Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza,
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson,
Councilmember Sue Greenwald,
Councilmember Stephen Souza,
Councilmember Dan Wolk
In response to public interest regarding the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA), the City has decided to release information about settlement offers the City has made to David Thompson, Luke Watkins and the Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (Twin Pines).
The City has extended settlement offers to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines on multiple occasions in the interest of resolving all of the DACHA disputes.
Although the City took reasonable actions to support and sustain DACHA, and both the Yolo County Grand Jury report (2010-2011) and a bankruptcy court decision (2010) have agreed that these actions were appropriate, defending these lawsuits is expensive and is adversely affecting the low and moderate income families that were DACHA members.
Therefore, the City has made and continues to make settlement offers in the interest of moving forward and focusing on the creation of future affordable housing opportunities.
While the City has participated in multiple settlement discussions, two particular City offers were made at pivotal points: April 2010 and the present.
City’s April 2010 Settlement Offer Prior to Foreclosure Sale
In April 2010, prior to the City foreclosing on the DACHA units due to delinquency on mortgage payments due the City, Councilmember Stephen Souza, on behalf of the City Council, conveyed a settlement offer to Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines of $300,000.
This settlement offer would have enabled DACHA to pay off the remaining amount due on Neighborhood Partners’ $331,000 arbitration judgment against DACHA along with some interest. Some of this judgment had already been paid when Neighborhood Partners received $57,000 from levying DACHA’s bank accounts in October 2009, thereby rendering DACHA insolvent and unable to pay its bills, including its mortgage from the City.
This offer would have resulted in a transfer of $300,000 out of the City’s affordable housing funds to DACHA so that DACHA could pay Neighborhood Partners. The City was under no obligation to provide this offer. The City was trying to resolve the dispute between Neighborhood Partners and DACHA even though it had not been a party to that dispute. Twin Pines’ dispute with DACHA would also have been resolved.
If Neighborhood Partners had accepted this offer from the City, they would have received more than full payment on their 2009 arbitration , DACHA would have been preserved as a limited equity housing cooperative, the City’s mortgage to DACHA would have been brought out of default, the low and moderate income DACHA households would have retained their investment in DACHA shares and had a stable place to live, attorney’s fees would have been saved by all parties, and the City’s affordable housing program would have safeguarded its funds for use on new projects. Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines turned down this offer.
City’s January 27, 2012 Settlement Offer
On January 27, 2012, the City again offered a settlement, this time for $280,000. The City feels that this offer is more than reasonable, since nearly two years of additional attorney’s fees have been accumulated to the detriment of the City’s Affordable Housing program and, unlike the April 2010 offer, this offer cannot preserve DACHA because the City now owns the DACHA units and the DACHA Board is pursuing full dissolution of the co‐op.
Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines have turned down this settlement offer as well, but the City has re‐extended the offer in hopes of reaching a reasonable settlement. This is a critical time in the legal disputes, as significant expenses will be incurred by all parties in upcoming months if Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines continue to press their cases via litigation.
DACHA Background
DACHA was created in late 2002 as a scattered site limited equity housing cooperative, intended to be affordable to low and moderated income families. DACHA was proposed and developed by Neighborhood Partners, a private for‐profit affordable housing developer. DACHA received its 20 houses and some initial loan funds of $1.2 million from the City’s affordable housing programs.
To live in a DACHA unit, as structured by Neighborhood Partners, a member needed to invest $18,000 to $20,000 per household to buy a share in the cooperative. Neighborhood Partners appointed the initial DACHA Board because there were no DACHA co‐op members to serve on the Board until prospective occupants purchased coop shares.
This original non‐member DACHA Board contracted with Neighborhood Partners to provide consultant and developer services to the co‐op. Neighborhood Partners, in creating the DACHA articles of incorporation, designated Twin Pines, whose president is David Thompson, as the entity that, should DACHA dissolve, would receive any DACHA assets, if any still existed, after the payment of all DACHA debts, even though the houses were part of the City’s affordable housing program.
After a few years, rents at DACHA started rising to near market‐rate rents and DACHA was having trouble finding members for new units and replacement members for members who wished to move out. In May 2005, DACHA members requested an audit and help from the City due to increasing housing costs.
In response, the City commissioned an audit and facilitated meetings between DACHA members, the DACHA Board, and Neighborhood Partners. In June 2006, the auditor recommended that the cooperative refrain from purchasing new units and that it consider restructuring.
By late 2005, DACHA members had replaced the initial predominantly non‐member Board that had been appointed by Neighborhood Partners. After receiving the auditor’s report, the member Board decided against adding new units to DACHA.
