Hi Barbara,
Thanks for your response. That sounds like a real stretch of the conflict-of-interest rules to me. If Ed was running the club himself, sure, but just renting a building to someone who is? That would seem to indicate he can't vote on any commercial property or landlord issues either. If someone rents to a restaurant, would that mean the person can't vote on any issues affecting restaurants? If someone is a homeowner, would that mean the person can't vote on any issues affecting the city's homeowners? If someone is a tenant, would that mean the person can't vote on any issues affecting the city's tenants? Since Ed is also a small business owner, does this mean he can't vote on legislation affecting small businesses in SF?
If a better opinion is not forthcoming, I hope Ed will consider divesting himself of this stake in the property so that we can have him as a voice for freedom on medical cannabis and property ownership issues at City Hall.
Assuming of course he is not forced out of office! Again can you tell us anything about what's going on, beyond what's reported in the news? It occurs to me that it might help the battle in the court of public opinion if we can find examples of other cases where an official's residency was questioned, but where no investigation was launched (i.e. a similar situation was handled differently). I did a cursory search but was not able to immediately find anything. I also wonder whether these Quickly businessmen had contacts or ties with any other elected officials who might have conspired with them to go to the FBI. And whether water officials improperly released Ed Jew's residential billing records as payback for his opposition to water rate increases. Any info or thoughts on these questions?
One person on our list expressed the concern that if Ed did misrepresent himself as living in the district when he in fact did not, that this would constitute fraud and thus be grounds for libertarians to favor holding him accountable. I tend to look at what I think is the bigger picture, namely my strong suspicion that Ed was set up, and that he is acting more in the interest of his constituents than other Supervisors (the point of the residency requirement presumably being to ensure that officials represent the interests of their constituents). But it is nevertheless a troubling point for which I'd like to have a better answer. The publicly available information seems to point strongly to the conclusion that he was not living in the district when he said he was.
One argument which I think would carry weight in San Francisco is that if evidence pointing to Ed not living in the district was improperly obtained, then it should not be allowed as evidence against him, just as information improperly gained by police officers during the course of an arrest should not be allowed at trial.
Thanks,
<<< starchild >>>