The City of Manassas today reached a settlement agreement with the Washington, Dc-based Equal Rights Center, HOME and eleven residents of Manassas in relation to allegations that the City discriminated against Hispanic residents. There are three primary reasons, in my view, why we settled:
1. There were several complaints against the City. If the City lost on any of the specific complaints, we would have been liable for the plaintiff’s attorney fees and also damages. Our exposure there was considerable – in between $4 and $7 million dollars. We didn’t have to lose on all of them, just one.
2. The insurance company had notified us that they were content with the settlement number and if we decided not to settle that any future award or settlement would be borne entirely by Manassas City. Needless to say that an award of $5+ million dollars would be catastrophic.
3. The legal action was just getting started. If we had proceeded to discovery and trial, the costs would have exploded and far outstripped the money that we had already spent and if we would have lost, the entire nut would have been paid by Manassas taxpayers.
So, at the end of the day, I wasn’t prepared to leave my home town to the tender mercies of a Federal jury in Alexandria. This is a business decision, pure and simple in order to limit the damage to Manassas. Trust me when I say that it isn’t on my list of fun things to do.
September 24, 2008 at 10:58 am
Many folks have made interesting points regarding the ERC settlement.
In my case this was ultimately a business decision to make. The choices were to settle now or to go into the deposition and ultimately trial phase of the case.
By settling now, we secured the backing of our insurance company who is paying the entire settlement cost and the bulk of our attorney’s fees. The actual financial cost to the citizens is very small.
By continuing the fight we ran the risk that our insurance carrier would cut bait on us. (They could actually agree to settle the case without approval from the City.) The cost in attorneys fees and staff time for the depositions and trial would be huge. At the end of the trial there would be the risk of a large damage award. And possibly most damaging is that if the other side prevailed in any one issue, the City would be liable for ALL of their attorney fees. That number alone would be in the millions. I could easily imagine a total cost to the City of over $5,000,000. And expense that would somehow have to be borne by the taxpayers.
We might have won. But the odds (and ALL legal advice) suggested otherwise.
I absolutely agree that there are times where it is vital to stand on principle (hence my vote on the BPL issue). I agree that a system where one part of the government provides funding to a special interest group to sue other parts of the government is flawed. But I could not ask the citizens of Manassas to run such a staggering financial risk to score debating points with the ERC, DOJ or HUD.
September 24, 2008 at 12:50 pm
This still does not cover up the City caved. Funny, how the Council does not mine throwing money around on all sorts of useless items(Manassas next and the Mason elitist arts center are just two examples that come to mind) and projects. But when it comes to fighting criminals, the Council suddenly becomes fiscally aware. What a joke.
September 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I do think we did the right thing. When you sit back and look at it, was there really any other way to go? Sure it would be nice to be the pioneers on getting lawsuits like this ruled in our favor, but why chance it when a bigger jurisdiction could foot the bill. I think people see the big headline of the City backing down but they don’t look at the realistic side of it. At this point insurance is covering the majority of it, which is benefical to the citizens. If it moved any further, are my fellow citizens going to be okay with a minimum $5.00 tax rate to pay this judgment! I know I wouldn’t.
September 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Exert from the City of Manassas news release of 9-22-2008:
According to City Manager Larry Hughes, “While the City denies it
engaged in any descriminatory action, this settlement arrangement
was reached in order to enable the City to move forward,
focusing on the daily and long term needs of our residents without
the distraction of protracted and complex litigation.”
I agree with Mark, Andy and Larry – this was the best decision under
the legal and fiscal circumstances.
September 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Angala,
How much money is already wasted on illegals? Funny how nobody gets upset over ESOL classes, the crime associated with illegals, the fact the City is turning into a cesspool because of illegals. But, low and behold when the City has the chance to stand up to the criminals, they back down and complain about money. Look at how the City treated the sign put up by an illegal. They treated him with more respect and fear.
September 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm
COM,
I was unaware that the plantiffs in this case were illegals. Where did you find this information? I also did not know that the sign was put up by an illegal. Again, how do you know this? And I understand how you hate the ESL classes, do you know the cost of that program?
September 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm
COM and the rest of you, did you not take the time to read the full reason and comprehend what was written? lets see, settle and have the insurance pay the bill or fight it and take a chance that you might lose on any one issue of many and have to pay millions out of your pocket as a taxpayer. Seems like any sane individual who balances his own checkbook can see the council made the absolutely right decision. By the way, I hope that if you decide to get involved in your community you stay in Manassas and don’t come to Manassas Park, because we all ready have enough people involved in City governemnt who don’t have a clue. Lets see, you suggested we tell the federal governemt to take a hike and do what ever we want as far a teaching in the schools, sue the City for incompetence, and give the federal governemnt the middle finger. Yeah, that sounds like a well thought out plan by a person who could handle any situation would do if he were leading a large jurisdiction in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country.
