However, this appointment process also touched on residential development, which remains a hot-button issue in Tracy despite the collapse of the housing market.
A lawyer, Nicolaou once wrote a letter for a client who was opposed to some facet of the Ellis project — the at-times controversial development that earned unanimous approval from the City Council in 2008.
That brief involvement in one of the city’s most significant land-use decisions was enough to raise “red flags” with councilwomen Suzanne Tucker and Evelyn Tolbert. After a lengthy discussion, Tucker and Tolbert were unable to lend their support to a candidate with “that kind of potential conflict.”
But it came up more than once that Nicolaou’s letter — which we should really understand as his client’s letter — opposed the Ellis project in a published, public manner.
That was the glue that seemed to make the “conflict of interest” tag stick. That the letter, in Tolbert’s words, was “in direct opposition to what the community said for seven years they want and what the council has been working diligently toward.”
In other words, it took a long time to approve Ellis and the swim center that’s attached to it, and Nicolaou’s client opposed at least one aspect of it.
Tolbert explained that it wouldn’t be practical to appoint someone to the planning commission if that person would have to bow out repeatedly regarding Ellis project decisions, seeing as aspects of that development will be before the commission frequently.
That makes sense. Why appoint what amounts to an absentee commissioner?
But it isn’t even clear how often — if at all — Nicolaou would have had to recuse himself.
Councilman Steve Abercrombie stated that, in two interviews he and Councilman Mike Maciel conducted with Nicolaou, the candidate made it clear that the letter he wrote was a one-time affair.
According to Maciel, “(Nicolaou said) it dealt with one client on that one issue, and he didn’t have any other clients that he felt would have an interest that would create a potential conflict of interest.”
And, contrary to Tucker’s insistence that the candidate “makes his bread and butter doing land use,” Nicolaou himself explained his forte differently on the Tracy Press Web site:
“I am a business attorney. That means I work with businesses, all of which are family-owned, many of which are very respected members of our local farming community. In representing my clients, I do business law, such as forming partnerships and corporations, estate planning (i.e. wills and trusts), tax planning and, yes, real estate work, which consists exclusively of doing commercial and agricultural lease work, landlord-tenant matters, working on sales agreements for agricultural and commercial properties, real estate exchange agreements and option agreements.
“For those who don't know, a ‘land use’ attorney is an attorney that specializes in representing clients who want to get a particular piece of property approved for a certain type of development. Not my cup of tea.
“The letter that I wrote on the Ellis project was written by me on behalf of a client, a very well-respected member of our community. Given the oath I took as an attorney, I felt that I was duty-bound to submit that letter on behalf of my client, regardless of my personal preferences on the Ellis project, be they good, bad or indifferent. That is the job of an attorney, and for those of you that have ever required the services of an attorney, I am sure you can relate to that fact and respect it.”
Now, trust is not something to be handed to public figures — especially those seeking office or holding it. But those sound like the words of man who understands the law and has an ethical sensibility to match.
Still, Nicolaou was passed over.
(Regardless, kudos are in order to Alfred Johnson, the man who was appointed in Nicolaou’s stead and is clearly qualified for the position.)
Following the council’s discussion, Mayor Brent Ives might have offered the most sensible caution of the evening:
“I certainly think we need to be careful not to preclude anyone who does real estate in town, or anyone who’s a lawyer in town, or anyone who has an opinion in town. …
“We need to be real careful not to presume or to give the implication here that, because of the nature of the letter, that we’re taking exception to this candidate.”
But the implication is there.
Despite the well-taken points from Tolbert regarding a heightened sensitivity to conflict-of-interest matters in the wake of the Shishido fiasco, the “nature of the letter” loomed too large over Nicolaou’s confirmation debate.
So instead of the March 2 discussion being taken as a stand against conflict of interest, another message might have seeped between the lines:
Don’t throw a wrench in the Ellis project.
• Contact columnist and associate editor Jon Mendelson at jmendelson@tracypress.com.
