Just my personal opinion, but aside from them not technically revealing the conflict of interest, it seems like the filer had a personal axe to grind. I've found that city sidewalk rebuilding is one of those odd areas where this is all kinds of grey space about who pays for what dependent upon all kinds of factors. It's always kind of irked me, because I've always thought they should just clearly be a city's jurisdiction like how we do the actual streets in the right-of-way. It'd make things easier. But, that's another discussion. lol
The conflict of interest didn't stem from the sidewalk itself, but the retaining wall that the city installed which bordered the office of the city attorney.
I'm not sure if that's really relevant? If a sidewalk needs to be fixed through an area in which it goes through and elevation, then everything associated with keeping that path clear needs to be fixed. Generally, the city tries to split costs with property owners, but sometimes when the city has the money, they do the work, themselves. Not reporting the potential conflict of interest was an error, which is why they had to pay out a small settlement. But, at least for me? This is something I simply don't consider a real scandal. In any case, it appears to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or he'd have not settled the case.
Comments