You all know I never post twice in a day unless it’s something significant. Well the other shoe has dropped and SunCal has filed a lawsuit to compel the City of Alameda to allow SunCal to develop the plan.
SFGate has the story here, it’s fairly light since SunCal has been relatively quiet about it – in other words there is no press release about it, at least I didn’t get one. According to the article SunCal is not asking for money, but they didn’t rule out another lawsuit asking for monetary damages.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
everyone knew this was going to happen.
Now time for another 14 years to bitch about the base and how TERRIBLE suncal is.
Comment by E — August 5, 2010 @ 7:14 am
E, doesn’t his [further] prove how terrible Suncal is?
You really going to regret not doing biz with a company that sues because it doesn’t get its way after overwhelmingly being rejected by the voters and city leaders?
Comment by Jack B. — August 5, 2010 @ 7:18 am
Why does everyone keep pointing to that bogus vote (the will of the people)? Another “will of the people” vote was just overturned yesterday in the Prop.8 vote.
The job of the City Manager, City Attorney and staff is to AVOID litigation, not bring it on, as it is going to be very expensive one way or another, and WILL delay the development of the base until it is resolved (which in itself is a disaster for our tax revenues). And what bank will loan Alameda money to develop the base itself with a lawsuit pending?
The unfortunate announcement of a plan to develop the base itself (along with the paperwork which city staff did to support it), while still in a contractual relationship with SunCal will be the issue, not the vote to suspend Prop.A
We are very unsophisticated in our approach to this issue.
Comment by Hot R — August 5, 2010 @ 8:33 am
2
Breach of Contract has nothing to do with voter rejection.
Comment by Jayare — August 5, 2010 @ 8:36 am
#3
There is a difference between allowing same sex couples to marry and a corporation demanding a forced marriage.
Let’s just see how far this one gets in the courts.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 5, 2010 @ 9:18 am
As an ardent supporter of the Peter Calthorpe plan for AP and a member of Suncal’s advisory committee (for which none of us received any compensation except a thank-you from Suncal), I am saddened to see this predictable and preventable “shoe” drop.
Both the City and Suncal had shortcomings and made mistakes as negotiating partners since 2008, but I had always hoped that their differences could be resolved by good-faith negotiations.
I had observed, however, that the City was failing to negotiate in good faith as far back as the fall of 2008 when the City Council refused to place a charter amendment on the ballot to lift the density requirements for AP. After all, the former base was not even a part of the City of Alameda in 1973. (And it still isn’t.)
Suncal subsequently failed to craft a “clean” charter amendment on its own and made even more mistakes trying to sell that unmarketable mess to Alameda at any cost. (I recommended that Suncal scrap the original initiative and start over in the summer of 2009: my advice went unheeded.)
As late as July 20, the entire process could have been redeemed, IMHO, if the Council had a) extended Suncal’s ENA, and b) worked honestly and forthrightly with Suncal during the EIR process to reach agreement on the disputed
terms and craft a DDA.
It’s too bad that only one partner was still trying to negotiate in good faith long before then.
I concluded long ago (based on the public record) that some City officials had already decided by last summer to abandon good-faith negotiations and begun to oppose Suncal outright but not forthrightly.
This conscious decision, which showed itself clearly at January’s joint Board of Education-City Council meeting and in many other ways, is the primary reason for Suncal’s suit. Amazingly enough, Suncal’s people would still much rather negotiate (and build at AP) than sue…
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 5, 2010 @ 9:49 am
I don’t see where they have a case here. There’s was a failed strategy and now they are trying to blame the City for their mistakes.
According to an article in the Island,
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/08/alameda-point-their-arrogance-is-exceeded-only-by-their-arrogance
both the then City Manager, David Brandt and SunCal’s own political consultant, Larry Tramutola “advised” Suncal to leave the business agreement off the ballot.
David Brandt goes on to say that SunCal ignored city staff’s recommedations on how to work with the Navy. And speaking of the Navy — according to another article in the Island:
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/08/navy-denies-suncal-lawyers-letter-claim/
“Local representatives of the Navy have confirmed to City staff that the Navy never agreed to provide a letter supporting an extension.”
