A response to Lee Callister's post "What Does Ted Hannig have on Redwood City"

By Ted Hannig

In a recent Patch article “What Does Ted Hannig have on Redwood City”, Lee Callister tries to weave together a story of fabrication and speculation to explain that I must have something on the City to get the legal results I did which resulted in a $4.5 million settlement, including $3 million for relocation benefits and environmental studies and reporting. Notably, he fails to disclose that he himself is a Docktown resident, and that he is profiteering from the contaminated public trust property known as Docktown by renting out boat slips to others for a profit. One certainly can question his motives in the lack of disclosure; his article is as dark and dirty as the mud upon which his boats grind daily. As I will explain later, the truth is that he is the person most responsible for the immediate eviction of Docktown residents. He hides his role hoping readers will choose to shoot the messenger, not one of the true culprits in the timing of the evictions.

Mr. Callister has a history of publishing untruths and insults about me. Prior to the Docktown litigation, he once published that I had refused to meet with the residents of Docktown to seek a solution. When I published a copy of my email to him weeks before agreeing to such a meeting, he fumble out some purported explanation about not seeing it in his in-box. He also published a social media post, notably after a Docktown resident fired a high velocity golf ball at my head for raising Docktown issues, that was captioned “Drop Dead Ted”. His most recent “article” describes me as “flamboyant”, a supporter and director on the board of an LGBT charity (NoH8) and having a “partner”. Regardless of my private life, such references in his “article” on land use appears designed to evoke prejudice in a certain group of small-minded readers. It certainly had no relevance in his writing other for that hidden purpose. It is for this reason I have chosen not to remain silent with this latest round of false statements and innuendo.

Others in his group have published many other falsehoods about me. I have chosen to not respond in the past because as anyone is who has been forced to move, I am sympathetic to the emotions of the situation even though I believe their published falsehoods go beyond the realm of reasonable. They have included claims that I illegally fly drones around them (I have never flown a drone in my life), that I encourage others to dump trash in Docktown (my condo looks at Docktown, that is the last thing I would want for view or for the environment), or that I am going to be disbarred and will be put in jail (while this was published I was in fact being nominated to become a member of the US Supreme Court Bar and was sworn in by the Court).

Trying to connect dots that do not exist and create a sinister plot is a good technique for distraction from the true issues --- and identification of the true culprit on the timing relocation ---Mr. Callister himself --- who has caused the immediacy. But fear not; all will be revealed here.

First: Mr. Callister wants the reader to ask if I have something on the City? The answer is yes. I have the law. It’s not my opinion alone, it is the opinion of the highest law enforcement officer in California, it is the opinion of the court, and it is the opinion of outside counsel to the City who spent over $200,000 trying to find a way around it.

Mr. Callister conveniently fails to mention this is not my first lawsuit with the City when implying I have some relationship with them. Over 10 years ago I sued the City over their abuse of eminent domain when they bulldozed down and elderly couple’s income property. Everyone told me I could not fight City Hall and win. Once again, as in this case, I had to go significantly in to my own pocket to fund the legal battle because I thought it was the right thing to do and my clients could not pay for the legal battles the City put them through. We won. Judge Kopp made it very clear in his decision my legal position to the City, presented prior to litigation, that the City chose to ignore, was the correct position. We were awarded $3 million from the City; the Grand Jury investigated after and the City changed its eminent domain practices to protect all of us citizens in the future. I certainly made no friends with the City, but they did learn I will not be deterred if I believe my client’s position is correct. Mr. Callister’s implications that there is any collusion with the City and me is amusing to those who know the dislike the City had with me over this prior instance.

In the past case and in the Docktown case, I notified the City in advance their conduct was unlawful and gave them an opportunity to fix the problem. In both cases they failed to do so. In the earlier case the City actually turned down my offer to voluntarily fix the legal imperfections in their eminent domain powers for free, the only condition being they treat my elderly clients fairly on their property value rather than the below market forced price they were seeking. I made the offer of free service because I care for the City. Instead the City forced a trial by hiring an out of town “gun slinger” litigation attorney with the highest number of eminent domain trials of any attorney, yet we prevailed because the law was on our side. Here, the City failed to respond to my letter about Docktown for over one year. The letter they did eventually send was later retracted. It was legally incorrect. I have never sued the City without giving them notice an plenty of opportunity to correct a legal problem. Yet I have had to sue, and I have collected $7.5 million dollars because the City would not follow the law. Even still, I always sought reasonable settlement and to craft claims in a way that hopefully the City might have insurance coverage.

Mr. Callister makes it sound as if the City rolled over with no legal fight. He fails to inform the reader that the City hired highly respected lawyers as outside counsel, and they spent $200,000 to try and find holes in the lawsuit I filed. The reason they could not find holes is not lack of effort, it is because the lawsuit was legally correct. There was no viable defense so they, after exhaustive study, recommended settlement. Now wonder. Docktown is illegal, it has been known to be illegal, residential use in trust property is prohibited by law, and there are serious environmental issues and concerns.

Mr. Callister also fails to mention that their group has since filed two lawsuits over the Docktown Settlement, costing the City a large amount in legal fees (I was personally named as a defendant in each and have paid tens of thousands of dollars myself to outside lawyers to deal with the lawsuits, and I imagine City has paid far more). Importantly, he fails to mention their efforts for a temporary restraining order failed because the Court found they were not likely to prevail on the merits. With the history of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on outside counsel and the adverse court ruling, I think it’s clear the lawsuit I filed was well based on the law and fighting it would have cost the City much more in expense.

