon in 2004) then rambled through the eight pieces of pending legislation and noted the number of months each awaited economic analysis. Sutton then proclaimed that of 100 to 150 pieces of legislation a month, only one gets reviewed, and that constituted prima facie evidence that the City is not following Prop I.
Mr. Snodgrass countered appropriately noting that, although he could not confirm the 100-150 pieces of legislation a month, most of the matters before the Board are resolutions and commendations, which do not have any economic impact.
On declaratory relief, Judge Quidachay sided with the plaintiffs and nullified Board Rule 6.25 in its entirety.
REACTIONS TO THE DECISION
Before I delve into what appears to be a flawed decision based on the facts including a quick analysis of the technically flawed Order prepared by Sutton, let’s look at the Chronicle’s framing of the hearing. Becky Bowman’s short, 465-word July 21 take on Judge Quidachay’s decision touted that it “was a victory for business associations” and quoted the notorious Nathan Nayman with “It’s a great victory” as corroborating evidence, then summarized her scanty analysis by quoting the Chamber’s Jim Lazarus claiming that “the gist of the lawsuit was to get the controller moving, and that happened.”
As I have previously reported, the ever-vigilant Ed Harrington and the world-acclaimed Harvey Rose have been analyzing legislation for longer than I can remember, so Lazarus’ false claim that Mr. Harrington isn’t performing his duty is completely disingenuous. And the Chronicle’s “report” shows where that paper stands: for the rich and infamous and NOT for the people of the City.
The Sentinel’s Pat Murphy (is he funded by “Hail Mary” Prop I lawsuit plaintiff BOMA?) on Friday headlined “City to Appeal Power of the People” in a vain attempt to claim that the City Attorney’s Office plans to usurp the will of the voters. But let’s remember the crucial fact here — an ordinance CANNOT supercede the City Charter, and that’s exactly what Prop I attempts to do.
Prop I is legally flawed and was introduced by Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier as a favor to the rich and infamous as opposed to the will of the voters of her district, who were misled and deceived by the Chamber of Commerce, Nathan Nayman and his Committee on Jobs, the San Francisco Association of Realtors, and SPUR.
Matt Dorsey, Press Secretary to Dennis Herrera, speaking of hearing outcomes in general and about the “Hail Mary” Prop I lawsuit in particular, expressed that “This is one that surprised me.”
Mr. Dorsey was hesitant to describe the potential for a victory on appeal, but in a candid conversation I had with Board President Aaron Peskin mid-day Friday, President Peskin told me Dennis Herrera is quite confident the lawsuit will be overturned on appeal.
President Peskin discussed at length what he described as an “idiotic lawsuit” that he views as a “blunder” by Nathan Nayman and his Committee on Jobs. Mr. Peskin sees the “Hail Mary” lawsuit as “much to do about nothing” and noted that he has never invoked Board Rule 6.25.
With the ever-present push to make businesses pay their fair share and the recent victories for the people of the City on Universal Healthcare and the enforcement of the minimum wage, Mr. Peskin sees the “Hail Mary” lawsuit as a “pathetic expression of their [the plaintiffs] frustration” and termed the suit as an “expensive way to whine.”
Tomorrow, the analysis of Jim Sutton’s technically flawed Order adopted by Judge Quidachay and of the “Hail Mary” Prop I lawsuit itself.