In 2006, Neighborhood Partners sued DACHA for consulting fees and for developer fees it would have obtained if DACHA had continued to add units. This suit was based on agreements Neighborhood Partners had made with the original non‐member Board appointed by Neighborhood Partners that had obligated future DACHA Boards to expand the co‐op and to pay Neighborhood Partners for each new unit, regardless of the fiscal feasibility, the desires of future boards, or whether or not the City was willing to provide the affordable units. The City was not a party to these agreements.
In 2007‐2008, the City decided to assist DACHA and improve the affordability of its units by refinancing the co‐op’s multiple loans through a new low‐interest long‐term four million dollar mortgage loan secured by the houses.
These funds allowed DACHA to pay‐off the outstanding private loans that helped purchased the 20 units and to stabilize DACHA by restructuring and reducing the membership buy‐in share costs to $6250 per share, and reducing the maximum allowable rent, making DACHA more affordable to low and moderate income families.
In June 2009, Neighborhood Partners obtained a $331,000 judgment against DACHA in a private arbitration of its 2006 lawsuit. In October 2009, Neighborhood Partners, in its attempt to collect this judgment, levied against and emptied DACHA’s bank accounts, obtaining $57,000, and rendering the co‐op insolvent and unable to pay the City’s mortgage.
In April 2010, the City proposed a settlement to preserve the DACHA co‐op. In late April 2010, Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines, jointly, filed an action in Bankruptcy Court to try to force DACHA into bankruptcy. DACHA opposed this filing and the Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of DACHA, dismissing the case. The Court also entered an order requiring Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines to pay DACHA $48,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. This attorneys’ fee award has not been paid.
After the settlement proposal failed and the bankruptcy action was dismissed on July 1, 2010, the City foreclosed on the units to safeguard the public investment and became the owner of the DACHA units.
The City was the only party to appear at the foreclosure sale and its bid was accepted. As the current owner of the 20 former DACHA units, the City has rented the units at affordable rents to those DACHA members who wished to stay in the units. Approximately half of the units remain occupied. The City Council will decide this month how to manage the vacant units.
Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines continue to pursue litigation against the City and DACHA. Each DACHA household has lost its $6250 member share price. DACHA has no assets. so, , with its members’ support, DACHA filed for dissolution in 2011, and the City provided the notice and held a public hearing on the dissolution as required by state law. In February 2012, the City forwarded the dissolution request to the state’s Attorney General for final resolution.
As discussed above, the City’s January 27, 2012 settlement offer was rejected by Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation. The City remains committed to settling this matter and avoiding the expenses of litigation for both parties.
Suggested further reading related to DACHA:
- DACHA History, Assets, and Liabilities in the Organizational Dissolution Plan Application and Staff Report (February 7, 2012)
- Yolo County Grand Jury Report on the City of Davis Affordable Housing Program (May 19, 2011)
- Bankruptcy Court Ruling on Involuntary Bankruptcy Case Against DACHA (June 14, 2010)
- Audit Report from Gilbert Associates, Inc. CPAs and Advisors and Staff Report (June 20, 2006)
Additional information is available on the City of Davis website: www.cityofdavis.org
Wonder if Mr Thompson, Mr Watkins will be as ‘transparent’ as the CC appears to be… je ne pense pas..
I’m certainly interested in hearing from our two NP/TP correspondents because at least one item here directly conflicts with a response to my question about settlement offers.
We were told that the January 2012 offer was the first offer that NP received from the city. This post indicates an April 2010 city offer that is said to have been refused by NP/TP. Too bad this 2010 failed negotiation has been kept secret for so long.
Congrats to the City Council for putting out this information–even if it sounds like a self-serving brief. Was this a reprint from some other publication, a handout at council meeting, a news release?
Private companies have no obligation to be “transparent” as the city, hpierce, but they definitely don’t want to get caught in a public lie.[quote]”The City was trying to resolve the dispute between Neighborhood Partners and DACHA even though it had not been a party to that dispute. Twin Pines’ dispute with DACHA would also have been resolved.”[/quote]This is what I’ve argued for for months (as opposed to the nasty back-and-forth slander between NP/TP, Councilor Greenwald and Elaine).[quote]”…DACHA would have been preserved as a limited equity housing cooperative….”[/quote]Maybe, maybe not. The city decided to foreclose; this was a choice, not a requirement, and no one knows how the mis-managed, “failed model” DACHA operation would have fared in the past two years. (Let’s not go overboard on claiming what might have happened.)
I don’t understand the rationale for the smaller settlement offer at this point. Of course, the city has had attorney costs. A $20,000 reduction doesn’t come close to covering even the specific billings from Harriet that David uncovered, so what’s the point of pointing out that attorney costs make this new offer “more than reasonable”?
