As I mentioned yesterday, the City has officially shaken off the burden of SunCal and settled the lawsuit that SunCal had filed against the City after being ousted as Master Developer of Alameda Point. The City uploaded the settlement agreement to their website, but because their link is weird and they make you download it, I have uploaded it here.
Essentially the deal is thus, the City pays back the $1 million deposit ($1.073 million) and an additional $3.177 million. While the City wrote in its press release that it would be paid over 18 month, in truth the biggest lumpiest sum will be due on December 31, 2012. Meaning that by the end of the year, the City will be cutting a check in the amount of $3.25 million to SunCal. One payment of $500K will be due on July 1, 2013 and the remaining $500K will be due on July 1, 2014. At that point, the City will have completely and totally excised SunCal from Alameda.
In case you were wondering this claim also completely releases Ann Marie Gallant, former Interim City Manager, from any claims by SunCal against her and vice versa. However, the settlement was quick to note that this release has no bearing over Ann Marie Gallant’s claim against the City that is still at the appellate court level.
The settlement is also quick to point out that the settlement does not mean that any of the parties are admitting fault, of course folks can read into whatever they want and can start framing it however they choose. The City has already begun framing this settlement as ”it’s cheaper just to settle also we want to move on with Alameda Point without this hanging over our heads” and I imagine that SunCal is just happy they can recover some of the costs they sunk into their failed Alameda Point experience. Winish-winish.
One would think given the bullet that the City bit for Ann Marie Gallant, since I believe she was being sued as a named individual as well, she could have the decency to pull her own lawsuit against the City and her behavior was considered “troublesome” by the judge according to the record. This would actually be good timing for her too given the outcome of Kapler’s case. If her announcement followed this one it would appear magnanimous in light of the SunCal settlement, she could walk away (sort of) appearing like a good guy instead of how it would have appear after the Kapler appellate court judgement which would just appear that she was afraid of receiving a negative judgment like he did.
And in other legal news, I can’t remember if I had posted about it somewhere or just tweeted it, but the Alameda Unified School District voted to go ahead and appeal the appellate court ruling on Measure H. Expect AUSD to be joined by other school districts who have similarly structured taxes.
thank you Lauren …..
I do noth believe for a second the City owe more thab a millions to Suncal , the remaining goes to DE shaw and the others shaddy edge fund .as well as private investors {I thought the Country was broke and we were ll going over the clift]
Suncal Almeda point was controled by DE Shaw per Suncal own words during a city Council meeting in which Suncal said they were hired at will by DE Shaw.
Suncal has been grabbing deals on 1/10 of the cents for project they filed for bankruptcy and by far they are again the largest land owner in California , having washed their hands with their multiples bankruptcy which they call restructuration .
Somewhere along their shady dealing with the edges fund , the t payers at large are the one that paid the bill.
By filing all these bankruptcy , Suncal and the edge funds involved actively participated in the demise of the State of California .
On the funny side DE Shaw is a Democrat affiliated edge fund , Suncal is a far right affiliated company , the very one behind one of the dirtiest election campaign ever .
It would be interesting to see the IRS looking into their fancy bookeeping in the spirit of giving…….
Posted under the freedom of expression granted by the United States constitution.
Comment by mijoka — December 21, 2012 @ 7:23 am
Siding with Suncal is by far the largest error and the biggest regret of my 15 years of living and being active in Alameda, bar none.
Since I feel a profound sense of personal betrayal and offense over the decisions the owners of Suncal made I am particularly saddened that the City of Alameda is paying that bunch of &$@!#(& rascals anything at all over the $1.073 million for their deposit. (I mis-typed the name above as Sincal and almost left it that way.
Those of ius who signed on to advise Suncal on Alameda Point–without compensation, despite false rumors to the contrary–did so in the belief that we were dealing with relatively honorable and straightforward people, based on our dealings with Pat Kelliher, Sarah Chavez, Kiley Russell,Nick Kosla, and others who were working at the local level. That impression began to crumble when Suncal’s “big guns” unveiled their Measure B PR campaign and Measure B itself. Our trust went south entirely after Suncal began its “scorched earth” legal and political campaigns following Measure B’s resounding defeat.
