According to the two articles in the Journal and the Sun it looks like this case is going to boil down to a definition on what constitutes “uniformity” when it comes to the application of parcel taxes. The attorney for the Alamedans for Fair Taxation seems to believe that in spite of the fact that things have gotten a little “squirrelly” that he still has a solid case even though there is not a single case on point, or I suppose that he has found, that sets precedent on this issue.
Personally, I am surprised at how confident AFT’s attorney has come off in these interviews, because no case is a “slam dunk” or an immediate win. Perhaps he is banking on the school district to back off and make some sort of settlement as to the commercial property taxes in order to avoid a protracted lawsuit, because that is all that this will result in. At this point, the chances of winning and losing on both sides is 50 – 50. Strike that, the moment that the lawsuit is filed, no one wins, except, as Bill Schaff put it in the Journal:
“When a lawsuit is filed the lawyers always win and the people pay the cost,” he said.
So, it is time for cooler and more rational heads to prevail rather than to be egged on by a lawyer who is looking at his hourly billable rate and rubbing his hands in glee. If the commercial property owners/businesses (whomever is paying the tax) want to talk about the gripes and grievances, and, I don’t know if this is even possible, to make some slight adjustments to the way the commercial property parcel tax is collected, then do it sans Mr. Brilliant. Because once folks start spending some serious cash on the effort it will be much harder to walk away.
And while folks who didn’t want Measure H to pass in the first place can go around saying that other residents shouldn’t be threatening the livelihood of businesses who are supporting the efforts of AFT, there will always be a certain folks out there that can’t get past the perceived betrayal of businesses that they have supported over the years who are seemingly turning their back on the community by this effort. I’m not going to judge whether this sentiment is right or wrong, but that I can understand it. I think that the letters in the two papers are only the start at the kind of backlash that could happen if this were to move forward.
Interestingly enough, I’m not surprised to see that none of the businesses, even those that were very vocal during the election want to talk about their involvement in this lawsuit and even the Park Street Business Association is backing away from the idea that they are somehow involved.
At this point, I’m not going to alter where I don’t go shopping, but I will alter where I do go, in that, I will be trying my hardest to go out of my way to support businesses that I know are supporting the schools.
Update: Michele Ellson has the scoop on the lawsuit, the plantiff a one George J. Borikas has agreed to step up as plaintiff in the case.
Forget about a list of businesses supporting the lawsuit. A list of businesses supporting the schools would be nice, that way we could tell them we appreciate their support the next time we go shopping there.
Comment by notadave — August 22, 2008 @ 8:30 am
I have placed two of Jeff T.’s comments to “moderated.”
Here’s why: while I respect folks right to be anonymous, I respect even more people who are willing to stand behind their statements with their real names.
If you are going to call someone out then back up your allegations with your real name, if you are unwilling to do so, then refrain from making personal comments attacking the person’s ethics.
If anyone has a problem with this, you can email me.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 22, 2008 @ 9:47 am
” If the commercial property owners/businesses (whomever is paying the tax) want to talk about the gripes and grievances, and, I don’t know if this is even possible, to make some slight adjustments to the way the commercial property parcel tax is collected, then do it sans Mr. Brilliant.”
Lauren, this is not possible as the crazy boycott train has already left the station. The only way for the commercial businesses to proceed now, without threat of public recourse, is to file a lawsuit in the name of someone who does not care whether he is scorned by the public . This way, they can fund the suit anonymously and not have a pack of Alameda crazies picketing in front of their stores. If this Island was more tolerant of opposing views, didn’t constantly place disproportionate burdens upon the earners, and hadn’t immediately organized a boycott lynch mob, an anonymous lawsuit would not have been necessary. I guess that we simply reap what we sow …
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 9:49 am
“I have placed two of Jeff T.’s comments to “moderated.””
[moderated]
I guess that means that you will now start slanting all blog posts to favor your side. Too bad, this used to be a respectable blog. I guess that people seeking the truth and seeking to post actual facts in rebuttal to outrageous claims should post elsewhere …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Is [moderated] simply afraid of the truth? [moderated] I think appropriate facebook and myspace pages providing all relevant details will be necessary if I can not express my self here. Maybe a letter to the Editors of the local paper as well. I think that I’ll hit all of the local blogs too.