NP/TP also has piled up attorney fees in this period; normally, the suing party (supposedly the offended party) goes for their own attorney fees as part of the settlement or eventual judgment. So, it’s almost as though this $20,000 is just a nasty little slap: “If you don’t take this, next time it’ll be even lower!”
I’d please to see the city is negotiating. It’s important to settle this rather than going to court. All of the materials we’ve been able to see make it appear that TP/NP has a fair shot in court, I’d say.
Maybe the city has some more secret stuff. They were loosing the PR battle, but the disclosure of the 2012 settlement offer changes the public dimension of the discussion. Not that there couldn’t have been good reasons to turn down the earlier offer, but claiming there hadn’t been one doesn’t look good at all. NP/TP has some ‘splainin’ to do.
It’s time to get rid of the DACHA remnants–keep negotiating to settlement even if it means adding to NP/TP’s cut rather than Harriet’s (binding arbitration if necessary), sell the DACHA units on the open market to all comers, don’t even think of trying another “affordable housing” initiative until we have a serious outside-led evaluation of past projects, etc. Get this behind us.
“Maybe the city has some more secret stuff. They were losing the PR battle, but the disclosure of the [s]2012[/s] 2010 settlement offer….”
Just Saying……don’t follow?
I was correcting the first two lines of my next-to-last paragraph. I’d meant that the earlier (2010) settlement offer makes the city look different, maybe better, than the public perception that they’d held out until this year to offer a settlement to NP/TP.
I also like the fact that the current city council apparently has decided not to keep putting a lid on the history of this mess.
“I also like the fact that the current city council apparently has decided not to keep putting a lid on the history of this mess. “
It took a lot of work, but eventually they realized that they had to start responding publicly to charges.
We know that discussion of litigation is done in closed session.
But when the council voted (and how it voted (5-0?)), to make settlement
offers, should that have been made public per the Brown Act?
JS: “don’t even think if trying another affordable housing…..”
What about the MASSIVE construction of New Harmony project on Cowell near Drummond. What model for that? I would like someone from PC, CC or city to comment on how massive this seems.
Someone is not telling the truth.
Yes, Steve Souza met with Luke, I and a DACHA board member. Howewver, Steve made it clear the he was not representing the City. Souza confirmed
in an email I have to a DACHA board member.
“Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Souza wrote:
Hi Jeanne, just so you know I was not acting on behalf of the City Council or Redevelopment Agency.”
Today’s City piece was the first time the City has made it known
that Mr. Souza’s offer was on behalf of the City.
The City Attorney’s role in subterfuge is alarming.
David Thompson
Neighborhood Partners. LLC.
David, what do you mean, “It took a lot of work”? Is this another [u]Vanguard[/u] success story?
I now see–thanks to late arrival of my morning [u]Enterprise[/u]–that this appears as a op-ed there. Plus, Tom Sakash has a massive page one story with interviews attempting to justify the past secrecy, as well as the decision to reveal the council’s past actions. I’d lay odds that Sue (the only one with courage to take the DACHA heat here for the entire old and new councils) must have made a convincing case to her cohorts. If so, she deserves a “thank you” from the public, which has remained ignorant about how the council has been trying to spend our money for so long.
I also note Dunning’s “Rifkin for Mayor” ravings, including the whole tale about Rich’s nutty, but accurate, prediction about Measure C. Knowing that Dunning wouldn’t deign to read the [u]Vanguard[/u], someone must be feeding him highlights every once in awhile.
I have not been privy to many if any court type settlements, but wouldn’t you think if the 4/10 offer was legit, it would be on paper?
JustSaying: The Vanguard certainly wasn’t the only one to push for disclosure and transparency. I know several of the councilmembers did as well. Also I suspect that Dunning reads the Vanguard. Doesn’t everyone 😉
[quote]”Someone is not telling the truth. Yes, Steve Souza met with Luke, I and a DACHA board member. Howewver, Steve made it clear the he was not representing the City. Souza confirmed in an email I have to a DACHA board member.”[/quote]Oh, crap, here we go again!
David T., I recommend that you provide a copy of the email you claim to have from Souza and let David G. post it on the [u]Vanguard[/u] ASAP. Sue will be on soon to verify that your word cannot be trusted. Since one side of the negotiations is out now, you also might consider why you turned down the recent offer. Elaine has raised the concept that you want to be given the properties or some equally outrageous concession from the city.
Stephen Souza, I recommend you get the word out instantly–since your name is prominent on the op-ed–how, in spite of the alleged email specifically contradicting the op-ed, you were “convey(ing this 2010) settlement offer…on behalf of the City Council.” If you were just “feeling them out,” I hope you didn’t forget that there was an email floating around. How embarrassing, if true.