The truly sad part os this is that the City of Alameda was exposed–through an admittedly questionable and perhaps evil company, Suncal–to some superb world-class plans by Peter Calthorpe and Jim Daisa for sustainable development and transportation systems at Alameda Point. (The 1996 Base Reuse Plans are pedestrian and outdated by comparison.)
The loss of these visionary plans–the best concepts and designs ever developed for AP, other than the excessive density Suncal crammed in–is another huge cost of Suncal’s greedy, irresponsible, and unethical corporate decisions. We have tossed out the genius’ babies out along with the bathwater in our disgust. Doing so is our loss, not Suncal’s.
Suncal’s suit has now achieved its intended result: the City of Alameda has handed that “evil empire” over $3 million in ill-gotten and undeserved income. I do not yet understand why the City of Alameda settled and rewarded these evildoers, but so far I do not see sufficient justification for such a huge and morally groundless payday. (It gibes an entirely new and ugly connotation to the term “unearned income.”)
My only assurance at this point comes from my own personal faith, which tells me that the individuals at Suncal will, indeed, be judged quite ultimately for their actions and probably spend a very, very long time in some very hot climes with no escape…
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 21, 2012 @ 10:46 am
Does your faith exempt their willing lackeys from said heat? Does anyone who voted for B go there also? What about elected officials who collaborated with them?
You really should have stopped after the first sentence.
Comment by dave — December 21, 2012 @ 11:07 am
I imagine the best reason for settling is that it removes the cloud hanging over the Alameda Point project. The city will hopefully get conveyance of the first parcels from the Navy soon and who wants this cloud hanging over the land? This open law suit would have been a lis pendens against the land title. It would be difficult for the City to convey land, sign agreements, etc. with this suit outstanding.
It’s good to close the door on this chapter so we can move forward.
Comment by Karen Bey — December 21, 2012 @ 11:19 am
3. Dave, My faith provides for the possibility of repentance. (See my first sentence.)
As far as I can see Suncal is absolutely unrepentant. I do not know anyone who “collaborated with” Suncal after seeing their final-stages behavior and realizing their true nature. Good-faith efforts to work with a developer for the good of Alameda–on the part of officials or citizens–did not, unfortunately, come accompanied with omniscience. (Nor does opposing a particular project or developer.) Humans are fallible, even in the best of circumstances and without evil intentions.
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 21, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
Ann Marie Gallant, from what what I heard correctly. Ann Marie Gallant, was fired or resigned from the city of Moreno Valley, after writing checks to herself.
Comment by Jay — February 21, 2013 @ 11:28 pm
6: Jay, Gallant’s departures from several agencies have been under clouds of perceived misconduct on her part, but that misconduct has always been hard to prove or bring to light due to confidentiality agreements associated with those several departures. But, just as her tenure in and her departure from Alameda, none of them smelled very good despite being very good for her personal finances.
If she is to greedy or self-absorbed or lacking in wisdom to drop her lawsuit I hope she is finally “outed” due to the City of Alameda’s efforts.
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 22, 2013 @ 9:54 am
What is public record is that she has left at least three employments with municipal jurisdictions with “settlements”, the amounts of which have been not revealed. There is a pattern of coming in to a job, working to oust those above her, working as an interim, whistle blowing, getting out of favor for irregularities in contracting and politicizing her role with assistance of a built-up communtiy constituency, being let go, and filing suit for wrongful discharge. There are many newspaper articles, mostly from Southern California jurisdictions, that relate the events in places like, I believe, Palm Desert and the City of Carson. The terms of the settlements are usually kept from public view. I have spoken with people in places where she has been, and her history is well known. I hope that the Council is wise in giving direction to the City Attorney in how to proceed with this claim, which I personally believe has no merit. But, the courts will be deciding. As with the former Fire Chief and former City Attorney, I believe justice will prevail.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 22, 2013 @ 2:11 pm
#6 if untrue, is malicious. #8 may be considered malicious. Remember NYT v. Sullivan doesn’t forbid public figures from suing for malicious defamation.
