Of course I’m not going to explain how to do it – thereby giving burglars a tool !
This is intended as a warning for Elected officials to Immediately HALT this insane, outrageous Privacy violation.
]]>I’d like to know too . Stationed there Jan 85′ to Aug 88′
]]>I’d like to know too. I was there in 71-72.
]]>Thank you for your thoughts Michelle.
The MOU has NOT yet been publicly disclosed – or we wouldn’t need to sue the County to give us a copy to publish on HOPE’s website for you and everyone else to read.
We have solid, credible sources that have convinced us that a signed MOU exists.
Further, no one has yet denied that it exists !
As this case proceeds, we would be foolhardy not to expect some distractions or flat-out “fish stories” or “terminological inexactitude” when those responsible are asked point blank.
Worst case for the public is the MOU exists, but everyone fibs when asked about it and we can’t get it. Then we end up with egg on our face.
Or, we could be the target of an intricate, elaborate prank. But I doubt it.
Considering our sources we are willing to take the small risk.
An interesting question is – If there is no water promise MOU between Monterey Downs, Cal-Am and the County, why did Potter want to stop us from filing our lawsuit ?
]]>What did the VA have to say? I was there in the early 70s.
]]>Thank you for your note.
If you want to stop/kill the project, you need to get a majority of votes from Vallejo’s council.
That’s usually a formidable task with the short time frame of a project approval looming.
Sorry, but Yes, you do have to give them the opportunity to correct any deficiencies for the Final EIR.
CEQA is about disclosing the potential impacts so the public and decision makers can understand it before approvals.
Since you are confident the project will get approved, your job becomes preparing now to convince a Superior Court Judge that Vallejo has violated even the bare minimum requirements for disclosure and analysis required by CEQA.
Do use HOPE’s form or lift the language from it for your own comment letters.
This is not a game of “got ya.” If you do not give them the opportunity to correct any deficiencies for the Final EIR the court has no reason to rule in your favor.
Sadly, DREGs (Developers, Resource Extractors and Governments) rarely do pay ANY attention to comments from the public which is why it is so easy to win CEQA lawsuits. They typically arrogantly believe (not “think”) that no one except they are experts in environmental impacts, CEQA or the project.
So, use the form, explain the impacts using language that a fairly disinterested Judge can understand and cannot ignore.
If it costs them time (years) and money (including your attorney’s fees) to correct CEQA – EIR deficiencies – that was THEIR choice.
]]>I began the process of going through the 700+ pages for deficiencies and quickly realized I’d be helping them write a bulletproof final EIR if I give them all the specific comments and questions at this stage. I can delay it and cost them and maybe make them recirculate, but that’s all. It seems it might be better to give them the bare minimum required to have standing and save the specifics for a court challenge. Is the checklist form linked to your site all that would be required to later mount challenges based on specific deficiencies in the EIR? Any thoughts based on your experience on strategy with regard to CEQA when the intent is actually to kill a bad project? Thanks for your good work.
]]>Thank you for your note Sal. Do you have a link to the Harvard study you mentioned ?
]]>