Sigh…so, it’ll go on and on. What a mess.
[quote]”I have not been privy to many if any court type settlements, but wouldn’t you think if the 4/10 offer was legit, it would be on paper?”[/quote] Well, SODA, it certainly wouldn’t be accompanied by an email stating that it was not an offer from the council! And another thing: [quote]”What about the MASSIVE construction of New Harmony project on Cowell near Drummond. What model for that? I would like someone from PC, CC or city to comment on how massive this seems.”[/quote]I notice you’ve been commenting on this for quite awhile, without getting any responses. This must be in your neighborhood somewhere, based on your descriptions. Can you post a photo? Maybe we can get a quick look before Don pulls it down as advertising.
There are some pictures on the Facebook page: [url]http://www.facebook.com/SacramentoYoloMutualHousingAssociation[/url]
Maybe he does read the [u]Vanguard[/u], since everyone does. But, you certainly acknowledge his existence more than he does yours.
Thx Don but it doesn’t really show how I think it overtakes the area. Yes I go by there most days but probably won’t when all those units are filled with car driving folks. I wish someone would comment. Hope I’m crazy here but it looks very out of scale.
And it brings up an interesting DACHA related point of WHAT MODEL is being used for it? But what is the oversight that we have so sorely lacked in the past models?
I just spoke to Stephen Souza, he told me that the meeting was initially as described in the email, however council in closed session authorized him to make the offer on behalf of the council and that was conveyed to David Thompson and Luke Watkins at the time of the meeting. He said that any of the five members of council at that time can confirm this. That would have been Don, Ruth, Sue, and Lamar.
Anything in writing as the email was? What are the dates of email compared to mtg?
Dear All:
Yes there was a meeting on Sunday April 11. Luke and I have spoken and we both agree that Stephen Souza made it plain this was not an offer from the City. For the duration of the discussion Stephen made it known to all the parties that it was his framework and did not come from the City.
If the City acted on the issue I am not aware nor was I made aware that the City was behind the proposal. It was only at the February 7 meeting that Ms. Steiner made a comment that the City had made an offer through Mr. Souza.
The article today was the first time that the City as a body has admitted that the Souza effort was a City sponsored act.
I stand by my response earlier that at the time I know only of one offer from the City.
I started the April 11 meeting by saying that the “framework” provides money to NP but omits any reference to TPCF except it requires me as board member and President of TPCF to get my organization to drop its law suits about DACHA breaking the law. I tell him I cannot be a party to a transaction where I have personal gain at the expense of TPCF and that does not take into account TPCF’s concerns.
The City continually negates the TPCF issue of the DACHA looting attempt and their lawbreaking and the role of City staff in helping them.
Did anyone take an Oath of Office?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
The day after our April 11 meeting Souza sent an email to a DACHA board member:
“Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Souza wrote:
Hi Jeanne, just so you know I was not acting on behalf of the City Council or Redevelopment Agency.”
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David Greenwald: how can we resolve this? Black/white, yin/yang, up/down….maybe finally we have something that can be proven one way or another. Does S Souza refute the email?
At the meeting of April 11th I was not acting on behalf of the City Council. After reporting back to the Council of the specifics of a settlement offer an offer on behalf of the City Council was made in the month of April. That offer was not accepted.
SSouza, when in April and is there documentation of the offer on behalf of the CC?
So let me get this right: The city Attorney and city council set steve Souza to the living room of David Thompson to make a settlement offer?
David had a lawyer… Did Steve go around that lawyer?
Aren’t there ethics issues here?
Again, the city has ethics issues?
I hope NP and Twin Pines try this case
Dear SODA:
If Stephen Souza shows Davis citizens an offer authorised by the City in April of 2010 then it will be the first time that NP/TPCF will have seen it.
Stephen, your lack of evidence puts the Council in a bad light.
An independent investigation is truly needed.
David Greenwald wrote this earlier today.
“I just spoke to Stephen Souza, he told me that the meeting was initially as described in the email, however council in closed session authorized him to make the offer on behalf of the council and that was conveyed to David Thompson and Luke Watkins at the time of the meeting. He said that any of the five members of council at that time can confirm this. That would have been Don, Ruth, Sue, and Lamar.”
Sorry Stephen what you told David Greenwald is not true.
At the time of the meeting (Sunday, April 11)you told us you were not representing the City.
On April 12, you told Jeanne Johnson you were not representing the City and you continued to say that.
When was the closed session of the Council (Tuesday, April 13, 2010).
So how could you tell the public that on the day of the meeting on April 11 that the Council had met and authorised an offer to us? Not true!
NP/TPCF never received an offer from you that you said was on behalf of the City.
