Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Can we pick better hills to die upon? Another failure in an attempt to defend a defenseless position on the part of the City Commission. Notice that those voting to deny the bar's request were Jennings, Golden and Mulvehill - supporters and representatives of the current dais majority. Stanton apparently still is having trouble deciding whether or not to appeal. I always thought it was interesting how the churches in the area were so concerned about a bar open until 5 a.m. What does a church have going on from midnight to 7 a.m.? What would an inside bar have as an impact to a near-by church at those hours of the night? Aside from a moral judgement on the activity by the church, the City Commission and a few neighbors, what business is it of theirs to impinge on a long-standing pattern of business by a bar at this location.
What is the overall strategy in management of the many (160 plus and counting) lawsuits the city is facing? Is there any awareness that it might be good to cut the city's losses in some of these cases? Up until now, it seems to be a policy to blindly follow what might be a series of indefensible actions on the part of the city. The Greater Bay lawsuit is likely the next one to bear bitter fruit, after spending $600,000 in defense of the city's position.
Click title for link. At least the Post is publishing this, I guess they think they have to.