TheLiberalOC.com reports that CATER (Concerned Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility) yesterday sent a letter to the City of Anaheim regarding left-wing San Diego attorney Cory Briggs threat to sue the city if issues bonds to finance the Anaheim Convention Center expansion.
The letter says that if Brigg’s actually does sue, then CATER will, too.
Greg Diamond – Brea resident and lately a fixture during the Anaheim council public comment period — is CATER’s lawyer and author of the letter – which means it takes two pages to state what could have been said in two paragraphs.
You can read the letter here.
Kind of interesting just how often CATER follows Tait’s lead on things.
On a totally unrelated topic, any word on who has deep enough pockets or interest in funding CATER?
“Greg Diamond .. is (the) author of the letter – which means it takes two pages to state what could have been said in two paragraphs.”
Amen to that brother.
Rumor has it that the two people claiming to “lead” CATER – Cynthia Ward and Greg Diamond – have been VIPs at all of Tait’s fundraisers, including the one this week. Clearly Tait is coordinating and supported by the people suing the city and wasting taxpayer money. That’s just disgusting. And someone should tell Tony Rackaukus that one of Tait’s strongest supporters is his opponent for reelection for District Attorney and the vice chair of the county’s Democratic party – in addition to a gang sympathizer. Tom Tait getting legislator of the year from the county GOP is just disgusting given his overt support of liberal interests in Anaheim.
Anaheim GOP – Greg Diamond has never attended a Tait fundraiser.
So he and Tait only meet in private?
For the record, Greg Diamond does not “lead” CATER, he is our General Counsel, hired for his legal skills. To date none of our complaints, no matter how frivolous you may see them, has been thrown out of court or even countered in any meaningful way, despite a reported $20,000 spent trying to wiggle Anaheim out of our complaints. That indicates Greg Diamond is a better investment for CATER than you give all of us credit for. CATER’s actions are directed by our members. Greg Diamond is not a member, nor is Mayor Tom Tait. By the way, who provides financial support for this blog? Matt Cunningham spends far more time digging up non-stories than any of the Directors spend on CATER. Are we to believe Matt does this as a hobby blog in his spare time while CATER is accused of pocketing conflict of interest dollars?
Now when you are done hurling personal insults, which reach their targets only to the extent that the intended targets have a stake in your opinion of us, perhaps you would like to address the merits of the Complaints CATER has been behind.
Please, Matt, take the time to explain how it is acceptable, solely because you like the predetermined outcome, to violate California’s Open Meetings law and keep critical information out of the hands of citizens legally entitled to the information prior to the Council using it as the basis for approving a deal that can affect Anaheim’s future into the next generation. It is not like the Stadium MOUs were without objections or controversy, in fact the deal is so bad that the national press has picked it up and mocked Anaheim for agreeing to these deal points, even tentatively. So how is that outcome so beneficial to Anaheim residents that it justifies skipping over the legal requirements for full disclosure of information? Or are you going to make the argument that the 17 pages of fluff and fantasy masquerading as a $30,000.00 report were so adequate that there was no need for the public to review that information before the Council based their approvals on it? And how do you argue the point for changing a critical mistake in the material facts used to evaluate the team’s worth to Anaheim, by altering the documents prior to releasing the information? Is it really OK with you to base a governmental decision on specific information and then CHANGE that information before releasing documents to the American public? Make that case Matt.
In terms of the Convention Center, perhaps you can explain the subversion of the City Charter, which made it crystal clear that city leaders were never to mortgage our children’s futures without the consent of the public, a requirement so solid that the Charter demands a 2/3 vote of citizens to approve selling bonds. Can you share, with your wealth of legal knowledge, how a partnership between the City of Anaheim and the City of Anaheim is NOT the same as the City of Anaheim selling the bonds? Can you explain how it is right and proper to use the toxic ticking time bomb of Capital Appreciation Bonds WITHOUT ONCE TELLING THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC that CAB’s are being used? If CATER follows Tait, perhaps you can share precisely when the Mayor objected to the Charter violation? I saw him object to the math being used to justify the deal, which he has otherwise supported in every public (and private) discussion of the Convention Center I have ever witnessed. Would you care to share a quote from the Mayor objecting to the project itself? He did not initially vote against the expansion, he asked for a continuance so he could get to the bottom of some really, really bad math, math which the rest of the leadership failed to recognize was faulty in their zeal and pre-determined choice to approve the project long before they entered Chambers to make what was supposed to be a quasi-judicial decision following public disclosure of information and the input of the public they once asked to represent.
Instead of taking cheap pot shots at those of us whose only sin is to demand that our leaders OBEY THE FREAKING LAW while giving massive public funds to their friends, how about you show (with appropriate references to case law) why CATER is mistaken in either expecting the law be followed or mistaken that the city’s leadership has not followed the law.
How many suits have you actually filed as opposed to how many letters threatening to sue that you’ve sent the city? I’m sure they will not just be thrown out but laughed out of court. Given you are Taits most strident cheerleader, save us your pathetic attempts to explain away your frivolous actions against the city for political gain on behalf of Tait. Lucille or Lorri would better serve this city. God help us if Tom Tait is elected to two or four years. He’s lost total control – our council chambers has been turned into a profane circus.
The national press mocked Anaheim? Please cite links. The LA Times endorsed the plan to let Moreno develop the site