SBNP Makes DLG Plaza Correction and Apparently Hasn't Served the City Yet
An avid reader passed on this correction which appeared on the SBNP website:
Why wasn't this mentioned in the original article? Perhaps because the suit hasn't been officially served to the City of Santa Barbara yet according to word on the street. Apparently this small matter can wait until Monday...after Ampersand's opinion has been properly publicized in the newspaper as an article. Wanna bet there will be an opinion piece published today?
In Friday's paper on page A10, a story about a lawsuit filed by News-Press parent company, Ampersand Publishing LLC, against the City of Santa Barbara, its Transportation and Circulation Committee and three individual members of the committee should have included the fact that the suit was filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
Why wasn't this mentioned in the original article? Perhaps because the suit hasn't been officially served to the City of Santa Barbara yet according to word on the street. Apparently this small matter can wait until Monday...after Ampersand's opinion has been properly publicized in the newspaper as an article. Wanna bet there will be an opinion piece published today?
Labels: Ampersand Publishing, De la Guerra Plaza, Santa Barbara News-Press
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 3/02/2008 04:37:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
8 Comments:
Today Sara, the newssupress continues it's straw dog presentations of the risks of closing state street and the folly's of the restoration of Plaza de la Guerra...
We learn today that the only thing keeping us safe in the Plaza are the presence of people going to and from their parked cars in the Plaza.
Without cars...the tangled bank and law of the jungle would return.
The November 2007 agenda *should* have mentioned that a plaza discussion was planned for the meeting. Everyone has a right to know whats on the agenda, especially nearby property owners.
As an open government advocate and NOT a newspress apologist, I am a little dismayed that such a substantive discussion took place at a public meeting, with no subsequent "cure" by staff or city attorney. Never a good thing no matter who the parties are or what the subject is.
That being said (I hate that phrase but whatever) it is ridiculous of Capello to file a lawsuit. There are other "cures".....
How does anyone commenting here know what the "discussion" actually was and in what context under the law and posted meeting agenda?
Was soodonim really there or review the video of the meeting, or read the actual content of any law suit?
Is truth now whatever gets published by the News-Press by its cub "reporter" in an "article"?
I have to agree -- Mayor Blum is correct in that the Brown Act does allow for reports that are not on the agenda. Substantive discussion, votes, etc are not allowed. Did the commissioner in question simply report and nothing more was questioned, answered or discussed?
Many of you will go to great lengths to dream up excuses to protect the trickery of City Hall.
As we sit back and read some of the posts, the "spin" becomes quite obvious.
The Brown Act was created to protect We the People from manipulative bureaucrats. The News-Press should be praised for their efforts here, not vilified.
So asking for evidence, besides the opinion of the News-Mess, is now considered "spin"?
Many of you will go to great lengths to dream up excuses to protect the trickery of City Hall.
No, you and your NP friends go to great lengths to dream up trickery of City Hall.
As we sit back and read some of the posts, the "spin" becomes quite obvious.
Lovely hypocrisy.
Post a Comment
<< Home