Once again, I ask you Lauren … are you sure that you want to censor the truth here and force me to find another outlet?
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 10:01 am
…we wouldn’t be trying to discredit someone by pulling out information about someone that is more than 14 years old of which we have no details about AND use an anonymous handle to do so.
If you are willing to stand behind what you have said with your real name than I won’t moderate because then you are willing to take whatever blowback from your statements. Until then perhaps you should ask the person you have made allegations about what were the circumstances behind what happened before assuming you understand what happened.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 22, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I’m in favor of ANY action that encourages you to find another outlet.
Comment by Cesar Chavez — August 22, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Do what you need to do, I have been extremely tolerant of folks using multiple handles and sockpuppets as well as extremely judicious in how I moderate comments.
Some things cross the line for me, and this was it.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 22, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Make up whatever irrelevant reason you want for censoring the truth. However, the people of Alameda have a right to know what type of people that they are entrusting their children to.
This is your blog and you can edit and skew the truth however you want to on your blog. However, as I was once happy to leave my comments only here, I must now seek to bring these facts out elsewhere … in as many different forums as I can.
Thank you, Lauren, for enlightening me as to just how important it is that the parents and students of Alameda know just what type of person Brian Rodriguez is. Not my opinion of him or my interpretation of what happened … but simply the FACTS. They can draw their own conclusions
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Funny, that in a community that so wants to be completely involved in every aspect of school business that no one wants to hear a FACT that seriously casts doubt on the suitability of one of its teachers to serve as a role model for our students …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 10:25 am
TTS/JRT – I read your comments before they were moderated. You provide zero information, make accusations about B. Rodriguez taking the “ethical highground” to defend your own gutter accusations. He made no such claim. He offered an opinion which you challenged his knowledge. Your rebuttal did nothing to challenge his knowledge, it was 100% pure ad hominem. Congrats.
The information said nothing about anything you are writing about. You are just getting into smearing someone’s reputation. But given your preferred identity, I don’t think your interested in doing much else
Your “facts” say nothing about Mr. Rodriguez’s knowledge of the law, or his appropriateness as a teacher, in fact, the link you provided doesn’t use the term “ethics” anywhere, you made that up to fit your defense.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — August 22, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Actually, JKW, he specifically asserted his legal opinion and told us not to listen to the real lawyer. He also offered up his law school as evidence that he was right. However, he conveniently omitted the FACT that he was disciplined as an attorney and then finally disbarred.
His disbarment specifically calls in to question his competence and/or his ethics … both of which a relevant to his baseless conjecture on the thread in question and to his suitability as a teacher. Unless, of course, one should not consider a teacher’s unethical conduct when evaluating suitability as a role model …
Don’t take my word for it, do your own research and then draw your own conclusions:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=74961
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 10:50 am
I did my own research, to the same level as you apparently. Since you don’t actually know why, so your claims of incompetence and unsuitability are baseless. You don’t know what you are talking about. Pay for the archived records, start a facebook page and go for it! who knows, maybe you’ll be successful in ruining someones reputation based on nothing more than a summary that does nothing to explain anything.
If Mr. Rodriguez decides to practice law, then it becomes relevant.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — August 22, 2008 @ 11:22 am
“Who knows, maybe you’ll be successful in ruining someones reputation.”
As is typical around here, blame everyone except the individual who was disciplined, suspended, and then disbarred. How about a little personal responsibility on the part of those who hold themselves out to be role models for our community’s children??? If Brian Rodriguez’s reputation is ruined by an anonymous post to a publicly available link on a local blog, then I guess that his reputation was not that strong to begin with.
And, if you think that my post is baseless, let’s ask Brian for the truth. Brian, why were you disciplined, suspended, and disbarred from practicing law in California???
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — August 22, 2008 @ 11:41 am
“Your claims of incompetence and unsuitability are baseless.”
