Home Depot & The Silence of The Lambs!
On Friday, Jan 19, The No Home Depot Campaign, and the residents of Sunland-Tujunga, finally got their long awaited hearing before the City. The room was literally packed with opponents of Home Depot, News Crews, and members of the Press.
The Hearing was presided over by a single Zoning Administrator, Gary Booher, who, in spite of the overflow crowd and media attention, ran a very tight ship, and did an excellent job of keeping the Hearing on track and devoid of emotional outbursts and
off topic arguments.
Councilmember Wendy Greuel was the first to speak on behalf of the Appellants and she came out swinging with her list of reasons why the proposed Home Depot should be declared a "Project" and be subject to environmental assessment.
The Respondents in this Appeal, LADBS, were present, but chose to sit in the back of the room and offer no response to the challenge presented to them.
They remained silent even after they were requested to speak by Mr Booher!
Instead Home Depot's legal team, Latham & Watkins, were inexplicably given the role of the respondent, and allowed to offer rebuttal to all of the No Home Depot Campaign
arguments.
The NHDC legal team and experts, including a gentlemen responsible for writing the earthquake building codes for California and much of the U.S., offered up fact after fact over the questionable plans of Home Depot's proposed store, and why they felt this project was plainly circumventing City building codes and Specific Plan Review.
The Home Depot legal team, on the other hand, chose to employ the "ad hominem" legal strategy of avoiding the facts and instead attempting to discredit the messenger.
After the Hearing, the Home Depot camp even tried to accuse the No Home Depot Campaign of being a front for one of it's competitors!
Hey, I guess if your back is against the wall......
Anyways, a decision is expected within a few weeks, and my prediction is that one way or another, this baby is going to court!
Note: The picture at the top of this post shows plywood on the roof of the building that Home Depot is remodeling. The plywood is covering an area of the roof that collapsed during the "simple, non structural remodel" that Home Depot claims it is doing!
(Aerial photo courtesy of "Alger Air", ...Fly Alger Air for all your Spy in the Sky needs!)
Posted by Unknown @ 1/21/2007 07:35:00 PM
29 Comments:
Fascinating!
Am I mistaken or didn't Latham & Watkins admit that some poor workman caused the collapse of that roof? Apparently he must have been a pretty heavy fellow, and oddly, they never mentioned whether he lived, was injured, recovered, or just slid on through. What warm and fuzzy people!
If a workman fell through the roof, causing one of those holes, who fell through the other two holes? Deadmen holding up the walls and workmen falling through the roof - makes one wonder if there is a "looking glass" in that building.
Whose the competitor? Ain't it a free world any more? When did it become illegal to fight a competitor? I thought that was free enterprise--you know the stuff Mayor Sam and Walter Moore are made out of.
Hey, Joe, you need to proofread your posts. They are full of holes just like the roof on the old K-Mart building. Ha Ha Ha One for each hole.
Does that mean your will be going to court? Maybe Walter Moore will volunteer his services? Oh, no, you want to win your case, don't you?
Saw you all over TV. No Home Depot, No Home Depot, No Home Depot! You guys were good. Did you have a cheerleader?
FYI --
That the L.A. Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) chose to refrain from commenting at an appeal of one its decisions is not surprising at all.
The real party in interest -- that's the legal term -- was Home Depot. That is the company with a financial stake in the outcome.
The LADBS, by contrast, has no more stake in the outcome of the appeal that a trial judge has in the outcome of an appeal. Just as trial judges do not bother to show up for appeals hearings to defend their decisions, the LADBS had no reason to present an argument when it decision was appealed.
So there's nothing sinister or odd about LADBS employees sitting in the back of the room without participating.
P.S. In 22 years of practice, I think I've lost three cases, and in two of those, let's just say the clients didn't exactly provide me with all the facts ahead of trial....
You weren't kidding when you said the place is surrounded by houses. They are so close that the HD employees can jump over the fence and take a swim on their breaks.
Sorry, Mr. Moore, but the appeal was not as to the decision of Home Depot to remodel the building as Tenant Improvements, but as to City Planning's decision to ignore that it is a "Significant Project" according to the Specific Plan and therefore, allowing LADBS to issue permits to Home Depot to remodel as Tenant Improvements. And frankly, an appeal by a community against LADBS has never happened before, so there is no precedent as to whether the appellant has the right to confront the evil-doing LADBS or the evil-decision-making City Planner.
