CBC Joint Venture v Clarkston

In the letter that I sent to voters, I said that “Sharron Catallo was cited in a circuit court opinion for exerting possible improper influence on the city’s refusal to allow a restaurant that would compete with her son’s Clarkston restaurants.”

This is a true statement. Sharron Catallo’s involvement in the case was noted on page 2 of the opinion, outlined in blue rectangle in the attachment below.

CBC v Clarkston

An October 30, 2015 Oakland Press article mentioning the involvement of Sharron Catallo, Cara Catallo, and William Basinger titled “Clarkston sued, accused of favoritism after rejecting re-zoning request for proposed new restaurant” provides more detail:

https://www.theoaklandpress.com/news/nation-world-news/clarkston-sued-accused-of-favoritism-after-rejecting-re-zoning-request/article_211df356-12c6-5c9d-a766-e7b5240c061a.html

CBC won the case in the circuit court, and despite making a point to note that improper influence was an issue in the case, the circuit court judge rested his decision on another ground. The city appealed the case and won in the court of appeals.

So why mention it all? Because the city’s attorneys had to devote time and resources to defend against CBC’s claim of favoritism in a government decision. This issue was significant enough in the circuit court judge’s mind that he thought it should be mentioned in his opinion.

The CBC case involved a zoning decision, but parking has been another contentious issue where legitimate challenges have been raised about Sharron Catallo’s ability to be impartial. Two new restaurants were recently opened, one of them owned by Curt Catallo (Honcho). Both restaurant owners knew in advance that they did not have enough parking to accommodate their new customers but opened anyway. This caused parking overflow in front of residents’ homes, in many cases affecting the homeowners’ ability to park their own cars or otherwise enjoy their property without being disturbed by restaurant patrons. Sharron Catallo has been asked to recuse herself from parking deliberations and decisions on many occasions, by both citizens and fellow council members, and she has flatly refused to do so.

It’s a small town. It’s possible that anyone elected to city council may face a conflict of interest. However, it should be the exception, rather than the rule. And when faced with a conflict, the city council member should be wise enough to recuse himself or herself without being asked. That hasn’t happened with regard to issues that could positively (or negatively) affect Catallo businesses in the city, and that was the reason that I made this point in my letter. It is entirely appropriate to factor the favoritism issue into your decision to vote for one candidate over another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Clarkston Secrets

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading