Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Judge denies Sunroad's free-speech argument
In defense of a $100,000 "donation"...
The alleged pay-to-play tactics used by Sunroad Enterprises to obtain city-owned land at no cost for their Kearny Mesa mixed-use development are not protected by the first amendment.
On Friday, November 15, Superior Court judge Timothy Taylor rejected Sunroad's argument that the two checks, totaling $100,000, that executives gave to then-mayor Bob Filner in exchange for his support of their project was an exercise in free speech.
At the same time, Taylor confirmed that Sunroad and the City of San Diego, both of which were named in the lawsuit from San Diegans for Open Government, were equally culpable.
"..the case is not one 'arising from' protected activity; rather, it arises from the City's failure to follow the requirements of law before transferring the easements in question. The protected petitioning activity upon which the moving papers focus is merely incidental to the claims pled (violations of the San Diego City Charter, the San Diego Municipal Code ("SDMC"), and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Free speech was at the crux of Sunroad's legal defense. In August, attorneys for Sunroad and the city began crafting their arguments over the legality of the donations. Attorneys for Sunroad dismissed the lawsuit, claiming it violated anti-SLAPP statutes meant to protect free-speech and participation in government. At the same time, as mentioned by the Reader in a September 18 article, the city has gone so far as to call the lawsuit "a sham."
"The project obviously is not a sale of city property," stated deputy city attorney Andrea Contreras in the city's response to the lawsuit. "Even if [San Diegans for Open Government's] 'quid-pro-quo' allegations were true, Sunroad's funds were returned, so no 'sale' could have taken place. The lawsuit is a sham."
With the anti-SLAPP argument out of the way, the city and Sunroad must address the pay-to-play allegations head-on. For Sunroad, that means defending a back-room deal wherein executives wrote checks for two mayor-backed project; for the city council, it means justifying a give-away to a developer with absolutely no public benefit.
The next hearing, a management conference, will be held in Department 72 at 1:30pm on December 20.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Judge denies Sunroad's free-speech argument
In defense of a $100,000 "donation"...
Judge denies Sunroad's free-speech argument
In defense of a $100,000 "donation"...
The alleged pay-to-play tactics used by Sunroad Enterprises to obtain city-owned land at no cost for their Kearny Mesa mixed-use development are not protected by the first amendment.
On Friday, November 15, Superior Court judge Timothy Taylor rejected Sunroad's argument that the two checks, totaling $100,000, that executives gave to then-mayor Bob Filner in exchange for his support of their project was an exercise in free speech.
At the same time, Taylor confirmed that Sunroad and the City of San Diego, both of which were named in the lawsuit from San Diegans for Open Government, were equally culpable.
"..the case is not one 'arising from' protected activity; rather, it arises from the City's failure to follow the requirements of law before transferring the easements in question. The protected petitioning activity upon which the moving papers focus is merely incidental to the claims pled (violations of the San Diego City Charter, the San Diego Municipal Code ("SDMC"), and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Free speech was at the crux of Sunroad's legal defense. In August, attorneys for Sunroad and the city began crafting their arguments over the legality of the donations. Attorneys for Sunroad dismissed the lawsuit, claiming it violated anti-SLAPP statutes meant to protect free-speech and participation in government. At the same time, as mentioned by the Reader in a September 18 article, the city has gone so far as to call the lawsuit "a sham."
"The project obviously is not a sale of city property," stated deputy city attorney Andrea Contreras in the city's response to the lawsuit. "Even if [San Diegans for Open Government's] 'quid-pro-quo' allegations were true, Sunroad's funds were returned, so no 'sale' could have taken place. The lawsuit is a sham."
With the anti-SLAPP argument out of the way, the city and Sunroad must address the pay-to-play allegations head-on. For Sunroad, that means defending a back-room deal wherein executives wrote checks for two mayor-backed project; for the city council, it means justifying a give-away to a developer with absolutely no public benefit.
The next hearing, a management conference, will be held in Department 72 at 1:30pm on December 20.
Comments