Yes, I am sure that attorneys often get disciplined, suspended, and disbarred from practicing law in California for being really good guys
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Lectures about taking personal responsibility from people who hide behind fake emails and multiple fake names is a little high on the irony scale for me. Good luck with the witch hunt.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — August 22, 2008 @ 11:46 am
John – this is simply the comment section of a local blog where much of the community remains anonymous to protect themselves from a few crazies with a propensity for intolerance, picketing and boycotting. When I start holding myself out as a pillar of the community and legal expert, feel free to investigate my background to determine whether I am telling the truth.
What I find ironic, John, is that you of all people could care less about the moral fiber of our children’s role models. You don’t even what to research this further … just sweep it under the rug. What if Brian Rodriguez was disbarred for something truly devious (which, by the way, is usually why attorneys get disbarred)? Would you want to know, or would you simply want to sweep that under the rug? What if it were Mayor Johnson who was disbarred? What if it were Doug DeHaan? Would you want to know then?
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
TTS/JRT, you’ve made an accusation, and it’s based on “what ifs” that you have the ability to look into, but in true Bloggy nuttiness, you haven’t bothered to follow through. Instead you anonymously ask loaded questions that you don’t know the answer to that lead readers to make assumptions that are likely incorrect.
I care deeply about the moral fiber of my children’s role models. I think that casting unfounded aspersions on people while hiding myself from the repercussions of my actions and claiming “I’m simply asking questions” to be of incredibly low moral caliber. You talk a lot about personal responsibility while abdicating your own.
You can rest assured that my children will be taught (and hopefully learn) not to make accusations they are not willing to stand behind, because in my mind that’s the sign of poor moral fiber.
Mr. Rodriguez clearly made a mistake that he obviously paid for 15 years ago (you know, the whole personal responsibility thing you’re so big on lecturing everyone about).
From my understanding he’s a gem of a teacher who has the respect of people who’s views I know and respect (I am able to do so because they stand behind them, not cower anonymously on the internet flaming with unsupported questions).
Clearly you understand the slime you are slinging. You wouldn’t hide if you didn’t. Good luck with it.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — August 22, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
“I care deeply about the moral fiber of my children’s role models.”
Good … then I assume that you will be investigating this matter further. Unless, of course, Brian graces us with a response to the simple question of why he was disciplined, suspended, and finally disbarred.
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Wherever anyone did or did not go to law school and whatever type of lawyer anyone is or isn’t or was or wasn’t. . . before the detour to personal attacks about stuff that may have happened in the early 90’s, wasn’t this discussion about what “uniformly” might mean?
I doubt any decent lawyer can really tell anyone anything definitive about how a court might interpret “uniformly” or predict with confidence anything else that might happen if this case goes ahead. So it seems clear that neither side has anything close to a “slam dunk.”
Litigation is like war. No one wins. Some people just lose less than others. So, even if the Measure really is unlawful in part, it doesn’t follow that war is the answer.
The backers of this lawsuit have the power to stop a civil war in which everyone loses: the City’s image and tax revenue, the business community’s public image, kids in school, everyone who enjoys the Mayberry-ness of Alameda, etc.
I think that war that started in 2003 after Mr. Tenet also talked about a “slam dunk” has turned out a bit differently than advertised.
Give peace a chance?
Comment by Uniformly Yoko — August 22, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
“So, even if the Measure really is unlawful in part, it doesn’t follow that war is the answer. The backers of this lawsuit have the power to stop a civil war in which everyone loses: the City’s image and tax revenue, the business community’s public image, kids in school, everyone who enjoys the Mayberry-ness of Alameda, etc.”
But why, once again, is it not the responsibility the party that committed the unlawful action, Alameda, to resolve the conflict? Alameda drafts a potentially illegal parcel tax and the victims should back down?
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Where have I heard that . . . “Well, it’s not my fault. He started it, Mom!”
I hope some grown ups show up somewhere soon.
Glad Jeff Thomason wasn’t in the White House in October 1962.
