About 1 o’clock Tuesday morning,
the City Council, on a 4 – 1 vote, instructed the city staff the initiate the long awaited parking study on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive.
A number of people spoke both for and against having the study done.
The majority of the Council members agreed that since there never has been a parking study done on Farragut Drive, even though the permit parking restrictions have been changed many times at the whim of the residents, it was finally time to do one.
The Council, instead of taking down the current no parking signs (8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday) and leaving the street with unrestricted parking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are simply replacing them with the new “standard” residential permit parking signs.
These allow non-residents of Farragut Drive to park for two hours, between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
This gives the residents protection from non-residents parking on the street for more than two hours.
It also gives members or visitors to Grace Lutheran Church a chance to park on Farragut for a short period of time without fear that they will get a parking ticket.
I believe that when the results of the parking study are in at the end of June or beginning of July, it will be found that these “standard” restrictions will work well for everyone concerned.
Mr. Smith, a member of Grace Lutheran, may be contacted at kenandjoz@ca.rr.com
Hummm. Why does Ken Smith wish to disturb the Farragut residents’ peace and quiet? The Church has not demonstrated any need to park on Farragut Drive. They avoid the issue like it is one of the 10 plagues.
For many years, the Farragut residents have stood up to this local politico’s cravings. We are probably among the very few who dare to do so. Perhaps, we have not paid homage at his alter, and, thus, we must pay.
He engaged his protégé – Council member Andrew Weissman – to do his bidding. When publicly asked whether any council member had or has any relationship with a member of the Church, Weissman concealed his industrial-strength business and political relationships with Ken Smith.
Weissman caused the Council to engage in some sneaky acts. The Farragut residents believed the Council violated the open-government Brown Act, and warned that we would file a legal action against Culver City and the Council if the City would not sign a statutory consent form. The form allows the City to deny that it violated the law and state that it would not do it in the future. That would have closed the matter and avoided any legal bills. The City refused. The Farragut residents brought a legal action, which is now before the Court of Appeal. In the interim, Culver City has incurred more than $140,000 in legal fees—rather than use its get-out-of-jail-free card.
At the most recent Council meeting, the City Council (without Meghan Sahli-Wells) changed the 2013 parking law to allow non-residents of established residential parking districts to seek modification of districts and to by-pass the City Engineer. The Council changed the parking law for all residents and every parking district in Culver City to help their kindred politico.
The City Council was so desperate to assist Ken Smith—at the expense of the Farragut residents—that it violated the Brown Act by failing to inform the public that it intended to change the parking law. The Farragut residents have served their Cure or Correct demand letter—a precursor to filing a Brown-Act lawsuit to nullify the City Council’s action.
So, Ken Smith should be proud that he and his lackeys will probably cost the Culver City taxpayers more than $500,000 in a desperate attempt to satisfy his fixation with parking on Farragut Drive.
The only saving grace is that he is causing the Farragut residents to learn of and expose the warped and incestuous political climate that prevails in Culver City.
Delusional?
Self-entitled?
Bitter beans?
All of the above?
Greenberg seems to also be proud of the fact that his frivolous law suits that he brings against Culver City could cost upwards of $500,000!
Who in their right mind would be proud of that when there are so many other legitimate uses for Culver City tax funds?!
Mr. Greenberg and his self-serving neighbors on that ONE BLOCK of Farragut Drive need to get over themselves and move on.
Two hours is not that long for someone to park on a street in this day and age.
They’re still free to call Culver City Parking Enforcement if someone dares go over two hours.
One other thing: the street does NOT belong to them. It’s not their personal parking lot. And they must have seen both Culver City Middle School and Grace Lutheran Church when they bought their properties on that block.
Here’s another simple concept they need to grasp: If they want to live on a street where they can control who parks there, they need to move to a private, gated community. And even in those situations, the needs of the community–even if private–come before the needs of a few.
Why not sign your name?
The issues are more complex than you might be able to comprehend.
First, we suggested Culver City exercise a statutory right to avoid paying legal fees to fight our Brown-Act lawsuit. It refused. It wanted to expend taxpayer funds to grind us into the ground. Blame Weissman, not us.
