By MATT CHANDLER
mchandler@bizjournals.com | 716-541-1654

His critics call him anti-development and an obstructionist, and he has found himself on the losing end of some high-profile cases. But attorney Arthur Giacalone says he knows - and more important, his clients know - for what he stands.

Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.

Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.

The following is a condensed version of a recent conversation with Giacalone.

BLJ: There aren't a lot of attorneys locally who handle these types of cases. How did you get involved in land use and zoning cases?

AG: The principle that got me through law school was the idea of trying to make the world a more fair and just place. And that's the kinds of law I've tried to practice my entire career.

It was just accidentally that 21, 22 years ago, I got a call from an attorney friend of mine saying there was a group of residents in North Tonawanda that needed an attorney to help them deal with a zoning matter. They had an attorney, but he was moving to Albany. He told me, ‘The only downside is that he was charging them $25 an hour, Art, so you're going to have to do it for 25 bucks an hour, too.'

It didn't take me long to realize that being involved with zoning, land use and environmental issues allowed me to practice the kind of law that was important to me.

BLJ: You've had a number of high-profile cases, including the recent Verizon case and Bass Pro. Is there a case that stands out as exemplifying why you do what you do?

AG: I was thinking about that recently because at times I need to remind myself of why I'm doing what I'm doing. I say that because it is very frustrating at times as a lawyer when all of the resources are on the other side, the politicians are all on the other side and the court system with all of the presumptions built into the law are all on the other side. So as a lawyer, you better be getting something intangible out of what you do.

So it isn't one specific case for me - it is the people I represent and the fight they are taking up. Also, the integrity of the legal process is really important to me. We need to trust that our officials are making decisions in an honest way and without the appearance of impropriety.

BLJ: You talk about the David-vs-Goliath aspect of what you do. Principles aside, do you wake up some days and feel like you are fighting a losing battle?

AG: The Verizon case was emblematic of the fight and so was Canal Side. When I got to court, I sat at one table by myself and I looked to my right and there were seven, eight, nine attorneys at the other table. At one point, when I was making my list of who I had to serve papers on during Canal Side, there were 15 different attorneys that I had to respond to. Well, you are sitting in my entire office and you are talking to my entire staff. So when you have 15 people whose names are on there, who knows how many investigators, secretaries and everyone else they have working for them? I have to try and keep a sense of humor about it and a certain confidence in my ability.

BLJ: People say you are anti-development. You're the guy out there trying to stop change, block progress and, at times, hurt the communities that "need" the development that's proposed. How do you respond?

AG: I'm not anti-development, and anyone who says that doesn't know me and doesn't know my history in these cases. I'm pro resident and I am pro the law. Now that I am in my 60s, I am older than most of my opposing counsel and often older than the judges I appear before. I almost want to apologize and say, ‘Maybe this is old-fashioned of me, but I believe we have to follow the law.' Zoning laws and environmental laws are there to protect the community, and I think people have a right to be heard.

For example, if you are going to bring a big-box store into a small community, that is going to have an impact on the small-business owners who are within a half-mile of the store. If the legislative body is signing off on that store, they better be sure they can convince those residents who may suffer personal harm that at least the process was fair. Without that in place, there is a real sense that in these cases it is who you know rather than what is fair and right.

BLJ: The Verizon case garnered lots of attention, and you ultimately lost in your bid to block the company from building a data center in Somerset. What are your thoughts on that case?

AG: The Verizon case is a perfect example of the idea that people need to know the process was done right.

When the largest development project in over a half-century in Niagara County is officially brought to the public's attention on Sept. 14, and the rezoning for the matter and the environmental review is complete five weeks later, someone might say: Was this done fairly? Was it done completely? What happened here?

To this day, Verizon has not committed to doing the project. In my 20-plus years of doing zoning law, I've never had a situation where a developer was asking for zoning and environmental approvals without saying, ‘I'm building this project.' What Verizon said in every single set of papers that they submitted to the town of Somerset was in a footnote saying, ‘We have not committed to doing this project yet. We are going to wait to see what kind of incentives we are going to get and whether certain legislation in Albany is going to be passed or not.'

BLJ: Do you see some of the cases you handle stemming from officials not understanding the laws and making faulty decisions, or officials being corrupt and making unjust rulings and votes?

AG: I really think it is both. What I've seen in many communities, especially smaller communities, is officials who are really flattered and impressed when a large company comes to them. I think they either don't feel capable of asking serious questions, or they just feel this glossy study they have must be full and accurate. Either way, they sure aren't taking the time to look critically at it. Corruption is a little bit harsh of a word, but I would say improper is fair to say at times.

BLJ: Given that you have two young children (ages 10 and 13), at the end of the day, is what you do less about winning and losing and more about leaving a legacy of which your kids can be proud?

AG: I haven't consciously thought about it from that angle. But I do think, for example, that I want East Aurora to be an appropriate place for my children to grow up and a healthy place for them. I guess I am also hoping that whatever values I have do rub off on my kids and someday they understand what my work was all about.