Comment by Uniformly Yoko — August 22, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Funny … two kids in my shop were just chastised for saying that. Fine, we’ll agree to drop the lawsuit if you agree to not enforce the tax
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
This is not the first parcel tax written this way. AUSD didn’t go out on some ground breaking venture. Although I was not the attorney who reviewed it before it was submitted I can guarantee you this was looked at by more than one lawyer before it was put on the ballot.
I am very curious how people could say they didn’t know what the tax was. I am not an avid reader of either paper yet I saw it several times. It was also very clearly written in the ballot book.
School’s are in trouble all over this state. I doubt they are all run perfectly but in general they are not funded well, I don’t think most people can deny that fact. When business districts are in trouble they use “redevelopment funds” and fix them. Webster has fancy sidewalks and Park Street was handed the golden key with a fancy theater. If we shouldn’t fund education we shouldn’t fund boosting business opportunites.
Comment by legally not blonde — August 22, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
“We shouldn’t fund education, we shouldn’t fund boosting business opportunities.”
Finally, the voice of reason … I agree with you brother!
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
First I said “If”. I think we should do both if we want the community we have here. I am very happy to pay for both the keep the lifestyle I have here in Alameda.
Secondly, I am a sister and thankfully not yours!
Comment by legally not blonde — August 22, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
“I am a sister and thankfully not yours!”
Why, are you having romantical thoughts about me???
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
So Jeff, have you stopped beating your wife yet? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Comment by notadave — August 22, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
My wife, yes. Your wife, no … but hey, she likes it
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Now that I have answered a question, it is Brian’s turn: Brian, why were you disbarred?
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Again wrong answer. “Have you stopped beating your wife” is a loaded question (pay attention here jeff, this might be fairly advanced for you). A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The correct answer would be. “Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”
Lets see how that answer works with other loaded questions:
Q “More lazy welfare loafers from Oakland are just fine?”
A”Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”
Q “are you sure that you want to censor the truth here and force me to find another outlet?”
A”Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”
Q “s it not the responsibility the party that committed the unlawful action, Alameda, to resolve the conflict?”
A”Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”
Yep, works every time
Typically, anyone asking a loaded question is not doing in the interests of gaining knowledge or engaging in dialog, they are doing it to engage in argument or to sell something. Jeff has mentioned he has a shop, so maybe he is trying to sell something, but I don’t think he is going to have much business.
Comment by notadave — August 22, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
OK … let me ask very specific non-loaded questions:
1) Why was Brian Rodriguez disciplined, suspended, and finally disbarred from the practice of law in California?
2)If Measure H is in fact illegal, shouldn’t it be repealed?
It doesn’t get more basic than that …
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Like a preacher with a hooker on the side talking to his flock on Sunday about morals, why are you so worried about Brian?
Comment by legally not blonde — August 22, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
PS – Thanks for dumbing it down for me
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
“Why are you so worried about Brian?”
1). Because he has been representing himself to be a legal expert on the Measure H issue;
2). Because he is a teacher that is paid by my tax dollars and is supposed to be a role model for his students, including my children; and
3). Because any mention of his transgressions are attacked, censored, and swept under the rug. Generally, this community likes to be fully informed … unless the information pertains to one of the “progressive” clique leaders.
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
And let me respond
1. That is up to Brian to respond to, or not, as he feels the need. Brian never represented himself to be a legal expert on measure H. He expressed an opinion (which was quite close to mine actually) that a number of districts across california had passed similar parcel taxes, and that it is likely that the taxes would have been challenged before now if there was such a clear cut case. He only discussed his legal qualifications when you asked where he got his law degree. He answered, as far as I know, truthfully. You on the other hand have, multiple times, declared measure H illegal. Do you have any legal qualifications, or is that just your opinion?
2. If measure H is found to be unlawful, then yes, I thin it shoudl be repealled, and a new parcel tax passed. That’s a mighty big if though (my opinion)and until such time as it is declared unlawful, the collection and disbursement of the money should proceed.
Comment by notadave — August 22, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Thomason is bogarting the blog!
Not cool. Please leave some space for Kirwin and everyone else.
Mellow out, dude.