Second, if you want to give up YOUR legal rights and let a less than law abiding City Council run over YOU, fine.
Third, when we moved in and spend funds improving our properties, we relied upon the Farragut Parking Restrictions to protect us. So much for government protect of residents in Culver City.
I can comprehend the issues just fine, you snide, arrogant jerk.
Is this a life or death situation? Will someone in your household die because others can parking for a mere two hours on your block?
Is someone coming to steal or damage your property? (Again, the street is NOT your property).
Is your tap water not safe to drink?
No. It’s not about any threatening situation that implies loss of life or limb.
Your rights are NOT being violated.
It’s about you trying to control, by intimidating the Culver City Council with frivolous, bullshit law suits, who can park on your block of Farragut Drive.
I’m not concerned about the City Council running over my legal rights.
Why?
Because it’s their job to do what’s right for the MAJORITY of the citizens of Culver City: the ability for people to park on your block–for a mere 2 hours at a time–will not degrade your quality of life there.
You have absolutely NO ETHICAL GROUND to stand on when you boast of filing law suits against the City Council and waste tax payer funds in order for them to defend against such bullshit claims.
As has been stated here before, the City Council did not violate the Brown Act.
I blame YOU for instigating legal shenanigans that will waste tax payer funds — funds that I pay into annually as property-owning resident of Culver City.
The City Council has more pressing issues to deal with than this, yet they have to waste time and resources on it because of your self-entitled attitude.
Get over yourself!
Anyone who name-calls and is not stand-up enough to reveal his/her true identity is not worthy of a response. When you identify yourself, I will respond. Otherwise, as someone once said, “Get over yourself!”
Mr. Greenberg is wrong. The City has not changed the parking laws. The City Council exercised its legislative and constitutional powers to review and regulate the laws it adopts. On March 16, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution previously published in its proposed agenda which stated, among other things, the City Council could decide whether to adopt a resolution to conduct a “parking study to evaluate the need for existing Farragut parking restrictions.” It adopted a resolution on an issue proposed in its agenda.
The parking issue, which has been under review and discussion for approximately two years in open council sessions, was properly on the agenda. Les Greenberg is either delusional, an incompetent attorney or disingenuous, maybe all three. When the City adopted new parking standards in 2013, the permit parking restrictions on Farragut Drive were grandfathered in (a form of an exemption) since the preexisting parking restrictions were not in compliance with the new citywide standards. There was no explanation by staff why such an exemption should exist when no traffic study was done to justify the original restrictions, let alone the exemption. The City Council chose to fill that gap by its resolution on March 16, 2016.
Mr. Greenberg sued the City for violating the Brown Act when the Council initially addressed this issue of special parking privileges on Farragut two years ago in 2014. He lost that case at trial. His position had no merit. The City Council did not violate the Brown Act.
It is Mr. Brown’s position that religious institutions or commercial businesses (no matter the size) adjacent to or that abut the restricted parking area have no right (constitutional or otherwise) to petition the City Council about the negative or discriminatory impact the permit parking restrictions on Farragut have on their business or religious institutions. In addition, Mr. Brown argues, without any case law or legislation to support his position, that the Council gave up its right to address parking issues because the Council transferred its authority (to review the law or change the parking regulations) to the City Engineer. He further argues that only the City Engineer can recommend any changes. I can assure you that such an abdication of legislative power would be unique in the annals of legislative history. No such transfer of power occurred and if it did it would be illegal.
The City Attorney has ruled that the City has the right to conduct a parking study. Mr. Greenberg objects to that opinion, but provides no law to support his position.
Mr. Greenberg has argued (without any legal authority) that the homeowners on Farragut have a “fundamental vested right” to the parking restrictions on Farragut Drive. The language he uses gives the impression that the residents of Farragut with special permits have purchased and perfected title to the parking spaces. Mr. Greenberg knows that no such purchase has taken place and no such title exists. The City retains all rights over public space and can institute rules and regulations as it sees fit regarding the use of that public space.