Comment by catoIII — February 22, 2013 @ 5:26 pm
Nothing said is other than what has been widely reported and in court documents, various minutes and recordings of city council meetings, etc. It is not intended to be malicious but a reminder that there is history here; what we are experiencing with this individual is not an isolated case. It is up to the courts to decide whether there is merit in her suit, but I do not believe that there is, based on past well documented history. I hope our City is not going to have to pay, but it is up to the courts, not us to decide that.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 23, 2013 @ 7:49 am
City Whitsle Blowers will be waterboarded and run out of town is the way I see it…… Churchlady is just one of those holding the hose to fill the Tub. So nothing malicious there.
Comment by From the Phew — February 23, 2013 @ 8:30 am
California Elements of Defamation
Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.
The elements of a defamation claim are:
publication of a statement of fact
that is false,*
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes “special damage,” and
the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.
Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.
Comment by catoIII — February 23, 2013 @ 9:49 am
In general, if an individual is classified as a public official, defamatory statements relating to any aspects of their lives must meet the actual malice standard of fault for there to be liability.
In a legal sense, “actual malice” has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined “actual malice” in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either knowing that it is false; or acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.
Comment by catoIII — February 23, 2013 @ 9:56 am
Interesting that it’s the self-righteous self-described church goers who have been the most relentless & vicious about judging Ann Marie Gallant [Jon & Katie]. When you pass on, I hope the Lord does not judge you two the way you have judged her.
Comment by vigi — February 24, 2013 @ 2:24 pm
Ah, Vigi, I am not judging her. It is not up to me to do so. The courts will decide if her case has merit. I don’t believe it does, based on her history, but that is not a comment on her character but a comment on the facts as they have been widely published and established through press, court documents and records of public meetings. I, as she, will be judged and I don’t think my religion or lack of same has anything to do with it. If you are calling me a hypocrite, fine, but I don’t think that is true. If you believe that she never had troubles in other jurisdictions, never before claimed wrongful discharge, never before claimed whistle blower status, and never before received large settlements from filing suits against her prior employers, than please so state, and support the absence of all these matters with evidence.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 24, 2013 @ 2:51 pm
Kate, you wrote in #15, “..and never before received large settlements from filing suits against her prior employers,…”
You believe that winning in court against former employers is evidence that a case has no merit?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2013 @ 3:21 pm
Jack. No, only that when an employee does this multiple times, it may represent an established pattern of litigiousness. The merits of the case are usually not the reason for the settlement; it is often the situation that the jurisdiction finds the suit too costly and settles to avoid the legal costs. It is a calculation that must be made and often has nothing to do with the righteousness of the case being brought; just “can we afford to continue to fight this, or is it cheaper to pay the employee off and move on?” Usually, when there is a big win on the merits the amount of the win and the grounds for it are ballyhooed, when it is just a settlement and is “sealed” it is often just a pay-off. Not always, but often that is the case. On this matter, I have many years of experience as a personnel officer and have seen these things come and go.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 24, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
I have to agree with Kate on this one. Gallant’s extortion of employers should not continue, and Alameda should not settle. I expect that her past indiscretions needs to catch up with her before she understands the cost of defamation. Let this case be the one that exposes her. What goes around, comes around.
Comment by BarbaraK — February 25, 2013 @ 12:36 pm
18 “past indiscretions” add up to extortion? Do you know what the legal term for “extortion” is? Are you accusing Gallant of ‘extortion’?
Comment by catoIII — February 25, 2013 @ 1:29 pm
Churchlady and her ilk have been keeping Attorneys busy for Decades…Not only at the County but she brings it home to the City.But She is Ours. What a Jewel.
BarbaraK is one of the best rock throwers in town CatoIII. Bring a helmet and don’t mention the fire dept.
If your a legal begal you have plenty of traces of aiming powder that has been fired by this pair. Enjoy.
Comment by Disfunction at the Junction — February 25, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
Never have been sued, either as an individual or in my work capacity, so sorry, #20. I don’t think our rights to free speech should be trampled on by those who call names to anyone who disagrees with them. I have simply stated my piece, and that is that I personally don’t see merit in her case and I hope the City does not have to pay money as a result of her suit. If that is so rotten as to engender name calling, well, so be it.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 25, 2013 @ 4:07 pm