It's not "always in the interest of the taxpayers" if stopping the city from applying a band-aid ends up causing the city to bleed to death. That's exactly what the situation is here. They might be stopping a *potential* (not even confirmed) illegal transaction that might end up saving the city from losing much more money in the future.
And that band aid, as you call it, could very well cause the bleeding pig to bleed more over the long run.
It's clear that losing your main tenant in an arena that was built in your city for the sole purpose of turning it into a hot spot, and thus increasing its status as an entertainment destination where people go to spend money would have an incredible impact on the economy of the city. Whether it's 500 million, less or more, it's still going to cost the city and eventually its tax payers LOTS of money. Sometimes risks are worthy of the reward, and that's clearly how the City of Glendale feels in regards to the whole bond issue. They aren't doing this for the love of hockey, they are doing this because they NEED to do this. If they could afford to lose the franchise and let the arena sit dormant, they wouldn't be as involved as they are.
They can afford to lose the franchise. The arena wouldn't have to sit dormant either. But, while this could very well be the better option in terms of money, Scruggy and the incumbents on council will absolutely not let the team leave because their jobs are basically at risk. That's what you aren't getting - the COG isn't doing this because they think it is the most prudent financial decision, the only motive is to save their jobs. They basically kick the can down the road hoping people will forget come re-election time. The more responsible thing to do may very well be to pull the plug, save the town a bunch of money, not get downgraded, and agressively pursue plan B for the arena. That won't go over so well in the next election if the arena starts collecting cobwebs though.
"illegal" and "best interest" are two wildly independent things. Even if it was illegal, that doesn't neccessarily mean it's not within the taxpayers best interests.
You can't be serious. You know what else would be in the taxpayer's best interest? Knocking over a Brinks truck. Why doesn't the city just do that if they apparently don't have to obey the laws of the state they're part of?
As I said above, the time to debate the wisdom of this deal from the City's perspective is long gone. If Goldwater was acting in the best interest of the taxpayers, they would have exercized democratic dissent in December, and then accepted the decision of the CoG whichever way it went. Alternatively, if they felt the taxpayers best interest was not being served by the City Council, then they should push for impeachment.
So the only remedy when the city does something illegal is to try to impeach the mayor or wait 4 years and vote for the other guy?
Goldwater has said all along, dating back to the Reinsdorf CFD days, that the city can't put a subsidy in the pocket of an owner. The COG knew all along that Goldwater was watching and would intervene if they smelled a subsidy, but they decided to ignore and "play" with them. It appears the threat of legal action is the only thing that might actually put a stop to it.
It's illegal for them to do so -- it's called tortious interference and puts them liable for any damages that them interfering with the transaction causes. The "ball" is certainly not in the City's court by any stretch of the imagination, as Goldwater has basically screwed over the taxpayers, with the only hope of them getting damages out of Goldwater (who I suspect has very few assets).
We've heard this before. There will be no lawsuit for tortious interference. The city's easiest remedy, if they're so hard done by, is to go to court and get a declatory judgement. There you go, game over Goldwater. That they haven't done so speaks volumes. Maybe the city thinks or knows their deal smells bad. Or maybe they just don't want to actually close the deal.
(Before we get into the tangent about how a municipality suing a non-profit organization has bad optics, it seems strange that the city would prefer to allow this crazed organization to dictate policy on this and who knows what else going forward. How's that for optics?)
I can absolutely claim that government officials are in place to act in the best interest of the people. Their actions are certainly not beyond reproach, and must report to the superior levels of government aswell as the citizens who elected them. That doesn't include 3rd parties trying to stop decisions made by government because they don't like it.
Seems they're not paying attention to the superior levels of government if what they're doing violates the state constitution.
And the 3rd party that is Goldwater would bring a suit against the city in the name of one of the citizens of Glendale that elected said government. Therefore, the city would have to answer to its citizens, not this 3rd party.
Secondly, this is a business transaction for the people. Governments absolutely have to concern themselves with profit and loss, or in government terms, surplus and deficit. There's nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. Goldwater is trying to argue that it isn't a subsidy, rather a gift.
Hmmmmm. You might want to check the Arizona constitution, which seems to disagree with the notion that there is nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. If that wasn't illegal the deal would have closed months or years ago. Instead the COG has come up with all sorts of creative ways to try to disguise the subsidy as something else, the latest of course is to say it's not a subsidy, we're buying the parking rights. Sure.