(Addressed to Arnold York)At a chance meeting we had last week, I expressed my great dismay over the fact that your Endorsements article of November 2, 2000 misstated the facts. Your article read as follows: “There are a number of slow-growth initiatives in this state that have passed constitutional muster. So what’s wrong with this one? The problem is, rather than just copying another initiative that has already been tested in the courts, the proponents decided those other initiatives weren’t strong enough and they wanted their own initiative. That’s apparently what they did. A committee of P proponents got together and wrote the initiative. They insist highly reputable law firms wrote it, but those highly reputable firms have yet to come out of the woodwork and offer up an attorney’s letter standing behind the proposition.”
I recalled to you that you were present at the city council meeting of September 1l, 2000 when the letter from the premier law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP was read into the record. They indicated that as a result of the short notice, they would not be able to attend, and went on to state “we participated in the drafting of the initiative on behalf of our client.” That letter took exception to the position as stated by our city attorney as follows: “We note for the record, however, that we have reviewed the impartial analysis and the August 15, 2000 memorandum concerning the initiative and disagree entirely with the analysis and conclusions in those documents.” This letter was read into the record by Frederick Woocher, of the very highly regarded land-use law firm of Strumwasser & Woocher, LLP.
Your criticism of the proponents of Measure P for not having a reputable law firm write the initiative was clearly misleading and disingenuous. A retraction, although the damage has already been done, should hopefully be forthcoming.
Ozzie Silna