Stephen its beginning to smell like Bell.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Take Souzas deposition !
Again are these sorts of settlement offers in writing or all verbal so cannot be proven?
SOUZA: [i]”After reporting back to the Council of the specifics of a settlement offer an offer on behalf of the City Council was made in the month of April.”[/i]
THOMPSON: [i]”Sorry, Stephen, what you told David Greenwald is not true.”[/i]
I’m not sure any of this matters. If the settlement offer is (or settlement offers are) not acceptable to the plaintiffs, it doesn’t matter if there was one or two. And given the apparently insatiable appetite for money by the plaintiffs, I doubt they will accept any offer unless their attorney adivses them they will lose this case in court.
[img]http://www.world-cry.org/uploads/2/8/8/6/2886177/6368895.jpg[/img]
For what it is worth … My impression, the only time I ever spoke with Luther “Luke” Watkins was at a party at Stephen Souza’s house, was that Watkins and Souza were personal friends. So for David Thompson, presumably speaking for Luke Watkins also, to say Stephen was lying about whom he was representing at their second April meeting is weird. But again, I don’t see how it matters if NP thinks the offers are insufficient.
I will state it again: on April 11th in the meeting at your home David where I was acting as a mediator at the request of you, Luke and DACHA representatives, I tried to work out a settlement agreement that you, Luke and DACHA could agree to. As I said at that meeting I too had to take any settlement agreement to my Davis City Council colleagues since I was at the time not acting on their behalf. After that meeting a framework of a settlement agreement was emailed to you, Luke and DACHA representatives. I took that framework to the Council in Closed Session, I believe the next week, and the Council agreed to it and it was presented to you. I will find and post the emails tomorrow which will show the timeline. David if you have the emails handy you can post them.
[quote]”Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Souza wrote: Hi Jeanne, just so you know I [b]was not acting[/b] on behalf of the City Council or Redevelopment Agency.”[/quote]So, Stephen S., David G. doesn’t need to do a records request to determine whether David T. is accurately quoting this email? This is past tense wording; did the email follow the meeting? Seems weird.[quote]”I just spoke to Stephen Souza, he told me that the meeting was initially as described in the email, however council in closed session authorized him to make the offer on behalf of the council and that was conveyed to David Thompson and Luke Watkins at the time of the meeting.”[/quote]Did you buy Councilor Souza’s account of this? Did he explain why he went to the council after he sent the email; had NP/TPCF accepted his initial offer then rejected it at a later date? Did he say why he ever sent the email in the first place? As SODA asks, is there anything in writing, either clearly making the offer and/or clearly rejecting the offer?[quote]”If Stephen Souza shows Davis citizens an offer authorised by the City in April of 2010 then it will be the first time that NP/TPCF will have seen it.”[/quote]Is it possible that the councilman had a “second April meeting” with NP/TPCF–sometime later “in the month of April”–at which the new, contradictory council instructions were clearly relayed to NP/TPCF, but that NP/TPCF still thought Stephen was making personal inquiries, not official ones? And, why does David T. spell things the way he does?[quote]”I’m not sure any of this matters. If the settlement offer is (or settlement offers are) not acceptable to the plaintiffs, it doesn’t matter if there was one or two. And given the apparently insatiable appetite for money by the plaintiffs, I doubt they will accept any offer unless their attorney adivses them they will lose this case in court.”[/quote]Of course, this stuff matters. Our council members are making a big public deal of–and basing current negotiating decisions on–their belief that NP/TPCF turned down an real $300,000 offer two years ago. They’ve joined the mudslinging that you’ve engaged in about the bad behavior and disposition of these folks, using their refusal as evidence. (I still don’t understand your dramatic conclusions, based on the minimal evidence of conversations with a few city staffers. Anyway, you probably got this screwed up since you ended up interviewing the wrong Stephen Souza.)
[quote]”After that meeting a framework of a settlement agreement was emailed to you, Luke and DACHA representatives. I took that framework to the Council in Closed Session, I believe the next week, and the Council agreed to it and it was presented to you. I will find and post the emails tomorrow which will show the timeline.”[/quote]Councilman, I obviously was typing away and missed your post until after I’d submitted mine. Thank you for agreeing to provide the documentation that indicates the offer and the council’s official support for it, since your email clearly proclaims a contradictory setting for your offer to NP/TPCF.
I can see room for a misunderstanding about whether the offer was serious given the material posted so far.
I was impressed by your observation several months ago about the expense we go to to provide an affordable housing project, since you could buy an existing apartment house for much less per unit.
I support your common sense approach to affordable housing, and hope you’ll assure that we’ve learned something from the past 20 years of “failed models” and just plain mismanagement or non-management of city attempts, however honorable they might have been. If we cannot afford to provide proper oversight and management of such projects, we should stay out of them.