At one point Mr. Greenberg claimed that there was a conflict of interest by three of the council members on the parking issue. He then became fixated on Councilman Andrew Weissman and now Ken Smith, a long time resident of Culver City, and suddenly he claims that Mr. Smith controls the City Council, in effect that the Council members are Mr. Smith’s puppets. He fails to demonstrate how Mr. Smith or Mr. Weissman personally benefit from a parking study and just how Mr. Smith is controlling the City Council. At this point Mr. Greenberg appears delusional; he has become the victim of his own conspiratorial theories. The only people benefiting from special parking privileges on Farragut are Mr. Greenberg and the homeowners on Farragut who support him. They may be entitled to their parking restrictions. It seems the only way to determine whether they are entitled to their special parking status on public streets is a traffic study. What reasonable person would object to such a study?
Mr. Greenberg continues to claim that the City Council violated the Brown Act because it has voted to change the “parking law” without proper notice. Both assertions in this allegation are untrue. The Council has voted to do a traffic study (notice of which was published in the agenda), it did not vote to “change the parking law.” Apparently Mr. Greenberg sees any Council act he considers an encroachment on his special street parking privileges to be a change in the law.
Mr. Greenberg throughout this discussion has defamed individuals, misstated the facts, misinterpreted the law, and bullied all he can in his attempt to prevent the City from investigating the restricted parking on Farragut. No one knows what the outcome of the traffic study will be. Does Mr. Greenberg know the outcome? If he is convinced that the restrictions are justified, why is he fighting so hard to keep an objective traffic study from occurring?
If Mr. Greenberg truly cared about the City, he would not force it to spend money in litigation on his unmerited claims, claims he knows he cannot win. Since he is protected by not having to pay the legal fees when he loses his Brown Act lawsuit, he has no incentive to behave and be a good citizen. This demonstrates the kind of person Mr. Greenberg truly is. He needs incentives, the threat of sanctions, to be a good citizen.
Judging by recent home values, you are all millionaires complaining about people parking on a public street while you have driveways for your own cars. It’s a great look, keep it up.
Ilbert Phillips is losing it (sleep) as he was up at 3:25AM submitting a diatribe against me. Evidently, he was very tired or too emotionally involved as he repeatedly refers to me as “Mr. Brown” and to some unspecified “traffic study.” Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
I am not the issue. Even so, Phillips makes such venomous-derogatory comments that he exposed himself to a legal action for defamation per se.
Our beef is with the City Council, not the Church. How could anyone have a beef with a Church whose marquee states, “Love They Neighbor”? Let’s talk about the merits of my clients’ allegation that the City Council changed the November 12, 2013 Procedures and Regulations for Residential Permit Parking Districts (Procedures) without public notice.
Procedures, Section 7.1.G, states: “All streets that have preferential parking restrictions … shall maintain those restrictions unless changed in the future by a separate process outlined in these regulations.” (Emphasis added.) Procedures, Section 11, states, in part:
A. The Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Section staff may periodically review … parking restrictions, and recommend to the City Engineer, the modification of … parking restrictions….
B. The City Engineer may initiate, at his discretion, based on staff’s recommendation, a process to adjust desperate parking restriction[s]….
(Emphasis added.) Procedures, Section 11.F, states: “[M]odification of parking restrictions … shall be made administratively.” (Emphasis added.)
Now, Phillips, using the best legal thinking he can muster, should tell us where “outlined in these regulations,” the City Council retained authority to modify parking restrictions in an established parking district.
Phillips states, “[M]r. Brown argues … that the Council gave up its right to address parking issues because the Council transferred its authority (to review the law or change the parking regulations) to the City Engineer.” Where did “Mr. Brown” argue that? Has the lack of sleep caused Phillips to confuse modifying parking restrictions with changing the law?
At page 11, the September 23, 2013 City Council meeting minutes state:
Ilbert Phillips noted the challenge of parking in the area; difficulties faced by Grace Lutheran Church; he asked the City to go back to unrestricted parking after 6 p.m. on Farragut; he discussed community activities; he asserted that public streets should not become private parking lots; and he expressed support for more equitable parking and for sharing public sidewalks.
