- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Who is benefitting from this lawsuit? | Letters | Sept. 18
Re: Nat Levy’s news story (Sept. 11), “City granted summary judgment.”
Supporters of good government have something to celebrate, but I wonder if the Ratepayer’s Alliance will persist in its attempt to prevent the city from obtaining bonds for urgently needed public works projects. This could have dire consequences.
The alliance and its supporters should offer the public the kind of “transparency” that they expect from people in public office.
Sally Adams, identified as secretary for the group, has said that they plan to appeal the judge’s dismissal and refile their suit. Who will benefit? Who supports this litigation?
In the past, at least one member of the City Council publicly supported the alliance: what do the members of the council think now?
I believe that at least one candidate for the council supports the alliance and its goals.
I’d like to know where the candidates stand on the lawsuit and related questions about the schedule for Winslow Way reconstruction.
This lawsuit has been, and remains, deeply divisive. It has strained old friendships and working relationships. It’s my understanding that the suit was filed in frustration, when the city did not respond to inquiries that the alliance considered legitimate.
In their eyes, the mayor and her administration appeared to be covering up dishonest dealings. But that was then, this is now. Isn’t it time to move on?
I fail to see how this lawsuit serves the public interest. The alliance and its supporters come across as an embattled, secretive minority, stubbornly convinced that they are right and their opponents are dangerously wrong.
If furtive and factional tactics are unacceptable inside City Hall, citizens should abide by the same rules.