As David T. wrote, “Someone is not telling the truth.” I hope the two parties post the documentation that clarifies who is not or that makes both parties realize how poor the communication has been. Would you support binding arbitration to resolve all the DACHA issues?
Finally, the city has not handled this well. There’s suspicion that there’s been a staff effort for many years to get DACHA dissolved, to take over the units and to sell them on favorable terms (meaning a windfall down the road) to DACHA members–based on the staff report/recommendations back during the audit period.
I hope you will support selling off DACHA properties on the open market (while they still are in good condition) and recover as much RDA/City money as possible.
P.S.–Please call Rich Rifkin right away, give him an interview on this and provide him a mug shot.
Here is the email that was sent to all parties AFTER the City Council Closed Session meeting that occurred on April 13, 2010. It was my framework for a settlement that the Council agreed to and asked me to send. I sent it the next day on April 14, 2010.
— On Wed, 4/14/10, Stephen Souza wrote:
From: Stephen Souza
Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night
To: “DThompCOOP@aol.com” , “jeanne.jhnsn@gmail.com” , “chuff@ucdavis.edu” , “chuff485@gmail.com” , “randombagcheck@gmail.com” , “MelinaC71@yahoo.com” , “lukewatkins@sbcglobal.net”
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010, 9:04 AM
I send to you all my framework for a settlement with correct and updated numbers. Thanks, Stephen
Framework for settlement – all this requires that DACHA be part of this process and that DACHA and NP agree and consent (and the city and the agency as well).
1. NP agrees to compromise its judgment at $300,000, as a fixed and final sum that will not be increased by interest. The $300,000 judgment would be payable as follows: DACHA agrees to ask city to provide half of the reserve fund not to exceed $143,000 to pay NP up front. DACHA agrees to add between $50 and $100 per unit per month not to exceed the maximum affordable carrying charges to pay NP over time until full payment of the $300,000. (Note NP already obtained $57,000 when it attached DACHA’s bank accounts.) At 20 units and $50 per month, NP would get $1000 per month. And would be paid off in little over 8 years.
2. NP agrees to full waivers and releases against DACHA, the city and the agency.
3. Twin Pines agrees to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice and agrees to full waivers as set forth above. If necessary, DACHA could agree not to seek a change from the limited equity format for the next 3 years, at a minimum. This, of course, does not mean that DACHA would change its format, that the City would approve a change or that the Attorney General would approve a change.
4. Agency agrees to release the requested reserve money and to work with DACHA to put loan back in good standing. Sale in foreclosure would be cancelled upon execution of formal settlement. It would be postponed if there were agreed upon deal points.
5. All parties agree not to disparagement each other (bygones are bygones)
6. Joint statement re settlement.
If DACHA fails to pay NP over time, NP can enforce this settlement.
There would not be any additional investigation into past actions or allegations.
DACHA also signs waivers and releases, as does the city/agency.
DACHA members have a short period of time to get back in good standing (90 days, for example) or DACHA will pursue remedies, including eviction.
‘my framework’?
Where is it stated that it comes from CC?
Thx
[quote][u]Stephen Souza–(Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM,)[/u]: “Hi Jeanne, just so you know [b]I was not acting on behalf of the City Council or Redevelopment Agency[/b].”
[u]Stephen Souza–(Wed, Apr14, 2010, 9:04 AM):[/u] “I send to you all [b]my framework for a settlement[/b] with correct and updated numbers. Thanks, Stephen [/quote] Do you have a response from NP/TPCF that turns this down and makes it clear they understand this is a real, official offer from the city instead of what your own email seem to clearly say (or [u]not[/u] say)?
Is it possible in your mind that NP/TPCF read these two documents and didn’t have a clue that the situation had changed over the two days, since nothing is said here that indicates the council has joined in “my framework”? Their response email should make their understanding pretty clear. Please post.
I put together the framework for a settlement that the Council/Agency agreed to and asked me to convey. As the subject line designates (Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night) it was a follow up email to David Thompson’s inquire of any action taken during Closed Session on an email of the framework which was sent the prior day. This updated framework of a settlement offer was rejected by NP and accepted by DACHA. I am still searching for all of the emails.
Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night
Date: 4/14/2010 9:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: SSouza@cityofdavis.org
Reply To:
To: DThompCOOP@aol.com, jeanne.jhnsn@gmail.com, chuff@ucdavis.edu, chuff485@gmail.com, randombagcheck@gmail.com, MelinaC71@yahoo.com, lukewatkins@sbcglobal.net
CC:
BCC:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi David, No and I send to you all my framework for a settlement with correct and updated numbers. Thanks, Stephen. (Then followed the same detail as your email above.
