after the Greggs anted up the money for preparation of the revised Draft
EIR. The judge's time constraint ruling was redundant because it was
mandated by law anyway. The reality is that the Greggs vehemently
rejected paying the costs of the new report and accepting a new
environmental contractor, but the judge ruled that they must do so before
the project action could move forward. There in no conceivable way this
judicial ruling could be considered a "success."
The Greggs' intractability regarding revising the EIR added many
months' delay to the project review process, which they undoubtedly will
once again claim was the city's fault. The second ruling in September
came as a result of what was basically the city's request to throw out
the Greggs' entire lawsuit against the city. To have done this would have
been a very unusual action by a judge, although he did throw out three of
the 11 "causes of action" in the suit (News-Press, Sept.18).
The judge did not rule on the validity or the likelihood of success of
any of the Greggs' claims, only that the case could proceed to trial. It
should be noted that the Sept. 18 News-Press article, "Judge rules for
the Greggs," distorted the significance of the judge's ruling and was a
disservice to the community. For a much more thorough and objective
discussion of the legal issues of both these judicial rulings, please
refer to Marc Stirdivant's outstanding commentary, "It's just barely a
court 'success,"' (Oct. 24).
Beware these recent scare tactics by the Greggs and their supporters.
Oakmont V is wrong, so do not be driven from your opposition by false
claims of Gregg court successes and useless city legal costs. Remember
whose bullying legal maneuvers are causing the city these legal costs --
it is those who stand to make tens of millions of dollars if they can
trample down the opposition to Oakmont V.