Hey, Walter, Daniel Scott, the City Planner who is responsible for this fiasco, sat in the back of the room through the entire hearing. So if he didn't have to show up what was he doing there? Preparing to defend his actions in court, I would surmise.
What's that pit they are digging in front of the building?
So, Walter, how many cases have you fought in 22 years? Three?
Walter seems good, but I guess not the Rocky Marciano of trial lawyers.
I have been to dozens of hearing, but I have never gone to one like this one.
There were 200 people against Home Depot there. Other than the HD attorneys, only one person was there for Home Depot.
Most hearings have a total of five or six people there other than the hearing officers and clerks. It was unbelieveable.
And what a civilized and well-mannered group. They were full of adrenalin, but they were cool.
Mayor Sam should have gone to this hearing, considering all the flack he has been giving you guys. He could have gotten up and called you all M***er F***ers in person. Oh, that's right. He couldn't have come. He's dead.
Dan Scott ain't no lamb!
Why don't you guys call Osha? I think Cal Osha has been put on hold. Too bad. Cal Osha was much tougher than Osha, but then I don't think Osha will be too happy to hear about this.
P.S. Attacking the qualifications and credibility of an expert witness is not an ad hominen attack. Rather, such attacks bear on how much weight, if any, the trier of fact should give to their testimony. Education, training, experience, familiarity with the facts of the case, methodology, bias, etc. are all fair game.
To constitute an ad hominem attack, Home Depot's lawyers would have to have attacked aspects of the witnesses' life that had no bearing on their testimony (e.g., they're rotten tippers, they don't wash their hands after going to the little boys' room, that sort of thing).
As for the LADBS employee showing up, he probably wanted to see the show. Plus, he could see first hand what claims each side was making.
As for the basis of the appeal, no need to apologize. Based on what was posted here before, the decision NOT to appeal based on the tenant improvements argument was a wise one. Can you explain in 25 words or less the basis of the appeal?
How many cases have I handled? I've lost track. Somewhere over 100 but less than 1000. LOL re "three" though -- that was a good one.
Yes, walter, in 24 words actually.
"According to the Specific Plan governing this building, this remodel is a "Significant Project" because it requires structural alterations and a change of use."
P.S.
The guy sitting in the back, Daniel Scott, was from Planning not LADBS, although Lincoln Lee from LADBS was there alsol
Alger Air??? The official airline of the No On Home Depot campaign.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
DID DO IT CENTER PAY ALGER TO TAKE THOSE AERIAL SHOTS???? BETTER REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST JIM.
What was David Hernandez doing at the Home Depot meeting? Why was he sitting in the front row with those who spoke against the project?
It was a very educating experience for someone who is so pro business.
As a new member to the Glassell Park Chamber of Commerce, I was present at a presentation given by the Home Depot attorneys and public relations folks.
I found them to be very reasonable and informative with regards to the project being proposed at San Fernando Road and Fletcher. Those opposed to the project were just the opposite.
As a result of my open mindedness on the Glassell Park Project, I was not surprised to see a smile on the PR folks face when I arrived at the Van Nuys meeting.
That smile soon turned to dismay as I was greeted by the No Home Depot crowd and took a front row seat with the Home Depot opposition.
If I was a shill for the Do It Center, it is news to me. Where do I get my parking validated?
I listened to the issues which needed to be addressed and found the issue to be very matter of fact. Either the Home Depot folks were attempting to go around the zoning and permit process or they weren’t.
All of the other objections by community residents are valid to them, but that was not the purpose of the hearing.
Given the information presented, it is my opinion, that Home Depot is attempting to beat the system which has been established to protect communities against those who would put company profit before community well-being.
Glassell Park is still an open subject, but Sunland Tujunga is a NO. If you can not do it by following the rules and regulations, don’t build it!
MAyor Sam what happen to the posts about Do It? Did Joe Barret remove then?
What are you talking about 9:18? No, posts have been removed from this thread, but if you think that, repost!
I am totally astounded that Do It Center has become an issue in this matter. What difference would it make if Do It Center were helping the No Home Depot Campaign? They are part of the community and have the same rights to fight HD as any other member, right? Actually, Do It Center, Foothill Hardware, Merithews Hardware and other businesses and contractors who believe that Home Depot will put them out of business have demonstrated at the recent demonstrations. So?
So Walter, you attack, ask questions, and hide. What a technique. You never responded to the answer to your question. No time to read the Specific Plan? Too bad. It is impossible to take a legal stand on anything without reading the law, is it not?
Walter is still hiding?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home