September 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm
My sense is that no member of the council would have chosen to settle the lawsuit unless their back was against a wall. They knew darned well that folks on the sidelines would throw rocks at them as has been done in some of these blogs. No, I cannot believe they would have settled absent compelling reasons.
To be sure, the city was represented by extremely highly regarded legal counsel, one of the best in the state and one of the better lawyers in the country. One assumes that legal counsel would not have recommended settling absent sound legal reasons. Indeed, legal counsel getting paid by the hour would have financial reasons not to recommend settlement but to continue litigating, with legal fees very quickly far exceeding the settlement amount.
I am not happy that council settled and neither are they. Sometimes we have to do things even though we are not happy about doing them. It’s called being an adult and making informed decisions. No doubt the final settlement offer was negotiiated down from earlier much higher offers.
Yes, it’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “no” without reading the pleadings, looking at the evidentiary record and analyzing applicable caselaw.
As to the council member who opposed the settlement, I assume that member was in good faith and was doing something more than grandstanding. But since that member is not a lawyer, presumably did not have the benefit of his own private legal counsel, did not do his own legal research, and presumably did not follow the preferred legal route recommended by the city’s highly qualified retained counsel, it is difficult for me to discern the legal basis for his opposition. This was, after all, a real legal proceeding, not a hypothetical political debate.
Not filing the advice of experienced legal council in a litigation setting is more than risky — it is foolish. One may as well operate on oneself instead of going to a surgeon.
September 24, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Formercom,
Sorry, but I expect my elected officials to work. They spend millions on wasted programs such as Manassas next, esol classes, the George Mason arts center, etc. Yet they do not want to spend money defending the City. Does that make sense to you that all of a sudden they are concerned with the bottom line. They engage in no bid contracts(the current trash company contract), bring up other local jurisdictions costs in comparison to ours and say we should be happy. The schools are failing, we have a police force that would much rather go after law abiding gun owners.
As for the Federal Government, of course we should tell them to stick their unfunded mandates and take a hike. Since you seem to be so concerned with the bottom line, I would think anyone would not pick up the cost of something without being given the money to complete the task.
Don’t worry, MP is in worse shape.
September 24, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Citizenofmanassas, you just made my point for me, thank you. You could never handle running a city or even a small company, maybe not even a little league baseball team. The reason why you couldn’t is because you make haste decisions based strickly on what suits only you and not what is best for the City as a whole. You would make a decision based solely on you dislike with illegal immigration, of which most people feel as you, when this issue has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. So IMHO you have based your dislike for this settlement on something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I base this opinion on your rambling in previous posts mentioning everything from teaching illegal aliens to the illegal alien that put up the sign of which you couldn’t be more wrong, he is not an illegal alien, although I am glad to see it gone. So maybe if you were to stop lumping everything that happens in the City and what you would do to correct them based on illegal aliens, maybe you could see past your nose and know that the City did a good job getting out of this without bankrupting the City. But again, the more you post, the more you make my point 🙂
September 24, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Peter,
It costs about 1.5 more to educate an esl student then a non esl student. As I have said before, why do we have a system that puts these students in different classes? It never used to be like that. It was sink or swim, sort of like it is for every other type of student. Given the new found fiscal restraint of the Council, it makes sense to do away with the esl classes and go back to how it used to be done.
Many illegals were involved with the “sign”.
Who knows how many of the plaintiffs were illegal, but given the illegals and their supporters pitched a bitch about the ordnance, I’m sure illegals were involved in the lawsuit.
September 24, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Formercom,
Say again? Of course many problems we have in the City are in fact directly tied to illegals. Unless of course you don’t think the number of murders, house burglaries, graffiti, etc is that big of deal.
No, I base it on the City Council caving in. The fact illegals are getting away with breaking the law, and of course the fact the Council now seems to have a concern with the bottom line. Though, that won’t last for long.
If we did not have illegals, the sign would not have gone up. If we did not have so many illegals(criminals) the school budget would not be out of sight, we would not have to train our police officers to enforce immigration law. Yup, you can continue to stick you head in the ground and hope all will be better. But for those of us that have sense, we realize the negative impact illegals have had on the City, and are not willing to sit on the sidelines. Do you think letting people use services they have not paid for is good business?