Stephen why was “Hi David, No and” removed from the copy of the email you just published?
My email asked you if the City had taken any actions.
You started off your email replying Hi David, No …
Why did you remove that from the email you just published?
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners.
If it was clear to the other parties that the council had acted, this does indicate a good faith effort.
Even if TP/TPCF didn’t realize that all they had to do was say “yes” and Councilman Souza would take whatever action was necessary to carry out this settlement, it does indicate a good faith effort to resolve the issues.
I’m not too impressed with the way this drags out payment over eight years, however. Since the reserve funds apparently were available to pay off the judgement immediately, I wonder why that wasn’t the offer? What happens to the value of $1 over eight years?
It also makes clear TP/NPCF’s contention (claimed by some here to be false) that a number of DACHA members were not up to date on their payments and not in good standing.
The best unintended jokes imbedded in the proposed agreement: [quote] “All parties agree not to disparagement each other (bygones are bygones)….There would not be any additional investigation into past actions or allegations.” [/quote]Please post the DACHA response to this offer as well. Did they accept this offer?
David Thompson my email I have is what I posted. The Council/Agency authorized me to convey an accepted framework for a settlement not an accepted settlement. As you know All parties had to agree before it became a settlement. As is stated in the framework: – all this requires that DACHA be part of this process and that DACHA and NP agree and consent (and the city and the agency as well)
Maybe you two could get together, agree on what are accurate representations of the original emails and then post them with a note that you won’t question their accuracy later. Sorry, again, that I didn’t see your posts ’cause they don’t show up when someone is writing their own….
As I noted, there’s nothing in the posted emails that suggests that the Councilman was acting on anyone’s behalf but his own and, in fact, that’s specifically stated in the April 12 email. If we’ve got words, like “No and…” (that could be in response to the question contained in the subject line) dropping out of the emails, this isn’t going to be a very enlightening exchange.
Time to go to bed while you two come to agreement on what really was in your emails. Sigh….
To Just Saying.
You will see by my email at 11.13 that Souza had removed the words “Hi David, No and” from the email he published.
Just Saying said, “If it was clear to the other parties that the council had acted, this does indicate a good faith effort.”
But Souza’s reply made it clear to me that the Council had not acted in any way.
Souza’s wording was no different and used “I” just as before.
I don’t remember ever hearing that DACHA had agreed to the terms. Other DACHA board members had put out a different set of terms than Souza had.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners.
David Thompson:
[i]“If Stephen Souza shows Davis citizens an offer authorised by the City in April of 2010 then it will be the first time that NP/TPCF will have seen it.
…
Sorry Stephen what you told David Greenwald is not true.
…
NP/TPCF never received an offer from you that you said was on behalf of the City.
…
Stephen its beginning to smell like Bell. “[/i]
You knew Stephen would be meeting with the council after meeting with you.
Stephen provided you with a detailed settlement offer after meeting with the council.
Were you under the impression, when he provided you with this offer that he has posted here, that he was still acting on his own? Even though he met with the council in the interim?
I appreciate the article. It is becoming more clear. The forprofit consultants got the city money to set up and work with DACHA, and the consultants set it up so all the assets upon dissolution were to go to a nonprofit which one of the consultants led. The consultants had major conflict of interest. That should have been the red flag back before city got involved. Shouldn’t the city’s attorney noticed that and forbidden it? It should have called the whole deal into question. Now the consultants are still after money from the city and from people who lost their homes. Tragic, really.
“Were you under the impression, when he provided you with this offer that he has posted here, that he was still acting on his own? Even though he met with the council in the interim?”
Don, David T. already has answered that by asking in his email at the time whether the council had acted. Although we haven’t seen his email, we’ve can see his question in Stephen’s subject line (Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night). Both of them have agreed that Stephen is responding to David T.’s query.
What is not clear is why Stephen did not write anything to indicate “yes” they had (if we accept the councilman’s transcription as accurate and complete) or why he wrote “no” (if we accept David T.’s email wording as truthful). In either case, why the framework offer email be devoid of significant wording changing the condition from the very emphatic, earlier “not acting on behalf” of the council or RDA?
Talia’s correct that the op-ed points the finger at NP/TPCF. The emails posted by Stephen, however, do not support the idea that he informed anyone that he was offering something on behalf of the city. In fact, what’s offered here says the opposite.
At the very most charitable, these two emails certify an astounding lack of clear communication. It’s easy to see how the two parties could have wasked away with completely different conclusions about what transpired.
The added mystery now is the prospect that the emails posted might not tell the complete story intentionally. Next chapter?
