MyGoleta.com
Why does Goleta city council spend so much tax money to take away homeowner rights?
Below is a link to an audio from Goleta council meeting on June 16, 2003 (Agenda Item 10, tape 5). In this audio Goleta city council member Jonny Wallis, in a discussion with the City Attorney, suggests that the City can go ahead with policies that are almost certainly illegal*. may not be legal (because they are discriminatory are likely to be struck down in a lawsuit), because the city can always back down in they are sued. The City Attorney Julie Biggs warns councilwoman Jonny Wallis that putting the dispersal element in the plan could lead to legal expenses for tax payers, and Jonny Wallis asks how they could minimize the legal expenses if the get caught. The Goleta city council is trying to include a dispersal element in the general plan.
*This element says that if your neighbor improves their house, first then you can't. This item is based on laws that govern liquor and adult stores, and does NOT apply to residential homes. As such the council would be creating an illegal policy.
Basically, Jonny Wallis seems to clearly be saying: Let's do what we want, even if we know it is not legal at the outset, and if we later when we get sued we will change our minds. This letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) seems to confirm the actions of the council may conflict with state law. This could mean more of Goleta citizens tax money wasted.
Listen to the audio clip (.wav file).
Transcript:
Here is a transcript of a section of the city council meeting of June 16, 2003 evening session item 10. Here the legality of the dispersal element is discussed. Note: It is not possible to include all of the body language that comes in the audio within the text, so listening is encouraged to 'hear the body language'. It sounds clearly that Jonny Wallis's mind is made up and she simply wants to know how much trouble the council can get in by doing what she wants.
Also note, listening to the section preceding this dialog, much care goes into careful dialog and attempted legal sounding justification with statements for example like "we've drafted this in a way that we believe meets the... uhh constitutional requirements" One can easily be mislead by such statements - that attempt to make this all sound above board - if the complete story is not considered. The fact that they question the legality clearly shows they are aware that there is a good chance they will have to spend tax payer money in a legal battle.
[Jonny Wallis] "I, I'd like to continue that, my, my question o__ on this issue, I hear you, but what is the difference, for example, eh__, hy__, hypothetically, in putting the dispersal element in, and taking it out for example" [and at this point you can almost hear her start to say 'if there is a lawsuit', but instead you hear] "if there's ah a___, if the HCD review is non-supportive, vs. leaving it out and putting it in, if they don't object? What is the distinction in doing so?"
[City attorney Julie Biggs responds, and her response seemingly indicates that she fully expects legal challenge on this issue, because she clearly starts with a similar phrase, but then corrects herself] "The distinction is that by not putting it in, if there's going to be legal chall___, if there's legal challenge to be made, on that issue, clearly, it'll be forthcoming if you include it. If you excluded it there may still be legal challenge on other aspects of the ordinances, but that obviously will not be their focus."
[Jonny Wallis] "Julie also on the issue of legal challenge, let us say that, again, totally hypothetically, we uhh did put the dispersal element in, that we were challenged, in law, in, in court," [At this point you can clearly hear Jonny almost say what]. In this context would be what prevents us from doing this? Yet again she stutters and apparently corrects her misstep] "again, what, why couldn’t we simply consider taking that out at that time?"
[Now city attorney Julie Biggs warns her of the legal costs of such action, including paying the legal expenses of the plantiffs] "You, you probably could. On the other hand the nature of the challenge may be that you will not only incur legal expenses on your side, but may be obligated for expenses on the other. Also..."
[Here Jonny Wallis cuts off the attorney] "but uhh wouldn't those expenses relate to the length of keeping such a suit open? For example if we received a complaint, took the thing out, if necessary, umm then that would in and of itself control our legal expenses on the issue.
[Attorney mumbles then] "Sure. Obviously you're not obligated to go to trial. "
[Jonny cuts her off and Injects] "Correct."
[Attorney Julie again] "Umm and certainly you could, you could operate that way."
[Jonny sighs heavily and responds] "OK, thank you."
In summary, Council member Jonny Wallis seems only interested in 'how much it will cost if we get sued', and we are going to do what we want to see if we can get away with it. Following this brief section you will hear the majority of council members weigh-in in favor of the dispersal element (Jean Blois opposed, but was out numbered).