September 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Everyone, please do not feed the trolls.
September 24, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Citizenofmanassas, again you make my point, start at the top and see what the title of this thread is. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. I tell you what, I bet you if you write a 20 million dollar check to the City they would be more than happy to continue the good fight once it clears of course. Again, you can’t see past your nose so trying to explain anything to you is useless. By the way, you don’t know my feelings about illegal immigration, so don’t lump me with the apologists, I just feel that lumping all hispanics in the same barrell is wrong. While I hated the sign, I respect the right to place it there as long as it is done legally, even though I totally disagree with the content and think it is absolutely asinine. I have absolutely no problem with the 287g program and sending every illegal back that is found during an arrest.
September 24, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Formercom
When did I lump all hispanics together? I don’t think I even talked about hispanics.
Of course this has to do with illegals, and everyone else in the City. The City had(has) an overcrowding problem. The City took steps to try and improve the problem. The illegals and their supporters saw it as an attack on hispanics(did you attend the public hearings, if so, you would know that). even though there was no language in the ordinance that singled out race or ethnicity.
It seems you asked why I had a problem with this case, and I provided them in very clear language. I’d say you are the one that is unable to understand anything. You simply can’t see or refuse to see the connection between illegals and some of the more recent problems the City has had.
Given that in the past few years budgets passed by the Council have increased by as much as 9% over the previous year is enough proof the council has not always been so careful to avoid spending too much money. BTW, the sign was not legal, which is why the City threated legal action against the owner.
September 25, 2008 at 7:46 am
I, like Andy, hate that the council had to go with this decision. I do, in the end believe it was the right thing for the city council to do.
This blog though does seem like the Andy Harrover campaign support web sight. Only COM seems to be against the councils decisionon this blog. Even though I think it was the right decision, I have yet to speak with someone “on the street” who agrees with this. I have spoken with many people about the councils decision and they are furious. Not just conservatives, im talking about moderates and non-political types.
September 25, 2008 at 8:13 am
manassasinsider,
I think what has upset people is they see the Council backing down on the law suit, and then when they had the chance to punish the guy behind the sign they let him off the hook. Yes, there was a process to be followed with the sign, and I don’t mind the City following it until taking it to court, but in the end, what price did he pay? Illegal immigration is a hot bottom issue as everyone knows, and it seems the city backed down twice in the face of it.
Also, as I pointed out, the Council never seems to be concerned with saving money. If the Council had a consistent record on saving money, that would be another story, but they don’t.
September 25, 2008 at 8:41 am
How is this the “campaign support website”? Simply b/c other posters don’t agree with COM? Just wondering….
FWIW, my reaction with those “on the street” is that they’re glad the lawsuit is settled. Nobody is happy about it but they are far from “furious” and I don’t live in an echo chamber. I make it a point to talk to people from all over.
In addition, I’ve not received a single email or phone call about the issue. If people want to talk about it, I encourage them to email or call.
September 25, 2008 at 10:53 am
I am not happy also about settling but it was the right decision. I pay alittle over 4 grand yearly in property tax and I don’t need it to go up anymore. Thanks for the level headed thinking. Bud
September 25, 2008 at 11:29 am
Andy, Mark, Steve, thank you for your replies. This wasn’t an easy decision. While I was not privy to the legal opinions offered, I imagine that another experienced former attorney general would have provided valid reasons for moving forward with the case — that the City did not and has not discriminated against Latinos.
I don’t like the fact that the City cut and run — that’s why these lawsuits are filed, regardless of any merit. And you might as well face it – that whenever the City takes a tough, principled, well thought out and legally sound decision on a very controversial issue in the future, there will likely be a disgruntled group who will sue.
I think when you ask around or look around the neighborhoods over the last five years or so, it’s easy to note that most (but not all) overcrowded homes were occupied by Latinos — illegal or not. And that would be way over the proportion of Latinos in the population of the City. So you would expect the rate of zoning violations to be much higher for that ethnic group. We might have wished it were otherwise but you cannot ignore that. Is it discriminatory to charge more men than women with DUI when that is indeed the case in relation to the population? No, of course not.
So I think, Andy, Mark, Steve, Steve and Jon, you are reflecting the legal opinions you received and I can surely respect your decision and know your concern for this City. But I wonder how unbiased that legal opinion was. This is all conjecture on my part. I have not seen a post from Marc Aveni so I don’t know all the reasons behind his “no” vote.
Now we have to pay for a “housing advocate” and have sensitivity training that are both bogus!
