Tag Archives: alameda

SunCal Loses Fraud Claims Against Gray 1 CPB LLC

February 4th, 2011 – 10:03 AM

Court documents filed late last month in southern California show that SunCal has lost their counter-claim of fraud against Gray 1 CPB LLC and Central Pacific Bank over loans the bank made to SunCal for a development project.

Gray 1 CPB had purchased the loans from Central Pacific Bank in Hawaii, loans that the bank had originally made to Fillmore Sun LLC, and loans that SunCal CEO Bruce Elieff had personally guaranteed. Gray 1 CPB went to court to force Mr. Elieff to make good on the loan guarantees and a jury ultimately found Mr. Elieff liable for for $9 million. Gray 1 CPB is still trying to collect on the judgment.

Mr. Elieff counter-sued Gray 1 CPB and Central Pacific Bank alleging malfeasance on their part, alleging that the bank had acted fraudulent and the guarantees were not enforceable. But a jury disagreed and found that Central Pacific Bank had no intent to deceive Fillmore Sun and found that the Bank made no false representations to SunCal. The jury also found that the Bank intended to keep all promises made to SunCal and Bruce Elieff in the contract documents.

The case is number 30-2008-00112660 in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

Tags 94501, 94502, alameda, SunCal Companies | Comments Off

Opinion Schools

Vote No on Measure A (Again)

December 19th, 2010 – 3:15 PM

The AUSD is spending $300k for a special election to try to pass another parcel tax, with a vote on March 8, 2011. In the latest in a series of pleas for help to maintain small class size, high teacher standards and general excellence, the citizens of the City of Alameda will be asked to support a 32¢/sq. ft per building per parcel tax, lasting eight years, with a $7,999 cap and an exemption for those on disability insurance and those 60 and over. Undeveloped parcels would pay $299. This will replace the existing parcel taxes from previous Measures A and H and is designed to raise over $12 million for the school district.

On all the pro-parcel tax websites, the usual dogma is being trotted out about how schools benefit everyone and that investing in schools is investing in our future, and for the best community, we must all pitch in and support our schools. What the proponents don’t seem to understand is that supporting schools, students and education while opposing Measure A are not mutually exclusive.

The flaw in this proposed legislation is this: if the schools benefit everyone equally, then everyone should contribute equally.

Admittedly this new parcel tax proposal is progress from last year’s divisive and and failed campaign for Measure E, which proposed that the smallest condo and largest mansion be taxed the same amount. A square foot per building per parcel tax shared equally by everyone is actually a good idea. But the new Measure A contains the same problem that brought the old Measure H to court, which is that it taxes different property owners at different rates.

Why is there a cap of $7,999 to appease the largest companies who can afford to contribute to the AUSD the most? By instituting this cap, the largest potential source of support for the schools is being kneecapped. Citizens and small businesses will end up paying 32¢ per sq/ft while big business pays only 1¢ per square foot, and that ain’t fair.

Exempting people who are living on disability insurance is absolutely reasonable. But why pick the age of 60 to start exempting seniors? Considering how much people contribute to society in their silver years, if this exemption is meant to be based on economic terms, i.e. people over 60 are on fixed incomes, why not actually make it an income-based exemption? That’s arbitrary, and that ain’t fair.

The allocation of funding this tax is supposed to raise is vague: “close the achievement gap” and “attracting and retaining excellent teachers” makes up 40-42% of the $12 million. How is that quantified? The threat of “Plan B” being instituted if this parcel tax is not passed should not be a reason to vote for flawed legislation. That’s a realignment that should have been handled properly when the Navy left. Having that held over our heads now is just blackmail, and that ain’t fair.

These are core flaws with this legislation that lead me to oppose it. Alameda should not support a parcel tax which benefits everybody without everyone contributing equally. 32 to 1 just ain’t fair.

Vote No on Measure A.

Tags alameda, AUSD, measure a, parcel tax | Comments Off

Opinion

Anonymity and Censorship

December 6th, 2010 – 9:32 PM

I found out that an anonymous person who generates “Medablog” has been contacting followers of this site on Twitter and informing them that this author is a Very Bad Person, because of how an incident during my campaign for City Council this past summer was reported, this site and my opinions are unfit for consumption. Ironically, one of the people notified in this latest attempt at censorship was incoming Vice-Mayor Rob Bonta, who is familiar with me, my opinions and the overblown situation behind the story being used to portray me as a serial-senior-citizen-seizing-psychopath.

The tenor of politics in Alameda have taken a turn for the negative ever since campaigning for Measure B and then Measure E took over the neighborhoods. No longer is there room for people to discuss their individual opinions and have the space to hold differing views. Much of the worst of what we read in history books, we’re seeing generated again with propaganda put forth by faceless machines, whether it be at Blogging Bayport, In Alameda, or this new anonymous thought policeman at Medablog.

As I found when I questioned the status quo in my political campaign, I am now finding when I question the need for a parcel tax to fund the AUSD: people who think they have all the answers don’t like questions. Any sort of challenge to their party line, and you get back the same dogma repeated over and over; I’ve seen it from the likes of Politbloggers Susan Davis, and Lauren Do, Charles Luison’s response editorial to mine at The Island, attendant Do-bots Spangler, Medablog, Hot R, and a rotating cast of made up characters.

These people exhibit a curious involuntary behavior, like moths to a light bulb- they circle it; it’s always the focus of their attention, yet they won’t dare get near it. They want to deny that it exists… even, say, censor it? Yet, the hotter the light bulb gets, the more they can’t stay away from it. There is no discussion of the issues, no attempts to look at new solutions; instead it’s just personal attacks and deflections.

As a community leader, I am happy to give a name and a face to my opinions, since so many people who opine around Alameda’s blogs lack one or the other. People have a right to an opinion and the right to defend it and share it as they choose. What people don’t have is the right to force an opinion on anyone else. Sharing opinions is a way to learn and generate discussion. Forcing opinions is the way to cause strife and community division.

If someone wants not to participate in this site, that’s their prerogative, but you only have one mind to make up, and that’s your own.