(Note: Phillips requested “after 6 p.m.” only.) Does he recall how the experts responded? He might have slept through that part of the meeting. At the September 23, 2013 City Council meeting, Traffic Engineer Gabe Garcia informed the City Council, including Andrew Weissman, in part:
Those streets that currently have parking restrictions would be adopted into the district with their current parking restrictions. … We propose that Council give authority to staff to administratively reach out to the community, propose a change, with written notice of 30 days, and then effect the change. … There are specific areas of lack of uniformity. … Also, if you look to the west … Farragut, west of Overland. We would not propose to change that. … These are all locations that have very specific impacts, that have been quantified in the past, and we would not seek uniformity in these locations.
(Video Transcript [VT] at 53:10 – 55:20; emphasis added.)
On November 12, 2013, Weissman and the other current council members rejected Phillips’s comments and adopted the Procedures.
As recently as August 28, 2014, at 12:02 PM, City Engineer Charles Herbertson emailed Weissman:
[10700 block of] Farragut was “grandfathered in” when the new preferential parking guidelines were adopted about 1 year ago. That is not the only district that differs from the new standard restrictions. … [B]ecause of the sensitivity of that district and I think a few others, we stated publically at the City Council meeting that the Farragut district (and perhaps a few others) would not be proposed to be changed as part of this standardization process. … It just means that staff indicated that we were not going to pursue those as part of the standardization process.
(Emphasis added.)
Other than Ken Smith’s industrial-strength business and political connections to Weissman, what caused Weissman to change his mind? Why did Weissman fail to disclose the relations when specifically asked if any existed? Why has Weissman disregarded the City’s experts’ long-standing opinion that the Farragut Parking Restriction remain unchanged?
I respectfully suggest that Phillips gets some rest before he responds.
wow…!!! that is all I can say is wow.. There is so many other things in this world to focus on besides PARKING. you all have driveways.. park in your driveways. 2 hours is not that long.. can’t we all just get a long.. (i guess i had a little more to say than wow) this just turns my stomach.. i don’t complain when the lodge up the street from my house has taken up the parking..i just pull right into my cute little driveway. and if someone is parked in my driveway i will than go park on my neighbors lawn.. sounds a little ridiculous… well, so does this whole thing.. please just love each other.
“i (sic) will than (sic) go park on my neighbors (sic) lawn.” That’s the sign of a declining neighborhood.
The issue is bigger than parking. It deals with a less-than-law-abiding City Council that kowtows to business interests at the expense of its residents.
P.S. Please get a grammar and spell checker.
The fight over this is simply ridiculous. Get some perspective, please. What do you honestly think will happen if your street goes to 2-hour parking? Chaos? Anarchy? Locusts raining down? No, life will pretty much go on as it was. I mean, really. People who park their cars on your street are not out to get you. They are simply trying to get somewhere.
I live across the street from the Carlson Park bathrooms, with 2-hour parking, and I can tell you the characters I’ve seen. I see every city vehicle, every delivery truck, taxis, cable repair guys, people hanging their shoeless feet out their windows having lunch, everything. A person even KILLED THEMSELVES in the bathroom a couple years ago. And what do I think of it? I think – that’s the place I chose to buy a house across from, that’s my community, and that’s not my property to police. It’s called life, and it’s great (well, except for the poor fellow who decided to end his).
Mr. Greenberg, this parking situation has brought out the worst in you. I’m sure you are not the awful person you appear to be on these message boars and how people are portraying you and your neighbors on facebook. Just take a deep breath, open your eyes, and realx. It’s going to be ok.
“The fight over this is simply ridiculous.” You are right. After 34 years of reliance upon the Farragut Parking Restrictions to buy into and make improvements, the City Council–in payback to Ken Smith of the church–totally ignores our legal rights and wants to throw us under the big green bus. Why select us for persecution when there are 16 permit-only parking districts in Culver City?
In November 2013, the City Council enacted a parking law. We have rights under that law.
The issue is bigger than parking. It deals with a less-than-law-abiding City Council that kowtows to business interests at the expense of its residents.
“I’m sure you are not the awful person you appear to be on these message boars and how people are portraying you and your neighbors on facebook.” How about forwarding me a cut and paste of what they are saying? You know how to find me.