So now what are you going to do about overcrowding? Will you tighten up the zoning ordinances to limit the number of adults in a single-family home, regardless of race or ethnicity. This problem has not gone away and this settlement has not solved anything!
OK, I’ve spoken my mind as a citizen and now that my lunch hour is over back to work.
September 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Andy, Jon, Steve and Steve,
You are right. It was a purely business decision, and I understand and except the rationale behind it. In settling, the cost to the taxpayer is the hiring of the “housing advocate”, with the insurance company picking up the rest. If the city were to have fought it, the cost of winning would have been high, and the cost of losing even higher. I get it.
I can also understand the anger and frustration of those throwing rocks. They are tired of groups like the ACLU, and others getting fat by bullying localities, which is EXACTLY what these groups do. Citizens are tired of the overcrowding, and perceive that the city is either powerless, or lacks the will to deal with the issue. This perception is only strengthened by the settlement. People are frustrated that a man, who owned a residiental property that was overcrowded, and later burned down, was able to thumb his nose at the city for a year, with that ridiculous sign, only to have the case dismissed once he dismantled it. No fines associated with the multiple violations. No consequences for the owner who put up the sign. Nothing for the various noise and public-gathering without a permit violations. They see the City saying “Mr. Fernandez, just take the sign down, and all will be forgotten. Thus, the perception is the City Council/Government is weak.
As many of you have heard me say many times, there is “politics”, and there is “governence”. Not all of the anger and frustration out there is purely political, although much of it is. Right now, Citizens see the failure of government at the Fed and State level illegal immigration, and so many other issues. They see the local government as their last line of defense against anarchy. They need to know that at least their local government isn’t neglecting its duties. That is where the anger comes from.
Back to the original point: I agree that the settlement was best from a purely fiscal perspective…but I ain’t happy that we gave up without a fight. I know most of you aren’t happy either. The City didn’t violate anyone’s rights. We all know this. However, the settlement says “we know we didn’t do it, but don’t think our case is a winner”.
September 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm
From reading everyone’s submissions I see that we all have feelings about the city not having violated anyone’s rights, and those are my feelings too. Unfortunately, these “feelings” are irrelevent when it comes down to compromising or continuing federal or other litigation. For those wishing to know more about how the courts examine overcrowding ordinances and related lawsuits, the randomly selected and relatively recent court opinions and other material below [possibly accessible through Google and definately accessible through Lexis] show how complicated this particular topic is. If you can find and choose to read any of the material, please remember that they were selected because they are informative and not because any one of them (or all taken together) form a complete picture of the law. The material may give you a snapshot into how some courts have approached overcrowding ordinances but it is not legal advice.
Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, Florida, et al., 529 F. 3d 1027 (11th Cir. 2008).
Ewing Citizens for Civil Rights, Inc. v. Township of Ewing, Civil Action No. 05-1620(MLC), U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (July 13, 2007).
Long Branch Citizens Against Hous. Discrimination, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (April 18, 2006).
Ginzberg, “Altering ‘Family’: Another Look at the Supreme court’s Narrow Protection of Families in Belle Terre, 83 Boston University law review 875 (October 2003).
September 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm
BTW citizenofmanassas, again you know not of what you are speaking. originally the sign was not illegal. There was no requirement for the owner of that structure to tear it down. Under the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code the owner could have boarded the structure up and let it sit as longer as it stayed secure. There was no requiremnt for him to finish tearing the wall down as long as it was secure. It became illegal when he added on to it without obtaining a building permit as required by the VUSBC and having public events without a special use permit. That is why originally, the City Attorney and Council opined the sign was free speech. While you didn’t specifically mention hispanics, your ranting has been about illegal immigration and everyone knows that when you mention illegal immigration 99.9% of the population associates that with hispanics at this time. I am not for illegal immigration, I am all for removing all illegal immigrants possible especially ones that commit any crime and I am all for the government being accountable to the people. However, on an issue that is as hot and emotional as this one, sometimes people don’t think before they act, that is what got the City in this mess in the first place. Because the past council wanting to satisfy the citizens so much failed to listen to their professional employees and initiated an ordiance that was illegal from the start. And I do not mean illegal in terms it targeted one group, illegal in terms the governemnt has no right to tell the people what family they can or can not live with. This is not Russia, China of some Middle Eastern Country, this is the greatest country in the worls, the Good Ole USA.
September 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful posts. I would very much like to respond to each but that isn’t advisable just now. If anyone wants to talk, my number is on the City website.
