Of particular note in this discussion, Marc Edelman has posted that the city's attorney has advised the city council not to get a title search. Allow me to reiterate; the city's attorney in the bridge lawsuit has advised the city to not take the most basic step to discover the truth about the ownership of the bridge properties. (A step which by all rights should have been taken before the city ever agreed to anything with anyone about the bridge.)
At least according to Marc's statements in the GDN comments, excerpted here:
@Evan, The larger issue at hand is who owned the bridge, HL&P, The City, or the residents of Glen Cove. [...] Of Course the City's Lawyer is not going to sign off on releasing executive session information. He advised them never to perform a title search, but they did it anyway. Now they want to release the results. Elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to their citizens. These actions violate that fiduciary responsibility.
And again:
Let's see Jeff,
What I said was the City's attorney advised the City Council not to get a title search after the law suit was filed by Glen Cove residents. I think it is wise for clients to follow thei attorney's advice.
[...]
After pondering this astounding comment (and assuming Marc's knowledge of the attorney's comments is accurate), the question naturally arises;
Just why in the world should the city be advised to avoid learning the truth?!
Is there some other reason than the obvious suspicion that the attorney knows the truth that will be uncovered is not favorable for his client (and his continued billing to the city)?
Another question that comes to mind is just how does Marc Edelman have knowledge of the private advice the city's attorney is giving to the city?