It sounds like your neighborhood needs some real protection. What are you doing about it?
What am I doing about it? That is an excellent question. Let’s see, I’m waving at my favorite cab driver, Mohamed, who always gets us to LAX on time. I’m nodding to the UPS guy, who is always cheery no matter what time he delivers our package, I’m riding my bicycle to my daughter’s wonderful public school less than a mile from my house, I’m enjoying the beautiful jasmine flowers that are in bloom all over the neighborhood, I’m having my neighbors over for pizza later tonight, I’m thanking my lucky stars I live in such an amazing, diverse, pretty, neighborly place, and I’m out living my life not worrying about who is parking on my street. It works out great for me!
Whatever works for you.
We just have different ideas about justice and government.
Before the meeting of March 14, 2016, the Council’s proposed Resolution No 2016-R described the history of the permit parking restrictions on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive (the “Farragut Parking Restrictions”).
The proposed resolution included the following information on that history:
1. The existing permit parking restrictions on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive (the “Farragut Parking Restrictions”) which allows parking by permit only, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. have been in place since October 2004, pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-R068.
2. Prior to that time, in January 1982, the City Council approved on a six-month trial basis, permit-only parking restrictions, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on the 10700 block of Farragut Drive. The City Council made those restrictions permanent in November of 1982.
3. On June 8, 2014, Grace Lutheran Evangelical Church (“Grace Church”) made a written request to the City Council to modify the Farragut Parking Restrictions to unrestricted two-hour parking Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Such modification would have the effect of allowing anyone to park for a maximum period of two hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. while allowing residents and their guests with parking permits, to exceed the two-hour restriction, and no restrictions on weekends.
4. The basis for Grace Church’s request, as set forth in its letter dated June 8, 2014, is that the existing Farragut Parking Restrictions: directly impact Grace Church’s operations, as well as adjacent schools and commercial business; are not uniform or consistent with parking restrictions contiguous to the immediate surrounding areas; and allow for approximately 30 parking spaces to sit empty, for the most part, all day and well into the night.
5. At its meeting of September 8, 2014, the City Council discussed the existing Farragut Parking Restrictions, and received comments from the public, including representatives of Grace Church and residents of the 10700 block of Farragut Drive. Grace Church submitted a letter dated September 8, 2014, which modified their June 8, 2014 request, stating that its first choice would be for the City Council to change the Farragut Parking Restrictions to two-hour parking, Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., without a permit, and no restrictions outside of those hours and on Sundays. The City Council discussed a possible parking study to determine the existing parking intrusion impacts on the 10700 block Farragut Drive (as well as on the immediately adjacent residential blocks), to determine if the present parking occupancy and parking intrusion criteria are met to warrant the existing permit only parking restrictions. City Council directed staff to return at a future meeting with additional information in order to continue the discussion of the Farragut parking Restrictions and the possibility of a parking study. Such information was to include parking study criteria, scope of the study, and a parking study scenario relative to the existing parking restrictions, parking study timeline, options for conducting the study by a consultant or City staff, and related costs.
6. Section 4A of the Procedures and Regulations for Residential Permit Parking Districts (the ‘Procedures and Regulations”), adopted by Resolution 2013-R071 on November 12, 2013 states that parking districts are established by the City Council. The City Council has the legislative authority to establish and revise the policies by which parking districts are created, as well as the parking districts themselves. The City Council also has the legislative authority to modify or eliminate parking districts in its discretion.
7. Section 11 of the Procedure and Regulations provides that parking districts predating the adoption of the Preferential Parking Districts Boundary Map (which includes the Farragut Parking Restrictions) shall maintain those parking restrictions, unless changed in the future; therefore, the Procedures and Regulations contemplate that Farragut Parking Restrictions are subject to change by future action of the City Council.”
8. On March 14, 2014, at a duly noticed public meeting of the City Council, after full consideration of all of the information presented by the City Staff, as well as comments received from the public, the City Council hereby determines that an evaluation of the existing Farragut Parking Restrictions is warranted and shall be conducted as set forth in this Resolution.