September 25, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Former,
You asked me to not put words in your mouth or to assume your opinion. I think you need to do the same for me. I did not mention hispanics, yet, you bring it up as if I did. The fact of the matter is we have illegals from just about every Nation in the World. If you check out BVBL, there is a post about John McCain talking about illegals from Ireland.
The sign at one point did become illegal, and the bottom line is the City let the guy off without a penalty.
Sure the Government has the right to say who can live in a house and who cannot. That is why there are overcrowding laws.
September 25, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Citizenofmanassas, I hate to get personal, but you are getting more stupid with every post and I apologize to Coincilmemeber Harrover and everyone else, but i just can not hold back. I never ever said the governemnt can’t decide how many people can live in a house, damn, I enforced those laws for many years, but repeat after me, they do not have the right to tell me what family members I can live with, of course, as long as I am with the occupancy limit. The ordinance that that got Manassas in trouble had absolutely nothing to do with numbers, only relationship. Again, take the time to read, understand, comprehend write, read what you wrote then hit submit. Your problem again is you have let your emotion take over your common sense. I don’t think you are really a stupid man, just someone who does not have control over his emotions. By the way, you didn’t have to mention the word hispanics, everyone knew what you were talking about. Now, want to try again because you can reach me via email at fyreman1@live.com. I will not entertain anymore of your rant or idiotic posts on Councilmember Harrover’s blog on this subject.
September 26, 2008 at 10:13 am
Former, thanks for the very clear and inciteful explanation of this topic. Some people need to read the Supreme Court decision in the case of Moore v. City of East Cleveland. In his decision, Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. wrote, “The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutonal recognition.” This is why the City had no chance of winning this case if it went to trial.
Attempting to regulate the number of people living together for health and safety purposes is a legally viable pursuit. However, the government has no right to tell me that my aunt or nephew can’t live under the same roof with me. What we have here is simply a case of political postering by some who would make this the next “Wedge Issue” for upcoming Council elections. BTW, I dought seriously if any houses were inspected that contain four or five undergrauate students from GMU. I guess there were no complaints filed by neighbors in a situation like this.
September 26, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Bob S, thank you,, but I only wanted people to know the whole story. It really bothered me that people actually thought that the inspectors acted like a military operation forcing people’s doors in late at night when nothing could be farther from the truth. The City had policies to ensure that the inspectors did not violate people rights and that we did not bother people at hours that were unreasonable. Thos policies were never broken from the inception of the program, June 1, 2005 until my departure. I can assure every Manassas City resident it was very important to me that every citizen including the people making the complaints and the target of the complaints were treated fairly. To answer your last question, no, there were no complaints involving college student occupants. In addition, you are absolutely right concerning the Supreme Court case you cited. In addition, there is another Supreme Court case involving the right of jurisdictions to regulate the number of people occupying a house. I do not remember the case on top of my head, but a quick search can easily find the case. It is another interesting case. The bottom line is, we must all remember not to make decisions based on emotions. Had the City council just taken a timeout and listened to the professionals they hired they may not have rushed to such a decision. As hard as it is to accept, the City made the right decision to settle.
September 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I want to correct a mistake in my last post. There is actually a supreme court case, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas that upheld the right to limit the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. I have not searched for any supreme court case involving only the right to limit the number of people weather or not they are related. I did find some circuit court decisions upholding the right to limit the number of occupants based on square footage limits.
September 26, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Formercom
You just admitted that if within limit, you are fine otherwise, what do you think will happen?
Well, since you are insisting that I am talking about hispanics, I will just call you what you really are, a supporter of illegal aliens. How does it feel?
It seems that you are the one that does not have control of your emotions. Also, exactly how do you know I am a male? You do like to make assumptions. First you say I am talking about hispanics, when I did not mention race or ethnicity in my posts, then you assume I am a man. And you want to call me an idiot???
However, to make this simple. If I have two hundred family members living in my townhouse I am fine under the occupancy laws? Or, is there is a limit of how many family members I can have living in my house?
Just because the SC ruled one way thirty years ago, does not mean they are going to rule the same today.
September 27, 2008 at 9:41 am
Citizen of Manssas I gave you my private email address, feel free to write me there and I will be happy to debate you even in person if you would like. Thank you for showing your real side.
September 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I’ll debate all you want. Thanks for showing your real side.
September 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm
And I’ll say it again, so please read, comprehend and think before you hit the submit button. I provided you my email address. I will not debate you on Councilmember Harrover’s blog. I wont feed your desire to be noticed and let you feel as if you are right. So, if you truly want to discuss this issue or any other issue feel free to email me. I really don’t want to waste the time of the councilmember and other users of this blog.
September 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm
d