Letters From Our Readers

Neighbors win Defamation Suit and Continue to Ask City to Enforce Bar’s Promises

PRESS RELEASE

NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP WINS BRUNO’S DEFAMATION SUIT

A state appeals court has soundly rejected a defamation suit filed by the owners of Bruno’s Bar against a neighborhood group, and the group is continuing to demand that the City enforce the promises made by the owners of Bruno’s to convert the old bar to a restaurant.

In 2004, the owners of Bruno’s Bar were granted a conditional use to open a new bar across the street from their long-time location. However, after beginning construction on the new location, they had trouble locating the required parking. Councilman Batt introduced an amendment to allow two lots to satisfy the parking requirements. On January 24, 2006, the City Planning Commission met to consider that amendment. The staff recommended against the amendment, and it was opposed by many neighbors. Bruno’s failed to win approval, and the motion was withdrawn.

Two weeks after the failure of the administrative amendment, apparently still unable to produce sufficient parking to open the bar, the owners of Bruno’s filed a defamation suit against Maple Area Residents, Inc. (MARI), its president, Thomas Milliner, and one of its board members, David Keiffer.

The neighborhood group, noting the timing of the suit, filed a motion claiming the suit was intended to suppress neighborhood opposition. They asked the court to dismiss it under a state law intended to prevent SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which are lawsuits filed by developers to intimidate local activists. MARI informed the court that many of the alleged statements had never been made, pointing to the transcripts for proof, that other statements were opinion, and that none of the statements were defamatory. The trial court dismissed the suit, and Bruno’s appealed.

In affirming the dismissal, the Court of Appeal found that the alleged statements were protected as “free speech regarding a public issue,” that the only support for the claims of defamation were the “uncorroborated assertions” of the owners of Bruno’s, and that Bruno’s owners failed to present “any evidence to show malice” on the part of the neighborhood group or its members.

On another front, the neighborhood group had asked to City Council to amend Bruno’s conditional use ordinance to enforce the promises made by the owners of Bruno’s. During the application process, the owners of the bar had written to the Planning Commission, promising to convert the existing bar into a restaurant if they were granted a conditional use permit for the new bar. Bruno’s owners and its attorneys repeated these promises at Planning Commission meetings and before the Council. See a video of the statements at www.maplearearesidents.net/bruno petition.php After opening the new bar, however, the old Bruno’s continued to operate as a bar and was never converted to a restaurant.

Last September, the Council passed a motion asking the Planning Commission to consider an amendment which would make those promises part of the permit authorizing the new Bruno’s. However, after the City Attorney questioned the amendment, the Council withdrew it. Attorneys for the neighborhood group believe the amendment was proper and that the Council should take up the motion again, not only to hold Bruno’s to the promises it made, but to insure the integrity of the process. They plan to ask that the motion be reintroduced or that other measures be considered.

For more information, contact Keith Hardie at 522-6222 or keithhardie@yahoo.com

Keith Hardie, Jr.