Comment by Uniformly Yoko — August 22, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
#37 … “You on the other hand have, multiple times, declared measure H illegal.”
Please point to one instance where declared the Measure illegal … you can’t.
#38 … Sorry Yoko, it has been a slow day here at the shop. I will now proceed to chill … in spite of what you did to the Beatles:-)
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 22, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
# 20 “The backers of this lawsuit have the power to stop a civil war in which everyone loses: the City’s image and tax revenue, the business community’s public image, kids in school, everyone who enjoys the Mayberry-ness of Alameda, etc.”
# 21 “But why, once again, is it not the responsibility the party that committed the unlawful action, Alameda, to resolve the conflict? Alameda drafts a potentially illegal parcel tax and the victims should back down?”
Like it or not, JRT has a point. Anyone interested in minimizing their tax liabilities in the United States should take their cue from a 1947 opinion by Justice Learned Hand: “Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs so as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor, and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is pure cant.”
Comment by Jack Richard — August 22, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
I’ll bet every day is slow at your shop.
Just think how slow it would be if you used your real name on this Blog.
Comment by john piziali — August 22, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I could never pass a bar, but I did fine one definition of what sounds like a reasonable definition of:
Uniformity
The principle of uniformity of taxation bears a close relation to the concept of equality because similar items are taxed equally only if the mode of assessment is the same or uniform.
A tax that is levied upon property must be in proportion or according to its value, ordinarily determined as its fair cash or fair market value. This requirement protects equality and uniformity of taxation by preventing arbitrary or inconsistent methods of determining how much tax is due. This requirement applies only to property taxes, not to excise taxes.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 22, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
I’m so relieved to read that caveat about *similar items*
So, if the items aren’t similar, it is ok not to tax them identically.
So H is legal. Phew!
Comment by Uniformly Yoko — August 22, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
41
Glad to hear you’ve changed your tune on Prop 13, Jack.
Comment by dave — August 22, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
From#16, Buycott: (From CA law, not Jack’s unnamed dictionary…
Look here…
http://www.orrick.com/publications/item.asp?action=article&articleID=1200
or here…
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/50079-50079.5.html
Comment by R. Cobre — August 21, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Comment by dk — August 22, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
#38. jeffy, jeffy, jeffy, you make it to easy “the party that committed the unlawful action, Alameda”
is just the most recent mention.
Comment by notadave — August 22, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Enough is enough. ..I ask anyone who cares about Alameda and our youth to stop acknowledging ” Tay Tay Shaniqua” person. Only real people, with real beliefs express themselves using their real identities.
Please join me and stop responding to Tay Tay Shaniqua from today forward.
Comment by Diana Kenney — August 22, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
If we followed your advice, Diana, out of 46 comments on this thread, there would only be five fully named participants. None of who were speaking to each other. Kind of like it is with or without full names…whistling in the wind.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 23, 2008 @ 9:43 am
@JR point taken. I really think TTS is getting “off” with his/her negative, hate-filled attacks. Most people commenting here have more intelligence. TTS threatens to go to MySpace etc. with their message..I say please do.
Comment by Diana Kenney — August 23, 2008 @ 10:12 am
#46 – 48
So maybe this blog would be much better if onlysubmissioins usung real names were allowed. Is that your belief?
Comment by dk — August 23, 2008 @ 10:19 am
@dk I believe that people should stop attacking one another. Nothing good will come out of such mean banter. It saddens me that such hate-filled, mean spirited people feel that because they can hide behind the anonymity of the their computers that they can say useless hurtful comments to their fellow humans. I see nothing good coming out of such ridiculous comments. What a sad time for humanity!
Comment by Diana Kenney — August 24, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Diana … take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 24, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
“I’ll bet every day is slow at your shop. Just think how slow it would be if you used your real name on this Blog.”
John Piziali … yes sir, I am sure that you would be out in front of my business every day with your angry little picket sign. Just another reason that your political career is over … the Alameda business community thinks that you are an angry little pompous agitator. But I still love ya
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — August 24, 2008 @ 6:47 pm