How was Measure self-sustaining? It took our tax dollars and put it into the hands of special interests. I still cannot find a website showing the expenditures of the lawsuit proceeds. We are left to guess the money is gone. Self-sustaining for who(m)?
Measure A is not smart growth. It's irresponsible growth. Just look at Mountain House. They started building in Mountain House immediately after Measure A. And haven't seen the Gateway Business Park since. And that was when the economy was still chugging.
If you can. Name thirty people with solar panels OR flushless urinals.
The problem with Measure A. It was stupid growth. They even tried to change the name from slow to smart, but it was too late. It cost too much. And then the economy. If they're going to have one issue they should have at least got it right.
The new role the council has cast for themselves is enforcer of "enlightened," community-approved norms upon closely shepherded developments that would otherwise be straightforward profit-maximizing exercises (such as the maximally dense neighborhoods built during the '90s and early '00s). The Emerald Tracy process is one example of this, albeit one with relatively anemic community participation, from what I've seen so far. On top of that, most of the participants at the last Emerald meeting I attended were primarily concerned with securing public funding for improvement of existing construction, not standards that would be applied to new development. This essential divergence, between citizens looking to improve what they already have and councillors spending most of their meetings fretting over future development that may never come to full fruition, may eventually spell ill for our current slate of civic leaders.
And, in my firmly held opinion, it's moving in the opposite direction of the participatory government we need to be building to secure a future for this community. You're always going to have to compromise somewhere, but the sort of compromises that our mostly-autonomous council/manager government is being pushed towards make it so that you have to have a profit interest or a serious emotional stake in the issues at hand to have any effect on the outcome. This is not how things should work on the local level. It's a shoddy imitation of the dysfunctional state and federal governments. And if we continue on this path, a disenfranchised citizenry is a very real risk.
This letter to the paper says to read between the lines. I don't have time for those games. If you can't tell the people which attorney wrote the letter for which attorney, I dont think it's just a confict of interest. I also think you're wasting our time.
You seem to be the one with all the answers, research it on your time.
Who cares? Just tell us who wrote the letter and for who it was written.
I recall campaigning for Mayor in 2004. My platform was do the pledge of Allegiance and the Prayer then asking for any new business or old business. If there was none,adjourn the meeting, go home and have pizza.
The significance of that call was to keep special interest do gooders out of local government meetings. Their skills were to sell projects that would cost the tax payers money we didn't have, or projects we don't need.
Those who voted this group in office for the last ten years, did not represent the whole cities citizen's interest.
The facts have nothing to do with it.
If you think you need a wrench...
But I think it's obvious why you didn't name the attorney who wrote the letter.
By omitting that fact, your letter has a logic hole big enough to drive a truck through.
Please don't throw any more wrenches out there.
The Ellis project includes a swim center to replace the thirty year Wilson pool. This wrench you are throwing seems like more of the same.
You must be writing for the same client?
http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/modules/dms/file_retrieve.php?function=view&obj_id=831
If that letter had been written for an attorney who is involved in a lawsuit against the city wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
I noticed Jon didn't name the attorney who the letter was written for, but took the liberty to use comments on a web-blog to make an article.
I really think people are making much ado about nothing.
It's good they are showing their true colors, but to what end?Sure wish I had the answer. I'm not one for surprises and I think the next 7 months is going to be full of them.
Thank you for bringing your opinion of the issue to the for front. Many have not understood what has going on in our city for 25 years.
This minority of special interest voters who support this local political machine, have cost the rest of us tax payers millions.
Just look around at the wild spending that has been going on for the 10 years. That money is now gone on projects that only a few will enjoy.
Lets put a stop to it.
1. The council and city hall, have dedicated countless hours of manpower (with our tax dollars) on one single project.
2. They work for one single person at city hall, Serpa.
3. All future permits have been handed to Serpa on a gold plate.
Ellis is it - Nothing else will be built for the next 10 yrs. - Tracy has no future growth or plans other than Ellis.
It is a sad but true fact - Was the voice of the taxpayers relevant to this project? NO
Do they care what the public thinks? NO
This proves beyond a doubt who our council works for and what city hall is all about..