I'm sorry that you've not addressed any of the points raised by the first writer. You seem to have sidestepped them completely. Now you point the finger at Sylvia Lacy. I can't comment about what you describe as her actions in your gating case. I find it a guiding principle not to proffer opinions on issues on which I have not conducted prior thorough research. I can tell you how she behaved in the charter school/McCarty situation.
She never took a position on the matter, but with her characteristic frankness, she said that if the charter school's presence at McCarty was determined by the appropriate city departments to be legal, our neighborhood would have to, and I quote, "Suck it up". It might interest you to know that the entire issue was considered by an array of officials in various city departments, who reached the same conclusion concerning the the need for the charter school to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Perhaps you think you know more about the code than they do. The issue went to the Building and Safety Commission, and the charter school was given an opportunity to appeal, but it chose to ignore the Order to Comply. Perhaps you believe that these city officials were all in collusion, or were the creatures of Sylvia Lacy, mutely doing her bidding, but that's a bit of a reach, don't you think? I really don't like the "Research After the Fact" school of journalism, or ad hominem attacks based on innuendo, hearsay, and whisperings, or the abuse of bully pulpits, or lack of attribution. If I liked these things, I'd watch Fox News.