Monday, April 07, 2008

Why doesn't Chris Daly want to vote on the Market/Octavia Plan?

FROM:
Mary Miles (SBN 230395)
Attorney at Law
San Francisco, CA 94102

TO:
Supervisor Chris Daly
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

DATE: April 7, 2008

By FAX to: (415) 554-7974; by e-mail; and by U.S. Mail.

IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST
REQUEST PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (Gov. Code §§6250 et seq.); and SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §§67 et seq., 67.25 (“SUNSHINE ORDINANCE”).


Dear Mr. Daly:

Pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Government Code §§6250 et seq.), and the San Francisco “Sunshine Ordinance” (San Francisco Administrative Code §§67 et seq., 67.25), this is a request for immediate access to and the opportunity to get copies of the following documents.

1. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the Market-Octavia Project. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents showing your membership, affiliation, endorsement or support of any individual or organization that supports or in involved with the Market-Octavia Project. If you have no such membership, affiliation, endorsement or support, please so state in writing.
g. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the Market-Octavia Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the Market-Octavia Project. If such documents and records do not exist, please so state in writing.
h. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requested recusal from voting on the Market-Octavia Project. If no such documents exist, please so state in writing.

2. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the University of California Extension development Project, aka “55 Laguna” Project, aka “218-220 Buchanan” project. For purposes of this Request, please include as “the Project” all proposals for development by any entity or person, including the University of California and their Regents, A.F. Evans, and Openhouse, and any other entity that will be involved in the implementation of this Project if it is approved. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents showing your membership, affiliation, endorsement or support of any individual or organization that supports or in involved with the “55 Laguna” Project. If you have no such membership, affiliation, endorsement or support, please so state in writing.
g. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the “55 Laguna” Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the “55 Laguna” Project. If such documents and records do not exist, please so state in writing.
h. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requested recusal from voting on the “55 Laguna” Project. If no such documents exist, please so state in writing.

If I have not received a response and all materials requested within twenty-four hours (one business day) of your receipt of this Request, I shall deem this Request deliberately denied.

Thank you for your immediate attention to and action on this Request.

Sincerely,
Mary Miles

Labels:

6 Comments:

At 3:11 PM, Anonymous murphstahoe said...

maybe he doesn't have time to vote because he is responding to this sunshine request?

I'm no Daly lover but this is absurd. You complain about the supervisors, what this will accomplish is that only the precious few willing to put up with this level of BS will be willing to run for Supervisor. There just might be someone out there who would be amenable to all of us, but he'll take one look at this and say "Whoa, I don't need this BS".

I understand the rationale for the sunshine ordinance. I just think rational people would use that power wisely. Your milage may vary. Ad Hominem attacks won't change my mind.

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Where's the ad hominem attack? What's "absurd"? are you talking about? Daly has recused himself from voting on the Market/Octavia Plan, a huge project that will rezone thousands of properties in the middle of the city. You don't think he should explain his request for recusal? This is some kind of imposition on Lord Daly? Preposterous! He's making $100,000 a year plus benefits, and he shouldn't be expected to respond to a simple PRA request? You are a natural born serf, Murph.

 
At 10:57 PM, Anonymous murphstahoe said...

"Natural Born Serf" - ad hominem attack. I knew you could not resist.

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, you are such a delicate flower, Murph, to have to put up with such abuse. Still waiting for you to explain why it's "absurd" to ask Daly to explain recusing himself from voting on such an important project.

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous murphstahoe said...

"delicate flower". I forgot "Lord Daly"

It has nothing to do with abuse. 50% of your points are ad hominem attacks. If you had real credibility there would be no reason to use this tactic, the arguments would stand on their own merits. Your injunction is - face it - just you gaming the system. Sucks for us, but we'll deal with it. Life could be worse, if I were in a car instead of worrying about getting hit, I'd be worried about getting shot.

Eagerly awaiting your next ad hominem gem.

 
At 8:33 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Still waiting for a substantive comment on the post from you, crybaby.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home