John Kaufmann said...
I guess the first issue is that we have no documentation that the development at Regatta is the source of the homeowner's water problems. I do not dismiss this allegation but we have no idea to what extent the lack of science has contributed to the reticense of the homeowners to sue. It would be helpful to know what the basis of the claim is.
As you note, the homeowner indicated that he was not going to pursue litigation. There is no reason based upon the available information that we should not take him at his word.
In fact, if there was a potential liability, then there is no reason that Scirocco could not have used this as his argument when he approached the council. Since he was not responsible for the original decision he would have nothing to lose. More important, the council could consult with attornies to determine to what extent the city had a real liability.
As regards the timing, the construction work on this project started only about a week and a half ago which explains the timing.
This kind of indifference to public malfeance is disheartening. Allowing Scirocco to provide favors at great expense to the city and to ineptly attempt to cover this up is a very bad precedent. It sets a very low bar for people who are elected in terms of lying, abuse of office, and favortism.