Arena Lawsuit

VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#94
#94
As a break in the narrative, let me just share a breaking news story: A girl scout who had set up a cookie sales stand outside a marijuana store in Colorado sold 117 boxes in two hours.

Based on something Carmichael Dave tweeted earlier, looks like at least some of the STOP proponents may have been shopping at said store. ;) :p
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#96
#96
Dale Kasler ‏@dakasler 4m

Hearing over. No ruling yet but city attys confident. Hertz tells media "it's never over til it's over. " ruling sometime next wk

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 4m

STOP attorney says judge made "preliminary adverse findings" to ballot measure.

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 13m

Judge says he's made his tentative opinion clear. But no ruling
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#98
#98
The honorable judge wants to take some extra time in making his carefully considered ruling. But I think it's mostly just neatly crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's. Unlike STOP, he will not be sloppy, bending or breaking rules. In making his very detailed, completely thorough, utterly unassailable ruling, STOP will be shot down in flames, finally disappearing forever in dust bind of history as new Sacramento brightly beckons. Hope remains alive!
 
enigma99a

enigma99a

Bench
#100
#100
Apologies if this has already been posted as just hit the business journal a few minutes ago.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...tical-of-arena-measure-suit.html?ana=e_sac_bn

Judge skeptical of arena measure suit, to rule next week

While he won't issue a ruling until next week, Sacramento Superior Court JudgeTimothy Frawley suggested he didn't see much reason to rule in favor of a suit to put a downtown arena measure on the June ballot.

“You’re asking me to ignore that express statutory requirement,” Frawley said to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Bradley Hertz, regarding the names of those circulating the petitions being omitted from a notice of intent published last June in theSacramento Observer, as required by law...

...Though he didn’t spell out all his tentative rulings, Frawley said he was inclined to rule in favor of the city in at least two of them. However, he rejected a request by Hertz to issue a more final ruling Friday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
annihilator_33

annihilator_33

Starter
#103
#103
Dale Kasler ‏@dakasler 4m
Judge says "volume & magnitude" of petition errors "undermined the integrity of the electoral process."

Dale Kasler ‏@dakasler 3m
Judge also agrees with city's claim that ballot initiative would conflict w/City charter and is "beyond the powers of the voters to adopt."

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 52s
STOP ruling: "the court is not aware of any case where the petition process..was so infected with errors."
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#108
#108
The important part of the ruling:


Page 6 of 14
1. Is it appropriate for this court to review the substantive validity of the proposed ordinance in this proceeding and, if so, is the proposed ordinance invalid because it conflicts with the City Charter?

2. Did the proponents “substantially comply” with the procedural requirements of the elections laws?

The court concludes that it is appropriate to review the substantive validity of the proposed ordinance because the issue was raised as an affirmative defense in Respondent’s Answer and by the Complaint in Intervention, and because a writ of mandate will not issue when it would be useless, ineffective, or of no practical benefit to the petitioner. In addition, case law establishes that pre-election review is appropriate where, as here, the challenge goes to the electorate’s power to adopt the initiative in the first instance.

The court further concludes that the proposed ordinance should be excluded from the ballot because the proposed ordinance conflicts with the City Charter, and is therefore beyond the power of the voters to adopt. Adoption of the proposed ordinance would be a futile act.

In addition, the court finds that the volume and magnitude of the proponents’ procedural errors undermined the integrity of the electoral process, thereby precluding application of the substantial compliance doctrine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, boys and girls, what the court did today by addressing BOTH the City Charter issue and the Election Laws issue pretty much precludes any viable attempt at an appeal. We can exhale.
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#109
#109
Let's get those shovels in the ground. I suppose there's still EIR, although Steinberg assures it's no problem plus any additional legal challenges. The appeal seems mute or will be very soon. Can't we start bulldozing right now at least parts of downtown plaza that need to disappear?
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#112
#112
To answer my own question earlier and from latest Sac Bee report...

WHAT’S NEXT?

Monday: Last day an emergency order from an appeals court could get the arena measure on the June ballot.

Early April: Sacramento City Council to consider approving arena environmental impact report and entering formal agreement with the Kings to build an arena.

Late May: City scheduled to sell bonds to finance its share of the project.

Early June: Kings owners expected to begin demolishing parts of Downtown Plaza site.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/26/6192383/judge-tosses-out-stop-arena-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy
 
John Galt

John Galt

Starter
#114
#114
Last edited:
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#115
#115
Gary said:
Does anyone know if there is that Fraud case still happening? Or was that nothing important?
Click to expand...
Think that Bee article mentioned that's still technically a live case, although whether it could result in stopping construction on the arena I do not know. And there's always the possibility of litigation relating to the environmental impact report, no?
 
J

JB_kings

Starter
#117
#117
PurpleHaze said:
To answer my own question earlier and from latest Sac Bee report...

WHAT’S NEXT?

Monday: Last day an emergency order from an appeals court could get the arena measure on the June ballot.

Early April: Sacramento City Council to consider approving arena environmental impact report and entering formal agreement with the Kings to build an arena.

Late May: City scheduled to sell bonds to finance its share of the project.

Early June: Kings owners expected to begin demolishing parts of Downtown Plaza site.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/26/6192383/judge-tosses-out-stop-arena-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
I've heard that the council vote may happen on 4/29 due to the timing of the eminent domain lawsuit. They threw this off a few weeks when C-III filed for a change in venue to Alameda. Ruling on that has to come first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.