Discussion:
The City Council does not need the recommendation or approval of the City Engineer to do a traffic study. Further, the Council can modify or eliminate the Procedure or Regulations regarding the Parking Districts at it discretion. Though no study was done when the Parking District was created, staff recommended that the City Council “grandfather” in the preexisting parking restrictions on Farragut when the Council adopted the staff’s recommendation in 2013 and created the Parking Districts. The fact that no traffic study has ever been done on the Farragut Parking Restrictions played a major role in the City Council deciding to conduct such a study.
Has the parking law been changed? No. The City Council voted to do a parking study, doing a study is not a change of the law. Mr. Greenberg has misstated the facts.
Has Mr. Greenberg properly stated the current law on what powers the City Council has in amending its own parking laws? No.
Has Mr. Greenberg provided any evidence to support his assertion that Ken Smith has an “industrial-strength business and political connections to Weissman?” No. He continues to make assertions without proof. He thinks his assumptions are sufficient.
Has Mr. Greenberg provided any proof that Mr. Smith controls the City Council? No. The assertion borders on the absurd.
Rather than wait for the parking study to take place (the outcome of which is unknown), Mr. Greenberg is threatening to sue the City because it has allegedly violated the Brown Act. What is the purpose of making such a threat in such a public manner? I contend it is to intimidate the City Council and accuse those members of City Council he disagrees with of wasting assets when all the City Council had to do, according to Mr. Greenberg, was admit a falsehood (it had violated the Brown Act), fold and allow Mr. Greenberg to exercise control over the City Council, control he claims Mr. Smith current has.
A summary of the Brown Act is that it requires all decisions (such as resolutions) adopted by the Council to be adopted only after at an open public meeting of the Council; any decision must be an item on a published agenda; the public must be allowed to address the Council regarding an item on the agenda before the Council votes on the item; and all votes must in public.
Given the actual facts in this matter, the Council has satisfied all of the conditions of the Brown Act. Its vote to do an evaluation of the permit parking restriction on Farragut, in the form of a traffic study, complies with the law.
Item 8 in my lasts letter should have said March 14, 2016 and not March 14, 2014.
One wonders why Phillips continues to repeat the position of his client—the Grace Lutheran Evangelical Church—in this forum. These are legal issues in a dispute between some residents of the 10700 block of Farragut Drive and the City of Culver City and its City Council.
Is Phillips trying to demonstrate his knowledge of the Brown Act in order to secure a future income stream from Culver City?
I’ll leave my point-by-point denial of his allegations to the appropriate time. Basically, he is parroting the City’s allegations. Unlike Phillips, my clients are not paying me to advocate their case in TheFrontPage.
Why does he continue to defame me? For instance, (1) “Mr. Greenberg has misstated the
facts.”; (2) “Has Mr. Greenberg properly stated the current law on what powers the City Council has in amending its own parking laws? No.”; (3) “Has Mr. Greenberg provided any evidence to support his assertion that Ken Smith has an ‘industrial-strength business and political connections to Weissman?’ No. He continues to make assertions without proof.”
The answer to (1) is “No.” The answer to (2) is “Yes.” The answer to (3) is that Phillips should have reviewed the 7-item packet of materials that we provided to the City Council and City Council members on March 14, 2016 that documents the relationships. Weissman has not denied the business and political relationships. He tried to conceal them. Smith has never denied them.
“Mr. Greenberg is threatening to sue the City because it has allegedly violated the Brown Act. What is the purpose of making such a threat in such a public manner?” Whom did we “threaten[]”? What “public manner”? Some Farragut residents have filed a “Cure or Correct” letter with Culver City. The Brown Act requires such a filing as a precursor to bringing a Brown-Act lawsuit. The procedure allows the City an opportunity to resolve the matter without litigation and the associated expense.
As to Phillips’ cursory description of the Brown Act, let’s just say that it is somewhat lacking. Perhaps, he might tell us whether he has ever tried a Brown Act case where the court and the public were able to observe his understanding of the Brown Act and his ability as an attorney. This is what a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has said about me. “I recognize that Mr. Greenberg is a skilled lawyer, and he certainly appears to be familiar with many of the arcane provisions of the Brown Act, and he parsed through the (cease and desist) letter in a very careful way….”
