|
July 31, 2007
Meanwhile in Berkeley....
Who needs satire when all you have to do is read news from Berkeley? By law, elected members of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board (the rent control commissars) are supposed to live in Berkeley. However, according to a report in the SF Chronicle, that legal technicality has not prevented one elected commissioner from living in Oakland (apparently for a long time). This has come to light now that he's fighting eviction -- allegedly with help from a community law center that has a contract with the Rent Board: Over in Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board member Chris Kavanagh, who by law should be living in Berkeley, is fighting eviction from a cottage he rents in Oakland.What interest might San Francsico Chronicle reporters Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross have in attempting to "influence the litigation" one way or another? Are they partners in the property in question? Janowitz does not say, and I think it's more likely that they have no interest at all in the outcome of the litigation (which appears to involve the new owners trying to evict tenants so they can move in). Unless I am reading the piece wrong (or these reporters have not disclosed an ownership interest in the Oakland property), their interest is simply in the story of a Berkeley Rent Board member who is not living in Berkeley where the law requires him to live, but is instead living in Oakland, where he's allegedly using a non-profit firm the Rent Board has a contract with to defend an eviction in Oakland. It would appear to be a very newsworthy story. Newsworthy enough for Judith Scherr of the Berkeley Daily Planet to investigate further: Glen Kohler, manager of the apartment building at 2709 Dwight Way, responded to the Planet's inquiry, saying: "No, he doesn't" live at that address.As to why Janowitz hasn't accused Judith Scherr of attempting to influence the litigation, I'm not sure. I don't know anything about the merits of this litigation, and I'm only speculating that the new owners want to move in. If their goal is to live in their own house, I'd support their right to do that. So, while that would appear to place me on the side of the property owner, I really wouldn't want to "attempting to influence the litigation by resorting to extrajudicial gossip," nor do I think I could. This is only a blog post, and while I don't reach as many Bay Area people as the local press there, I think the legal system can and should run its course regardless of what is said in any report or blog post, whether involving "extrajudicial gossip" or newsworthy facts. posted by Eric on 07.31.07 at 02:01 PM |
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The false flag that falsely flags itself
After Pakistan Hillary has "political post-traumatic stress disorder" Laundering alimentary values Anticipating an epiphany (on behalf of "ordinary people") Build a better world by destroying wealth! Meanwhile in Berkeley.... "We cannot have intact testicles on government property!" Crime, punishment, and blurred distinctions Nerds
Links
Site Credits
|
|