I finally got around to reading a recent lawsuit about stopping the Sacramento River levee bike path. It’s the funniest thing I’ve read in awhile.
Several elements make the bike path lawsuit funny. First, it’s a CEQA suit, meaning it derives from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Being labeled a CEQA suit instantly identifies a legal complaint as unserious, filed for reasons that have nothing to do with constitutional questions, financial damages or grandma’s estate.
CEQA lawsuits are created for tactical reasons, to delay something or persuade a property developer or government agency to hire union-approved electricians and plumbers.
Nobody files a CEQA suit expecting to win. The goal lies elsewhere, hidden in smoke.
Lawyers who specialize in CEQA suits are the legal profession’s closeup magicians. They are brilliant at distraction. They wave a hand. A card appears. They open a fist. Out pops a dove.
The second funny thing about the levee parkway lawsuit concerns the people who filed it. The petitioners—aggrieved citizens behind the suit—are a group called Sacramento Residents for Responsible Mitigation and a guy named Mark Portuondo.
I laughed when I saw the words “residents” and “responsible.” These are codes in CEQA suits to provide illusions of weight and legitimacy.
“Residents” suggests many people are involved, though none are named. “Responsible” implies these anonymous “residents” are the adults in the room. Their opponents—in this case the city—must be irresponsible.
Mark Portuondo is real. He has been making me smile for years. He lives near the river and takes pride in being a force for community good. He’s involved with a Pocket group that gives stipends to college-bound students.
He also devotes lots of time and effort to stopping students, moms, old people and everyone else from enjoying the river levee parkway.
How he reconciles these contradictions—champion of local youth on one hand, crusader against parkway access on the other—I don’t understand. But I find this type of public posturing funny.
Sometimes Mark Portuondo communicates with me. He admits the city will finish the bike trail despite his objections.
He insists he’s not out to stop the trail. He just wants to the city to keep his house near the levee safe from Peeping Toms and other deviants. Self-righteous but hardly unique.
Here’s where the lawsuit gets funny. It says Portuondo and friends aren’t opposed to the bike trail. Yet it seeks to stop the trail.
I assume most community members don’t want to be tagged as the reason why a public treasure promised 51 years ago falls at the last hurdle.
But there’s Mark Portuondo’s name on the CEQA lawsuit. The only name listed.
I wanted to ask him about the suit, but he declined an interview. I can’t blame him. I wouldn’t speak to me either if I filed a CEQA suit to stop the bike trail.
Something else made me laugh when I read the suit: the lawyer who wrote it, Jordan Sisson. This is funny because Jordan Sisson is based in Riverside.
I’ve never met a Riverside lawyer who could find Sacramento on a map. Riverside must be branching out.
Finally, the lawsuit’s theories are funny. They claim Sacramento has no business finishing the bike trail because the City Council approved plans for the bike trail in 2025, based on a 1997 Environmental Impact Report.
The suit demands an updated Environmental Impact Report. Meantime, it wants a judge to shut down work on the bike trail. Delay, delay, delay.
Jordan Sisson does a nice job dancing around the fact that the city doesn’t need a new impact report. Sisson’s theories are addressed in the city’s October addendum and 1997 impact report. Relevant questions are answered.
Like other CEQA lawsuits, this one swallows its tail trying to gum up the works. It won’t slow or stop the trail. California has wised up to CEQA suit excesses. But they’re still good for laughs.
R.E. Graswich can be reached at regraswich@icloud.com. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram: @insidesacramento.