Hopefully, Phillips and his client—Grace Lutheran Evangelical Church—will zip-it and let this matter play-out elsewhere.
I would be very interested to hear all the SPECIFIC reasons why Mr. Greenberg and the residents of Farragut feel how a change in the parking restrictions would adversely effect their lifestyle.
Mr. Hente, thanks for your question. I would like to spend hours gathering the residents and answering your question with “all the SPECIFIC reasons,” but I do not have the time. The question is why any change is necessary. The Church put forth no information. Ken Smith says there were 3 instances in 34 years that justified the Church’s request. One way to look at it is, with permit-only-parking restrictions, this short block generates $30,000 in parking citations. That’s when we have the protection that multiple City Council initiated, enhanced and grandfathered. The City Engineer refused to initiate any change. Then the Ken Smith called in political chits owed by Weissman. Weissman hide the relationships. …
From a legal standpoint, the City Council trampled our rights. See, above, responses. We will seek our legal remedies.
Hi Les, as I’m sure you know, but don’t want to admit, the 3 specific instances of why the parking regulations create problems for the elderly, the under-served and the young parents hustling their kids to get to Grace Church from 3 blocks away, were examples of hundreds of instances over 34 years. You said that this block generates $ 30,000 in parking citations And this is while residents of the block stand on the well manicured lawns of their million dollar homes and laugh and giggle while the parking enforcement officers write the tickets. The $ 30,000 doesn’t seem so significant now that your lawsuits have, and will cost the city close to $ 1,000,000.
You keep suggesting their is something illegal or immoral going on between my good friend Andy Weissman and I. Here’s a challenge for you, PROVE IT!!!
By the way, please also thank most of your neighbors for me for parking one of their cars directly in the center of the city owned space in front of their houses last Sunday thereby taking up both spaces in front of their homes. Even though is it legal to park on Farragut on Sunday, they made sure there weren’t any spaces for church members or guests. Is that what you call being a good neighbor? I’ve been attending Grace Lutheran Church for 15 years and that was the first Sunday the street hasn’t been almost completely open.
This is a busy Easter week at the church. We will have services on Thursday and Friday nights at 7:00 PM, and usual Sunday services at 9:00 and 11:00. Everyone is welcome to these services, but please be careful where you park, as you know, our neighbors don’t like to look out of their windows and see a strangers car parked in front of their houses.
I imagine the folks on Farragut Dr. probably have the CCPD on speed dial on their phones, because there will be a lot of our members and guests celebrating Easter by coming to Grace Lutheran Church for one or all of these uplifting services.
Ken, if there are “hundreds of instances,” why have not previously said so? Why is it that you are the only person at the Church claiming any “inconvenience”? Who is the resident allegedly “laugh(ing) or giggle(ing)” while tickets are written? Who says so? Also were they laughing about a joke that one told the other? When I see a person illegally park, I warn them that the area is posted and ask if they think it is their lucky day. As they drive away, I advise them that I saved them $60. That is a random act of kindness.
The City could have avoided paying any legal fees, if you did not call in your chits with Weissman and the City did not trample the residents’ legal rights. Now, the City wants to play macho-macho-man with us and throw us under the big green bus. Jim Croche once said, “If that’s the way you want it, that’s the way I want it more.” I just wanted the City to know what it will cost. No pride, just facts.
I have NEVER suggested that you and Weissman have “something illegal or immoral going on.” Our position is that a biased Council Member is incapable of properly serving on a matter and should recuse him/herself. On September 8, 2014, we asked Weissman if he has or had any relations with members of the Grace Church. You spoke that night on behalf of the Church. Another Council Member revealed relations, but Weissman did not. On March 14, 2016, we presented the Council and Council Members with documentary evidence of your business and political relationships with Weissman, and asked that he recuse himself. He did not deny the relationships. He did not explain why it would not influence his decision. His silence and lack of recusal is an admission.
You are right. It is legal for everyone to park on Farragut every Saturday and Sunday.
We wish a joyous and uplifting Easter to those attending Grace Church.
Mr. Greenberg,
Than you for your prompt reply to my query. You ask why any change is necessary. A wise sage once told me that the only thing constant in life is change, without change, society become stagnant and leads to anarchy. Is that your desire?
