Half Moon Bay Review/Clay Lambert, 9/20/12. "Arbiter awards $10 million to city of Half Moon Bay in Beachwood case."
 |
| Beachwood property, 6/29/12 |
The award was rendered by retired California Supreme Court
Justice Edward A. Panelli and could cost the Insurance Company of the
West millions of dollars. It represents the culmination of the first of
two phases of arbitration. The second phase could add interest to the
total payout. That phase of discussions has yet to be scheduled,
Condotti said."
.... The city has already recovered $5 million from a separate claim against a
liability plan run by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The $10
million award means that the city has recovered 84 percent of the total
judgment from its insurers." Read article. 
Related articles - Timeline, San Mateo County Times, 9/21/12. Background, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/6/08, includes the lower photograph by Katy Raddatz. Use of returned money? Daily Journal (San Mateo), 9/20/12. Upper photograph, Half Moon Bay Review, 6/29/12.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
13 comments:
Nothing is paid out in a matter of weeks. More like 30 to 90 days. More damage done by a brainless city council. Oh and all these guys bolted off the council also.
Sound familiar?
@440 what do we get if all 5 step down? Retro credit for Vreeland, too? At least $10 million?
Right on, no creep developer should EVER be able to bankrupt a city.
Pacifica had to sue ABAG at one point to get funds back defending against Mr. Fromm, who decided he wanted to own a city, rather than develop his (and others) property
"..defending against Mr. Fromm.." Lionel Emde, 9:42 PM
All Mr. Fromm wanted to do was build houses on the property he owned. The city (your city council friends) blocked that development.
The city got its $5 million from ABAG. Half Moon Bay also got $5 million from ABAG. Guess that's the booby prize. Half Moon Bay also collected $10 million from their liability insurance company.
"All Mr. Fromm wanted to do was build houses on the property he owned." Wow. Is that ever re-writing history.
"..re-writing history." Anonymous 10:38 PM.
No the problem was clearly caused by the city. And your comment is faulty.
A "joint and several liability" poison pill clause was added to the North Pacifica LLC/Keith Fromm contract AFTER the project was approved by city council. Now how did that happen?
The city should have and could have made the project good as approved. But they did not. Rather city legal involved our city in a lawsuit that continued for 7 years. The reason the city continued the lawsuit could only have been to assure that the housing would not be built.
Ultimately the return of $5 million from ABAG represented a net loss to the city of something like $1.5 million dollars.
My recall may be a little fuzzy after 10 years, but your recall is not stated, or non existent.
Lionel is correct that the city sued ABAG to defend against North Pacifica LLC/Keith Fromm, but Fromm was a developer who wanted to build houses. He did not want to "own the city" through a long drawn-out, aggravating lawsuit, which would have been a huge distraction to his business. Think!
Lionel most of the time I agree with you except for this time.
Being in the business, the city totally screweed over Mr Fromm and the fish bowl owners.
They did all this on the advise of John Curtis.
Just as how me and you should have property rights to the ownership of our property, without insane city rules which all us to use it and enjoy it to the California Building codes which always supercede the Cities codes.
That was a bullshit move by the city.
One of these days we should all sit down and try to figure out how many countless millions John Curtis, and his buddies cost the city of Pacifica in lost revenue and court and legal fees.
http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2063
The case at hand involved proposed development of a 4.3-acre parcel known as the “Bowl.” In 1999, North Pacifica (NP) filed an application for a condominium project on the site. City officials made a number of requests for additional information before finally deeming the application complete in June 2001. Before the application made it to the Planning Commission, North Pacifica sued, alleging that city processing delays had violated the company’s due process and equal protection rights.
The Planning Commission approved the project, but a citizen appealed to the City Council. In August 2002, the City Council approved the project subject to 39 conditions of approval. North Pacifica objected to a number of the conditions, including condition 13 (b) requiring that condominium owners be individually and collectively liable for maintenance of building exteriors, landscaping, common areas and an access road. North Pacifica contended that no other condo developer in the state had ever been subject to condition 13 (b) and said it would render the project unsaleable. Apparently, however, North Pacifica’s written objections never reached either the Planning Commission or City Council until after the project was approved. At the time, city attorneys and planners insisted on the condition as protection because North Pacifica had filed a different lawsuit in state court demanding that the city maintain the access road. (North Pacifica eventually lost that suit at the appellate court level in 2005.)
A citizen appealed the City Council’s approval of the entire project — 19 houses and 24 condominium units on the 5.8 acres as the “Fish” and “Bowl” sites — to the Coastal Commission. Those proceedings ground on for years before the Commission in May 2006 overturned the city’s approval because of impacts to wetlands. The developer lost the suit against the Coastal Commission.
http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2220
Meanwhile back in federal court, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen ruled that North Pacifica could not pursue its due process claim because it had not sought compensation in state court. But in October 2003, Judge Chen concluded that imposition of condition 13 (b) did violate the developer’s right to equal protection. After that ruling, the City Council repealed the condition. Still, North Pacifica sought damages, and in May 2005 Chen awarded $156,000 in damages, $454,000 in attorney’s fees and $55,000 in costs. Chen concluded that the development was worth less from August 2002 until November 2003, the period during which condition 13 (b) was in effect.
Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit. North Pacifica sought to resurrect its due process claim, while the city sought to overturn the award for violation of equal protection. The city won on both counts.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that imposition of condition 13 (b) did not violate equal protection rights because there was no evidence the city singled out NP for discriminatory treatment. The court also noted that compensation was not justified unless the developer could prove actual damages.
“The problem” wrote Judge Schroeder, “is that there was no reduction in value attributable to condition 13 (b) because development could not go forward until NP obtained a development permit from the Coastal Commission. The condition did not cause any actual delay. Even if we were to agree that NP should have prevailed on the equal protection claim, it would have been entitled only to nominal damages.”
On the due process claim, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling but on different grounds. The district court said NP first had to press and lose a claim in state court before seeking relief in federal court. That would have been true had NP filed a taking claim, but the developer instead filed a due process claim based on the city’s lengthy process, the Ninth Circuit pointed out.
The Ninth Circuit found there was a “reasonable explanation” for every delay. The city needed additional information to review the application, it sought a new application when NP’s agent dropped out of the process, and it restarted the environmental review process after determining that NP wrongly claimed the project was exempt, the court noted.
It wasn't just a citizen. It was a drag on the taxpayers John Curtis, who appealed.
This move tells you how fundamentally wrong and how twisted and narrow minded our city leaders were listening to a guy who has pretty much been a vagabond a mooch and a leech off the taxpayers his whole life.
I am glad Pete, got it thrown in his face, at city council, about this sad excuse for a human, got arrested for shop lifting.
It would be interesting to ask the people of Half Moon Bay whether it was worth the grief that resulted from trying to keep Chop Keenan from developing his land.
My guess is they would say no.
anon 1024 at least nobody went Rupert Murdoch on old Pete.
Sinai,
Peebles should have done the same thing and sued the city and buried them.
Take this slowly sinking city off life support and maybe then it can file bankruptcy, and recover.
Post a Comment