The “Canopy” of Influence: William Go’s Private Meeting Raises Ethical Red Flags
In local governance, the line between “networking” and “conflict of interest” is often defined by transparency. Recent reports regarding Irvine Councilmember and Great Park Board Chair William Go have raised significant ethical questions following a private meeting with Harrison Taylor, the Director of Development and Leasing for Almquist, the developer behind the Great Park’s “Canopy” retail center, on February 24, 2026 at Heritage Plaza in Irvine.
The presence of five of the Councilmember’s friends and acquaintances—specifically business owners and restaurateurs—at a meeting with a city-contracted developer creates several ethical “red flags” that merit scrutiny.
The Appearance of a “Good Old Boys” Network
Irvine’s Code of Ethics emphasizes that leaders “shall not give preferential consideration or special advantages to any person or organization beyond those that are available to any other person or organization”. See Irvine Code of Ethics [Section 1-6-103]. When an elected official brings associates to meet with a developer, it suggests that access to public projects is for those within a private circle.
Speaking to Irvine Watchdog, Councilmember Go defended these actions by citing his long-term industry ties, stating:
“Before I was even a council member, Almquist was already in play. I’ve worked with them in that capacity since the beginning of time. I’m in the commercial industry. I know who’s who and what’s where. I know what fits and what doesn’t fit. Obviously, I want to be mindful. It’s my district and my neighborhood. I know which tenants generally, from a personal standpoint and experience standpoint, would survive and thrive.
I don’t have a crystal ball, so I’ve always introduced concepts that I think this neighborhood could use. For example, I work out at Great Park Neighborhoods at Bally’s with some friends. One of those friends reached out. They’re generally pretty health-conscious. He wanted to do a juice bar. So, I introduced them to Almquist.
As a Councilmember, I am happy to make an introduction, but it ends with that because I’m not in a position to really say much more than that. Generally, that’s how I prefer to work. Someone makes a request, the intro happens, and that’s it.”
Go continued,
“I want to be efficient. And I want to make sure we have a successful center for our community. And I’m happy to provide anybody access to the data. As a Councilmember, I can’t prejudge whether you’ll be successful or not successful. My goal is to just make sure that the flow of information is readily available. If someone asks me for an opinion, I’m going to say, ‘well, as a council member. I have no comment’. But as a person that’s worked with them before, these are my comments. I try my best to separate the buckets so there’s no misconstruction. Whether a developer sees value in a tenant, it’s really up to them. What type of terms do they want to provide? That’s outside my control. I would never ask someone, “Hey, make sure this is this”. I have to make sure people understand when I’m a council member, I have to be really exact on my intentions and my wording. I cannot say certain comments with my council member hat, because they will carry a different weight.”
After the in-person meeting where the above statements were provided, Councilmember Go emailed Irvine Watchdog the following written comments,
“Before I was elected to be the councilmember in district two I was also a member of the Great Park Task Force. At that time we [The Great Park Task Force] worked with Almquist in getting them feedback on what type of retail the community is interested in. Almquist was always willing to listen to the residents. I want to be mindful of what goes in the center since I live here and it is also my district. Almquist always kept us updated and wanted us to refer them operators and food concepts that would fit the neighborhood.
Almquist is open for business and has public postings on loopnet and costar for their Canopy Retail Development. I have promoted the information as well because I want to make sure we have a successful retail center for our community. I am happy to provide anybody access to the data. My goal is to make sure that the flow of information is readily available.
When people come to us for questions or referrals, regardless whether we know them personally or not, we provide as much information and help to assist them. Public development opportunities are advertised through public channels such as loopnet, costar, etc. We assist with request as they come and give equal access to anyone that has an interest in doing business at the City of Irvine. Almquist have always welcomed referrals from any source. They have done a great job responding to tenant requests.”
Left photo above: Councilmember William Go distributing large renderings of the Great Park plans
Preferential Access and Unfair Advantage
In the world of commercial real estate, access is currency. By facilitating a face-to-face meeting between the developer and specific restaurateurs, Councilmember Go may be providing his friends with a significant market advantage:
- Inside Information: Photos from the meeting depict renderings of the Great Park and a handout titled “Proposal for Food and Beverage Operations.” While Go claims he is happy to “provide anybody access to the data“, this access should not be through him.
- Influence on Curation: If personal friends are allowed to pitch their concepts directly to the developer under the wing of a Councilmember, it bypasses the city’s intent to curate the best possible mix for the community, replacing merit with proximity to power.
- The “Two Hats” Dilemma: Most concerning is Go’s attempt to bifurcate his identity. This “separate buckets” approach is a major point of contention. In the required FPPC Ethics trainings required of all elected leaders, the point is made clear that a Councilmember cannot “turn off” their official status to provide personal references to a city contractor without triggering a conflict of interest.
Photo above: The handout is titled, “Proposal for Food & Beverage Operations”
Potential for “Behested” Influence
Under California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) guidelines, public officials are strictly monitored for gifts and “behested payments.” While a meeting itself may not be a monetary gift, the value of the introduction is immense. If these friends eventually secure lucrative leases at The Canopy, questions arise regarding whether the developer felt pressured to accommodate the Councilmember’s associates to maintain a smooth relationship with the Great Park Board.
Go dismissed concerns of a quid pro quo, calling the concept straightforward and well defined. However, ethical governance often hinges on soft influence—the subtle pressure applied when a developer knows a Councilmember is personally rooting for a specific tenant.
Circumventing Public Transparency
Decisions regarding public land and resources should occur in the light of day. Go maintains that his office “give[s] equal access to anyone” and follows protocol. Yet, his admission that he uses his personal experience to suggest concepts for the neighborhood – “I want to be mindful of what goes in the center“- suggests a shadow process. Private meetings with corporate friends circumvent the Brown Act spirit, which ensures public business is conducted publicly.
Why This Matters for Irvine
As Almquist moves forward with Phase 2 of the Great Park retail center, the integrity of the selection process is paramount.
If the community perceives that the “Canopy” is being filled with “friends of the council,” it erodes public trust in the Great Park’s development as a whole. Ethical leadership requires that a Councilmember’s “corporate friends” wait in the same line as every other Irvine business owner, ensuring the best result for the taxpayers, not just the best-connected.
Related articles:
Read: Ethics Allegations Shadow Irvine Councilmember William Go
1 Comments
edmondsmeyerson
March 10, 2026 at 10:53 pmGreat article Branda. My question is how would you expect someone that rarely if ever voted in a local election to know what he should and should not do once elected? Obviously Council member Go has no clue
Comments are closed.