By Les Greenberg
Ari Noonan, as the editor, it would be nice if you reported the whole story (of the parking controversy pitting residents of the 10700 block of Farragut Drive against the leadership of Grace Lutheran Church).
First, the city attorney has been asked to investigate connections between the church’s senior personnel and two City Councilpersons. Those connections are sufficient that they could influence decisions.
Further, if the connections are so tenuous, why did the two Councilpersons fail to disclose them in response to a direct question concerning connections?
Second, the bigger issue is that the City Council has no legal authority to strip Farragut of its permit-only parking restrictions. Aside from the fact that it wishes to violate the parking regulations, wherein the same Councilpersons grandfathered Farragut’s rights, there are serious Constitutional questions about its thinly-veiled intended actions. (Look up “bill of attainder” when you get a chance.)
Third, will the city attorney seek a truly independent opinion of the matter? My understanding is that the city attorney serves at the pleasure of the Council. A 2011 survey indicated that Culver City paid her $275,000. Do you see any conflict of interest there, Ari?
Fourth, the church takes the inconsistent position that it has so few activities that it needs little parking (and has none on-site). On the other hand, it claims that its activities are such that it needs additional parking, and it needs it only on Farragut. The Council is prepared to strip Farragut’s permit-only parking rights on no fact whatsoever.
The Council is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Fifth, Councilperson Mehaul O’Leary is prepared to strip Farragut of its permit-only parking restrictions to determine if there should be any restrictions using current standards. What is there to talk about? The law does not require idle acts.
Whether the Council has authority to do what it obviously intends is a question of law for the courts.
Sixth, it will be most interesting watching the Council explain why two Council resolutions in 1982, one in 2004 and the grandfathering in 2013 are ineffective to preserve Farragut’s rights.
Grandfathering means that the legislature knows that someone cannot meet current standards, and they are exempted. Well, it means that under the law, but maybe not to the Council. Were the Council and city attorney asleep at the wheel when the grandfathering resolution was passed in November 2013?
Seventh, Farragut residents, in the past 32 years, purchased homes on Farragut and improved their properties in reliance upon the existence of the permit-only restrictions. Ari, ever heard of the legal concept of “estoppel”?
Eighth, some complained that I am too aggressive in protecting the rights of Farragut residents. I believe in those old-hat concepts like due process under the law, right to a fair hearings and Constitutional rights.
I have sworn to defend those rights and will do so — aggressively.
Bottom line, the Council may pass its intended resolution, but the courts will reverse it. Resolving Constitutional issues is not cheap. But there is a way to resolve the matter on the cheap — just require the church to demonstrate that it has a need for parking during the week and that only parking on Farragut will satisfy that need. To date, the church has not done so. The church’s “petition” was not signed by any parishioner. No parishioner appeared at the Council hearing to present its bogus case. And when the church will not or cannot present any fact, let this matter die on the vine.
Mr. Greenberg may be contacted at plgreen@att.net
Ari Noonan responds: Mr. Greenberg’s scalding condemnation of the electoral architecture at City Hall reminds me of a withering observation made by my least favorite former Mrs. Noonan during our leaky divorce proceedings: “Why would you even bother to get up tomorrow?”
It is difficult to take seriously such a broad indictment of their intentions and mental machinery. Not even liberals can, in a single evening, can commit as many gaffes as Mr. G charges, can they? If Mr. Greenberg is correct, City Hall should fall down of its own failings, blusterings, corruption and fishy breath before lunch is served. Throughout his 586-word missive, there was intense competition for earning my widest smile. An early contender was the notion that the city attorney would be too intimidated to make an objective ruling. Should we summon the seldom-praised Atty. Gen. Holder, whose well-rested mind has not been used except at green lights during the last six years? Or perhaps an erudite girl from The View?
Shoot, if I were Grace Lutheran, in sheer discouragement after scanning Mr. G’s letter, I would knock down the church walls before dark, convert to Islam and see what happens.
Holy smoke. It is not as if nighttime home invasions have been legalized on Farragut by the City Council.
City Hall says that the handful of people who occupy the 10700 block of Farragut have been given sui generis treatment, above the rest of the population. Those lucky chaps. They are the only lucky chaps among Culver City’s 40,000 denizens allowed to thumb their noses at any non-resident daring to park on their gilded block on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., a 14-hour daily blackout.
To borrow a description favored by our Southern readers, why have some Farragut denizens become so het up over a sui generis parking privilege? Are these residents committed loners who don’t want other out-of-block persons to draw near them? Unless on foot. Or are they quietly operating heavily patronized businesses that spark thick traffic, which would be inconvenienced if the church won its case.
Finally, isn’t “estoppel” the token libertarian voice on Fox?