You indicate that the City Council has trampled on your rights to approve a parking study. Even with the parking study protocols in place, you would still retain your right to park on the street. How is that a violation of rights?
You speak of that one block of being responsible for some $30,000 in parking citations, yet you seem proud to assert that you are also responsible for initiating close to 1 million dollars of lawsuits against the city where you live. I fail to see the community pride there.
You state that your fight is against an uncooperative City Council, but you rail against Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church for desiring a variance to the parking restrictions so that the many community based groups that meet there weekly may enjoy the same rights that you have to park on a city street. You have publicly castigated Mr. Ken Smith for leading the request for the parking study to be considered. You have insinuated collusion between Mr. Smith and Mr. Weismann to control the City Council. Are there circumstances that we the public should be made aware of?
I await your reply and remain,
Yours sincerely
Another wise sage said that change for the sake of change is unjustified. What is the Church’s and the City’s justification? What are their facts? Ken Smith, a Church elder, said he experienced 3 separate instances in 34 years. We told him how each could be cured with minimal effort. No, the Church wants more. We claim that we have legal rights and are willing and able to stand-up to the biased City government. The violation is that the Procedures this City Council adopted in November 2013 provide us with rights. The Council has failed to follow its own rules. There is no pride with respect to the monetary costs the City will incur. If the City wants to trample our (and your) rights, then that it just a reality. If the City would play by its own rules and abide by the Brown Act, then we would not have a complaint. But it won’t do so because Weissman has relations with Smith that Weissman wishes to conceal. The pride is that, we, unlike most people, have the means and ability to fight injustice. We have never said that Smith “controls” the City Council, but that his relationship causes Weissman to be biased and, for some reason, some Council members blindly follow Weissman’s lead.
As for details of the above, do a TheFrontPageOnline search for my name. I have previously posted details.
Les, you continually talk about a Brown Act violation. I believe that was ruled upon by a judge of the Superior Court and it was found that there was no violation. I may not have put this in the proper words as not being an attorney, but I think you get the idea.
As far as being a “Church Elder”, that is absolutely true. I’m 78 years old, and I’m a member of the church. As far as being considered an Elder, as in a member of the Church Council, or officer of the church, that is untrue. I’m just a member like 150 or so others that love going to Grace Lutheran. Thank you for the Easter wishes. I will probably be at all 3 of the services starting on Thursday, but don’t worry about me, I’m always very careful about where I park.
I’m still waiting for your proof about my “High-Octane” business relationship with Andy Weissman.
Hi Ken,
The issue between Grace Church and Farragut residents is very simple. According to the 2013 Parking Procedures “only” the Engineering Department and Street residents have the right to modify parking restrictions of their street. Plain and simple. Is there something about the word “only” you don’t understand? Grace made several requests to the Engineering Department to change the restrictions. Being a non-resident, the Engineering Department denied their request due to no standing. That is where it should have ended. Enter you and Andy Weissman who decided that rules are for fouls and started this whole fiasco. Thank you very much!
Ken, you got to get your facts straight. Brown Act I is on appeal, awaiting a de novo hearing. That means a completely new hearing on the merits. Many Superior Court judges err and are reversed on appeal. The City Council has to decide whether we commence Brown Act II.
Did I tell you what the Super Court judge said? “I recognize that Mr. Greenberg is a skilled lawyer, and certainly appears to be familiar with many of the arcane provisions of the Brown Act, and he has parsed through the (cease and desist) letter in a very careful way….” I think you get the idea. Further, his comments are more highly valued than those expressed on Dan O’Brien’s closed-secret-society-FaceBook page, which advocates the Church’s position and on which you write. Those people should have the courage to come out of the shadows.
May you be blessed with many more years.
As for your business and political relations with Weissman, I suggest you view the documents we filed with the City Council. Fortunately, you will not be the decider when the “proof” is offered. Do you deny any political or any business (including any of your businesses) relationship with Weissman? Go ahead, make my day and deny it.
https://claudiavizcarrablog.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/sometimes-a-small-decision-raises-big-questions/