There is an April 24, 2010 e-mail from Stephen to David Greenwald, and copied to everyone, in which Stephen reiterates “I, not the City or Agency, put forth a framework for settlement.” Sadly, I lack the technical competence to post that here. Perhaps David G. can do so.
The timeline is:
4/7/10 Stephen offers to meet to facilitate a possible compromise.
4/11/10 Stephen verbally makes a proposal, but makes clear that he does not speak on behalf of the City. David T. points out that while it offers NP money, it offers nothing to Twin Pines.
4/14/10 David T. sends an e-mail asking Stephen if the Council took any action on DACHA at its closed session meeting the night before. Stephen confirms that the Council took no action.
4/24/10 Stephen reiterates that his proposal is not from the City.
That is the e-mail record.
If the City Council had authorized a settlement, and it was already spending a great deal of money on legal fees, why would it not have asked the City Attorney to put the offer in writing, and actually present it?
The obvious reason for the City’s Op-Ed is their own disclosure that they have spent more than $430,000 on legal fees on this. This looks very bad, if it is coupled with the notion that they never even made one good faith offer to settle the issues, before racking up such a bill. So now they are attempting to posture that they did.
Luke and David
What is missing from this exchange as far ad I can see, is what, if any response did either of you make to Souza’s email of 4/24.
Was that the end of the matter, and if so, given the perceived lack of city action, but an apparently ( to you ) conditional offer, why was it not pursued further ?
LUKE WATKINS: [i]”4/11/10 Stephen verbally makes a proposal, but makes clear that he does not speak on behalf of the City. David T. points out that while [b]it offers NP money, it offers nothing to Twin Pines[/b].”[/i]
I am confused by the role of Twin Pines in this [s]extortion[/s] plot. As far as I know, TP has not been awarded any judgments. I thought the arbitration decision pertained only to Neighborhood Partners, not Twin Pines. Yet Mr. Thompson is forever [s]pissing and moaning[/s] raising Cain* about the inadequacy of the settlement offer by Mr. Souza–the councilman, not the calypso singer ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buLhW0Bd0NE[/url])–because Twin Pines’s interests were not met by Stephen. What [s]the eff[/s] are TP’s exact interests supposed to be?
*No, not Matt Cain, you fool!
[img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lake457kP01qdiziro1_500.jpg[/img]
Rifkin- You accuse me of being rude ?(01/27/12 – 12:14 PM) Oy ! Not that I don’t share your confusion .
biddlin, no one knows you. You have no right to make personal attacks against people by name.
Der barimt ploimdik altsveyser Rifkin,zogn . Yenik makhn`du der balbos ?
[quote]What is missing from this exchange as far ad I can see, is what, if any response did either of you make to Souza’s email of 4/24.
Was that the end of the matter, and if so, given the perceived lack of city action, but an apparently ( to you ) conditional offer, why was it not pursued further ?[/quote]
Very astute observation…
[quote]”What is missing from this exchange as far ad I can see, is what, if any response did either of you make to Souza’s email of 4/24. Was that the end of the matter, and if so, given the perceived lack of city action, but an apparently ( to you ) conditional offer, why was it not pursued further ?”
“Very astute observation…”[/quote]Councilman Souza promised last evening to locate and post the series of emails showing the timeline involved. Obviously the one he already posted was part of an continuing exchange that included one that asked whether the council had taken action (Stephen and David T. have publicly agreed to that much) and concluded at some point with various responses to the councilman’s email “framework.” One would hope that this might answer madwoman’s question as well as other issues about what various participants’ perceptions were at that time.
Hope they get posted soon.
Say, how’s this for a great idea? Each of you on this mailing list…
[quote]”Subject: RE: Any announced action by Agency last night
Date: 4/14/2010 9:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: ‘> SSouza@cityofdavis.org
Reply To:
To: ‘> DThompCOOP@aol.com, ‘> jeanne.jhnsn@gmail.com, ‘> chuff@ucdavis.edu, ‘> chuff485@gmail.com, ‘> randombagcheck@gmail.com, ‘> MelinaC71@yahoo.com, ‘> lukewatkins@sbcglobal.net “[/quote]…go back into your mail programs, forward your copy of this specific email–as well as any others with the same Subject–to David Greenwald at: info@davisvanguard.org
David then can compare all of your versions and report back whether any match the councilman’s supposed version or David T.’s supposed version. Do not edit or add any comments; just tap “forward” and send it along with the understanding that you won’t mess with any of the text. Thank you.
JustSaying
“One would hope that this might answer madwoman’s question as well as other issues about what various participants’ perceptions were at that time.
Sometimes our typos can come closer to the truth than is desirable ! Smile !
Madwoman