This disproves their accusation that it was the ICM that prevented them from getting an extension. I don’t see a case of breach of contract here. What I do see is that SunCal tried to go after “the whole enchilada”, and the City said no, and now SunCal wants to blame the City for their failed strategy.
Comment by Karen Bey — August 5, 2010 @ 10:08 am
4
“There is a difference between allowing same sex couples to marry and a corporation demanding a forced marriage.”
Let me get this straight. 7,000,000 voters in CA spoke their voice about the first of your two part comparison and it didn’t mean squat. 7,000+ voters in Alameda also spoke their voice but the result of each of the two “marriages” (and even though they was consummated by all sides screwing each other) will be decided by some politically bent judge.
Somehow, I don’t think this is what the founders had in mind when they designed a system that gave power to the people. And this is progress?
Comment by jayare — August 5, 2010 @ 11:04 am
8
The problem is, 1) the founders set up a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and 2) initiatives are usually proposed by people with axes to grind, so the odds of getting a well-written, constitutionally valid initiative can be pretty slim. That said: Wahoo, no on H8!
Comment by Linda Hudson — August 5, 2010 @ 11:27 am
7:
Karen, The City of Alameda prevented Suncal from negotiating at all with the Navy until a DDA was agreed to. This prevented Suncal and the Navy from discussing anything at all for months on end, seriously slowing major efforts at progress towards conveyance. (And Suncal’s failure to reach conveyance agreements with the Navy was seen as a severe shortcoming in the City’s staff reports this spring and summer.) How can the City preventing negotiations NOT be seen as a breach of contract by Suncal?
The Suncal initiative WAS a disaster, as I previously noted. But so was the City Council’s failure in 2008 to lead the City by placing an appropriate initiative on the ballot.
And, according to substantial precedent in CA, the serious problems in the initiative could have been fixed in the Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA), which the ENA of 2007-2008 identified as the “ultimate authority” for developing AP. The DDA could have been crafted to limit the effects of the initiative’s poor language, and Suncal was ready to dump all of the objectionable language.
So the language of the initiative need not have been the stumbling block that it seemed to be.
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 5, 2010 @ 11:45 am
9 re 8
1. They also set up a representative democracy which had very limited and enunciated powers. Those powers not enunciated in the Constitution were left to the states to decide through whatever the method the various states decided on. California’s Progressives decided that California needed a method for the state voters to be heard directly, ergo, the Initiative process.
You can “wahoo” all you want, but the net result of the judge’s decision is the never ending abrogation of the power of an individual vote.
Comment by Jayare — August 5, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
SunCal has uploaded the complaint here.
Comment by Lauren Do — August 5, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
City decisions should not be made out of fear of being sued. Businesses and governments are sued all the time. Either Suncal has a case, or it does not. City leaders should have weighed the potential strengths and weaknesses of a Suncal lawsuit before they voted (and I would think they did since Suncal publicly threatened to sue).
Letting excessive fear of lawsuits rule your decisions is a horrible way to make decisions, and just let’s others use lawsuit blackmail to get their way.
Weigh the pluses and minuses, then doing the right thing to the best of your ability. Let the legal process play out as it will.
Comment by John — August 5, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Jon,
“And, according to substantial precedent in CA, the serious problems in the initiative could have been fixed in the Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA), which the ENA of 2007-2008 identified as the “ultimate authority” for developing AP. The DDA could have been crafted to limit the effects of the initiative’s poor language, and Suncal was ready to dump all of the objectionable language…”
I remember having an extended conversion on this blog about this very issue. It was a very gray area and the City did not want to take a chance.
Think about it — being in contract with some who has written a one sided contract to “take the whole enchilda”, with a promise to fix it later if you just sign on the dotted line….
That’s not very good business practice. And to make matters worse, they insulated us by saying “we just didn’t understand the agreement”.
SunCal thought we were this “sleepy” town — Mayberry I think some people describe Alameda, but then the ICM came to town and that blew their whole strategy. She may be tough and there’s alot of things she’s done that’s controversial — but in this case, tough was what we needed. No wonder, they are targeting her!