What Mr. Callister also fails to mention, beside the fact of his personal residence and business are a Docktown, and hence he has a huge financial interest in the outcome, is that I met with the representatives of Docktown after he falsely published I had refused to meet. This is the first of two major opportunities Mr. Callister had to help avoid sudden eviction for Docktown residents. I proposed we collaborate and work together in approaching the City. My only condition would be to make sure the environment was protected in any resolution. Mr. Callister refused my pre-litigation offer to collaborate in seeking resolution, and I was left with no choice but sue. To be clear, I never said resolution would have to include removal of residents. Mr. Callister could have at least attempted to work with me on a solution with the City that might have spared the residents that, or delayed it substantially. He could have had a seat at the settlement negotiation table with the City to negotiate a different timetable. He declined an invitation. He was not refused.

Mr. Callister fails to mention that the top law enforcement officer for the State of California, the Attorney General, issued a written confidential advice letter to the State Lands Commission (later released to the public during the pendency of my lawsuit) entirely consistent with the position in my Docktown litigation, making very clear that residential use at Docktown was unlawful and needed to be shut-down.

Next, Mr. Callister fails to mention that he undermined a potential 15 year extension. When the State Legislature was willing to consider an extension, they restricted the residents from profiteering by renting out slips they did not occupy. This has a sound basis in the law as no one but the public is to benefit financially from public trust lands (Docktown is located is special Public Trust lands). Mr. Callister placed his own financial interest ahead of his neighbors’ desires to stay put. That conflict among Docktown residents caused an extension deal to collapse.

Mr. Callister makes it sound sinful that I collected one-third of the initial settlement for my damages and to pay my own attorney’s fees. One-third is normal, and in some cases conservative in contingency fee cases. The reality is attorneys have to do that to cover the risks of contingency fee cases and costs. I was prepared to invest over $1 million in a case, and potentially end up with nothing had there been a change in the law or an adverse ruling. What I find sinful is Mr. Callister’s failure at two opportunities to help the residents of Docktown, yet he seeks to speak on their behalf, plead their case in the press, discredit and smear the person who made the City comply with the law, the law the City knew it was violating. He gives no thanks for the fact I set the precedent and funding requirements for a multi-million dollar relocation fund, something the City states it otherwise not obligated to do. Again, I do realize for many people losing their boat slip at Docktown will be a hardship, and it is unfortunate a different path was blocked by Mr. Callister. But there is some relief in that relocation benefits stemming from my lawsuit are available.

My lawsuit was the first effort to get some relocation benefits for Docktown tenants, initially $3.5 million and now likely over $10 million for those residents. We are beginning to see the results. One resident with an inoperable boat worth perhaps a few thousand at most, has received an offer of over $25,000 plus a $10,000 bonus if they relocate earlier. Others are being offered many times this amount for more substantial houseboats. The whole relocation fund originates from the lawsuit. And yes, even Mr. Callister will benefit from it, although I am not sure how they will handle his multiplicity of boat slips that he sublets for profit.

It is now clear that had I not acted, the City would have eventually been forced to act because the Attorney General had written residential use must terminate; it very well could have been a very short eviction notice with no relocation benefits.

He also tries to pull in others. He suggests I had City Council members over to my home to convince them about Docktown. No City Council member has stepped foot in my condo. A planning commissioner later elected to the City Council and her husband did – but my purpose was not to discuss Docktown. I felt the City should have encouraged bigger open front porch design at my condo project so that people would use their front yards and create a better sense of community along our walkways. While it is too late for our project, I was making a pitch for design in the future in our City.

He also tries to suggest I am in bed with a developer with respect to Docktown. Yes, I am a real estate lawyer. Yes I represent and sue developers. Yes I have been on both sides of the battle with the developer he mentions, and I think he views me more as adversary than advocate. He falsely states I am currently his counsel. No developer ever asked me to file, proceed with, settle or participate in the Docktown case. None.

There is a contention that this is anti-affordable housing. It is interesting that in 30 years of volunteering for a variety of affordable housing in our community, and over ten years on two different boards, I never met one of these people claiming this is community affordable housing working in our community to help with any of the affordable housing projects. Not one of them in three decades. Those projects make sure affordable housing is offered to those qualified. Here Mr. Callister rents out multiple boat slips (on the public trust) for profit. There is no qualification for any of these boat slips (almost all having no sewer connection) as to residents meeting affordability requirements. On one resident's post, their AirBNB rental of their Docktown boat equated to over $5,000 a month. Thankfully there are true affordable housing projects and our county just allocated $44 million for affordable housing. Let's not mix up these boat slips where residential use is unlawful with true affordable housing where residents live with qualification requirements and yes, true sewer connections.

While Mr. Callister would have you believe he is about preserving the Docktown community, he hides from the viewers his own divisive significant financial interest that cost the residents an extension, his prior admitted false publication about me, and even his prior social media “Drop Dead Ted” attack on me; the truth is that he is the source of the impending eviction of residents from the environmentally contaminated public trust lands known as Docktown by his own actions. During this current time of increase in hate ctimes, his use of social media “drop dead Ted” and attempted use of my status as a member of the LGBT community --- completely irrelevant to this matter --- is further evidence of his character and efforts to try and exploit anything he can. I will not be silent to this. His agenda is to win personally at any cost --- be it his fellow resident’s ability to stay longer, or a negotiated resolution, or personal attacks to evoke ill will. I am literally the messenger of the law they tried to shoot, but Mr. Callister is the one that could have helped change the message affecting relocation but hides behind a smear effort.

Yes Mr. Callister, I do have something over the City, I have used in the past and here. It is called the law. And I have something over you. It’s called the truth. You, Mr. Callister, unfortunately, have neither on your side.