Now, we have Greenburg Gibbons that is trying to halt the process in court with two separate filings.
Greenberg Gibbons, meanwhile, has filed two court challenges, one calling for a judge to review approval by the Board of Elections of the form of the referendum petitions, the other claiming the signature gathering process violated state and local laws.So, Gibbons's challenge was met with response from Norman's group, HCCO.
In court papers, the group argues Greenberg Gibbons does not have standing to challenge the board of election's decision.
Under the law, the company and its CEO Brian Gibbons do not qualify as "aggrieved parties" who can challenge the Board of Election's decision approving the format of the petitions, the court papers state. Greenberg Gibbons also failed to give any specifics about how the referendum petitions might have been flawed.
If you'll remember the WCI Condominiums controversy, as Doug Miller does, then you'll see the irony of trying to use the standing debate against the developer.
I'm on record as saying if Norman and his group can get 5000 verified signatures, then we're having a referendum. It is up to the BoE to determine if that happened or not, and if the signatures were gathered in a legal fashion. Do we really need to clog the courts with lawsuits that presume the Board of Elections is incompetent? Do we need lawsuits with no specific claims of aggrievement that challenge the system? No. Let the BoE do its work.