Pomona's Recent Press Clippings

So last week the city of Pomona sent us a letter threatening us with legal action on account of some posts we put up regarding their city manager, Doug Dunlap. We took the posts down as a precautionary measure—we didn't want to deal with possible legal action. However, rest assured we are open to the possibility of reposting some of our writings after we get some expert advice. More on this later today.

We appreciate Wendy Leung and Frank C. Girardot (who had or has a few blogs of his own) for their efforts in writing an article Saturday about the stifling threats of the city attorney of Pomona against this blog. See the SGVT (Blog deletes postings regarding city manager) and the DB (Blogger gives in to Pomona). Please note that the city attorney, Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, pictured at right, said of Foothill Cities: "The credence that one puts behind this publication is no greater than the National Enquirer."

Thanks, no doubt, in part to a link from Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit, I noticed that the Daily Bulletin article was second on their "Most Viewed" list well into Sunday night. Glenn Reynolds said:

Even assuming Alvarez-Glasman has a legal leg to stand on here -- which is far from clear -- why is the City Attorney making legal threats on behalf of a private interest? Because the city has no interest in not being libeled, and the City Manager's interest is a personal one. Does the City Attorney routinely do personal legal work for city officials?




Kevin Roderick over at LA Observed was, I believe, the first to mention us, devoting a nice post to the issue even though I know his journalistic instincts are (to some extent justifiably) tweaked by "anony-bloggers," as he calls us. Roderick also quotes some of Edward Barrera's comments. Edward is the city editor of the SGVT, who has been friendly to us on his blog even though we've disagreed with each other in the past.

If you are interested in the legal issues at play, you should check out Eugene Volokh's kind post and the comments beneath it. See also Overlawyered.

Mayor Sam says (F-bomb edited):

Foothill Cities - we have your back. Don't let these bastards push you around. And private memo to Arnie and Dougie: We're not going to let you f%#k with FC. You've already made a mistake there. Don't even think about f#$%#@g with us over here - you will look like the biggest clowns to ever inhabit municipal government ever.

LAist says:

Although we have much love for Pomona, despite the fact that they don't allow booze in the Glass House, they better watch it or government officiating also might get outsourced to India. How hard is it to send a C&D via email?

The strangely named but widely read skippy the bush kangaroo blog gave us a nod as well:

...why would a city government want a blog to stop speculating about what's going on at city hall, unless there's something going on at city hall?

Little Miss Attila notices the way the Pomona city attorney's letter uses the word "blogs" as a noun:

This one features scare quotes and the usual idiot's confusion of a blog with a blog entry—these are, presumably, the same people who confuse 'faxes' with fax machines, and 'CDs' with CD players.

Peter Sean Bradley of Lex Communis says:

This is so typical of local governments . . . The post dared - dared! - to offer a theory about why the Pomona City Manager suddenly retired.

Prettier Than Napoleon takes a shot at Pomona:

The only good thing about Pomona is Juanita's Burritos.

We wouldn't go so far as to say it is the only good thing, but Juanita's is certainly one good thing about Pomona.

Thanks also to the Claremont Insider ("Pomona just may be making martyrs out of Publius and Centinel over at FC"), Sue's Place ("Just imagine if Greensboro-area city employees sought cease-and-desist actions against ‘local’ blogs spreading rumors"), State Sunshine and Open Records, Electric City, and anyone else I'm likely missing.

Now, as you might imagine, we have some more to say about this issue and the reaction to it. We'll have that for you later today, after we get all our ducks in a row. For now though, look at all of the above and consider—was it worth it to the city of Pomona to spend the taxpayer's money on the city attorney to harass us? Couldn't they foresee that they'd generate all this largely negative press? If they didn't realize that we'd post their threats and the above would result, it speaks to the PR incompetence of Pomona—and serves as a lesson to many local governments when it comes to the new media. But if they did realize this might happen but wanted to spend the taxpayer's money anyway, then why is it so worth it to them to silence us?