Comment by Karen Bey — August 5, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Karen, if you want to include the infamous Gallant stunt about Lena Tam allegations one week before the ENA vote I will agree with you; it was not only controversial, but politically motivated and sleezy. Is this what the “sleepy” town of Alameda needs? Should we thank Gallant for this?
Let’s presume Lena Tam is innocent (is this still possible in the US?) for the moment. Will we see an apology from the city attorney?
My guess is that once the city staff are deposed, and for once are required to tell their versions of events under oath, you’re going to see Alameda politics in a different light. Right now the staff are toeing the line with Gallant, their boss, but they will not go to jail to protect her.
I welcome the “sunshine” of this lawsuit. God knows it’s the last thing Mayor Johnson wants.
Comment by Dave L. — August 5, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Dave,
I’m truly sorry about what’s happening to Lena. I appreciate her contributions on the council and what she’s done for our City.
I hope we get some resolution on this issue soon.
Comment by Karen Bey — August 5, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
12
Way to go, Louis R. Miller! Go get em!
Comment by jayare — August 5, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
#12
That isn’t a complaint; it’s a diatribe.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — August 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Suncal filed this case in Southern California. Since the contract for the Alameda Point development was probably signed in Alameda County, and the development itself is located in Alameda County, it is just a further demonstration of the lack respect that Suncal has for the people of Alameda to file the case in Southern California.
I do hope that court proceedings are transferred up to the federal courthouse in Oakland or San Francisco out of respect for Alameda taxpayers.
Comment by John — August 5, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
19
Why should SCC Alameda Point show respect to those who want to bury them?
Comment by Jayare — August 5, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
I expect Suncal to show Alameda taxpayers no more respect than they ever have shown us. I am hoping that the federal courts see Northern California as the appropriate venue for this case.
Comment by John — August 5, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Re: #11
“You can “wahoo” all you want, but the net result of the judge’s decision is the never ending abrogation of the power of an individual vote”
Except that it’s immoral for the general population to vote on the rights of a minority group. Question, did you feel the same way when the courts stopped Prop 187 or are you only concerned about the “power of an individual vote” when it is used to snuff out rights for the GLBT community?
Comment by Tom — August 5, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Here is a slightly more sympathetic interview with David Soyka of Suncal by East Bay for Open Government, posted August 4:
http://eastbayopengovernment.blogspot.com/
Comment by Jon Spangler — August 6, 2010 @ 1:56 am
SunCal is going after the ICM — they have targeted her from the beginning and are continuing to target her in this suit filed in the County of Santa Ana.
The ICM has worked in Santa Ana – and maybe has lived there at one time. There is an interesting article about her called:
“King City Manager Goal Oriented”
where they mention she has worked in Santa Ana.
Comment by Karen Bey — August 6, 2010 @ 6:43 am
Alameda has been described by some as a “sleepy town” and some have described us as “Mayberry”. We are not Mayberry, and we’re not a sleepy town – but let’s face it, at times we’ve been asleep at the wheel.
Against the advice of then City Manager, David Brandt and SunCal’s own political consultant, SunCal tried to ram a one-sided development agreement down our throats because they thought we were asleep at the wheel. They were greedy and wanted the whole enchilada……. Then comes Ann Marie Gallant who reads the documents, hires legal counsel to advise the city, the Chamber of Commerce does a thorough analysis of the business agreement, other groups start reading the business agreements, – there are major discussions on the blogs about the business agreement and Alameda residents wakes up and says no to SunCal!
Now we’re being accused of being anti – development because we said no to a greedy developer who ran out of time on their ENA after wasting our time on a no-win ballot initiative. Alameda is not anti- development because we said no to SunCal! Alameda has a number of development successes – Harbor Bay, Alameda Bayport, Bridgeside Shopping Center, Alameda Towne Centre, and a number of promising projects in the pipeline.
This is about a developer who made serious mistakes in their development strategy in Alameda, did not listen to the advice of City staff and their consultants and lost the trust of the residents of this town. Now they are blaming the City Manager for their failed strategy.
Comment by Karen Bey — August 6, 2010 @ 7:37 am