by Alan Pryor
Yesterday afternoon, Davis City Councilmember Dan Carson’s attorneys filed a brief in Yolo County Superior Court on his behalf, seeking $76,358 from the six named Davis citizens in his failed lawsuit. Councilmember Carson’s lawsuit attempted to delete more than 25% of the ballot Argument against Measure H. That would amount to more than $12,700 for each individual named in the lawsuit: Mike Corbett, Stephen Wheeler, Darell Dickey, Juliette Beck, Roberta Millstein, and Alan Pryor, the authors and signers of the ballot argument.
“The individuals who Carson has targeted are not wealthy industrial park developers like Dan Ramos who has paid for Councilmember Carson’s attorneys thus far. “They are community members, and community members who have integrity and are well respected,” stated Pam Gunnell.
Gunnell further stated that “Understanding who these community members are is critical to understanding No On H. Michael Corbett was the developer behind Village Homes who most recently has built a small affordable housing project in South Davis.
Dr. Stephen Wheeler is a professor of urban planning and design in the department of human ecology at UC Davis, and author of “Planning for Sustainability, Reimagining Sustainable Cities” and “The Sustainable Urban Development Reader.”
Darell Dickey is a former Bicycle Advisory Commissioner, long-time member of the Davis Bike Club, and proponent of safe bicycling in Davis. Juliette Beck is a long -time climate change activist, mother and candidate for Yolo County Supervisor.
Dr. Roberta Millstein is Professor Emeritus in the UC Davis Philosophy Department, specializing in environmental ethics and philosophy of biology; she is a former Chair of the Open Space and Habitat Commission.
Alan Pryor is retired and serves as the Chair of the Sierra Club Yolano Group and is a former 12-year member of the City of Davis Natural Resources Commission.
Councilmember Carson and Dan Ramos have both acknowledged previously that Ramos, the developer behind the DiSC project on the June ballot as Measure H, is bankrolling Carson’s attorney’s fees. If Carson prevails in his request for award of attorney fees, these individuals would be legally compelled to pay Yes on H’s fees. Presumably Developer Ramos would then be reimbursed for his attorney costs to sue the authors and signers of the No on H argument.
Councilmember Carson’s motion comes after defendants filed a motion to recoup their own attorney’s fees last week.
“Carson’s own brief admits the defendants themselves suggested the 2 small changes in the ballot statement that were finally approved by the judge in the case but, notably, Carson never makes the claim that these minor changes significantly changed the Argument against Measure H,” stated Roberta Millstein”.
“Astonishingly, Carson claims his lawsuit was ‘no threat to Real Parties’ First Amendment right, nor has there ever been,‘ even though his lawsuit threatened to wipe out more than 25 percent of our ballot language and even though the cost of attorney’s fees zeroed out No on H’s bank accounts, crippling our campaign.” said Alan Pryor.
Dan Carson states in his declaration filed with the motion for fees that, “As I anticipated, my efforts in this action have been met with a great deal of criticism. As a result of my role in this action, I have been subjected to numerous public attacks, including through comments made about me on social media platforms and during City Council meetings.”
To which Alan Pryor replies, “Elected officials are often criticized while in office under ordinary circumstances. It is no surprise these extraordinary circumstances have brought out extraordinary criticisms, but the No on H campaign is certainly not coordinating the calls for Carson’s resignation or removal from office.”
This morning a hearing was held about the matter and the competing claims by both sides will be consolidated and heard on May 11 by Judge Dan Maguire.
Interesting… a “guest commentary” written by someone who goes on to always refer to himself as in ‘the third person’… stylistically fascinating… almost the opposite of the ‘royal we’.
Unanswered: were there any costs to the City and/or County, as entities, as two of the ‘defendants’ were City or County employees? [I know it was ‘pro forma’, but the City and County should be fully reimbursed by ‘others’ to the extent there were costs.]
As to the ‘plaintiffs’, and ‘defendants’… as far as I opine, they should each “suck up” their respective costs, except that no City/County $$$ be expended, at the end of the day…
“This morning a hearing was held about the matter and the competing claims by both sides will be consolidated and heard on May 11 by Judge Dan Maguire.”
Must be a slow news day at the no on H campaign. Why not let Judge McGuire figure it out instead of trying it in public?
Why even ask the question about trying it in public, in public?
The article was written and submitted by the No campaign. It was sent in by me but I am not the “author”. As is his custom, the decision was made by the publisher to give me the byline but I am merely the messenger.
Similarly, Carson was just “the messenger” for the pro-H campaign.
9.95/10
I said before that the NO Campaign sure sounds like it’s whining a lot about legal stuff. Maybe that was a bit harsh. But the NO Campaign articles read more like a NO on Carson than a NO on H campaign. I mean, I get it; you guys don’t like Carson and if I were in your shoes I wouldn’t either. Run a campaign against him when he’s up for re-election.
But right now, your message should be focused on how bad the traffic on Mace is going to be. That DISC will bring about the environmental zombie apocalypse with zombie commuters driving leaded gasoline vehicles to work…creating a huge dark cloud over Davis that will rain fire and brimstone.
The effect of this will be that even fewer people would be willing to sign a ballot statement opposing what a developer (and his council member ally) propose.
Not very many people are willing to take on this level of personal financial risk, when they stand to gain nothing from it themselves – financially. The only outcome these people face is a possible financial loss (in addition to what they may have contributed to the campaign, itself). I thank those who were willing to take that risk, on behalf of the city. Truth be told, I’d think twice myself before taking any similar risk, going forward.
But I do pretty much agree that the message should primarily be focused on the development proposal itself, at this point. And as you note with traffic (one of the primary drawbacks), the developer can counter with all of the summer camp programs that they’re going to fund for your kid, etc. (That type of thing.)