The Royal Ganesh Hotels, which manage the current University Park Inn and the proposed Embassy Suites Hotel Conference Center, are suing Nishi Gateway and Tim Ruff, in his individual capacity and as managing member and authorized agent for Nishi, among others, for “a breach of contract and request for an injunction and declaratory relief” against Nishi and Ruff, the Vanguard learned through an acquisition of court files through a third party.
In the alternative, “this lawsuit asserts causes of action for fraud and unjust enrichment by Nishi and Ruff.”
According to the files, “Royal entered into an option with Nishi for the acquisition of that certain real property commonly referred to as 946-980 Olive Drive pursuant to the terms of the Royal Option Agreement, dated August 28, 2015. The Royal Option Agreement is the subject of this dispute.”
“The Royal Option Agreement obligated Nishi to deliver to Royal an assignment of Nishi’s right to acquire the Subject Property from Owners, in exchange for Royal’s payment of $300,000,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint continues: “Royal paid the Royal Fee in full and exercised its rights under the Royal Option Agreement. Despite numerous demands, Nishi refused to perform under the Royal Option Agreement, thereby preventing Royal from acquiring the Subject Property and causing Royal hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, costs and fees. Royal requires the Subject Property for the development of its Embassy Suites hotel project, and the Subject Property is a critical component because it is immediately adjacent to, and borders, the real property comprising Royal’s Hotel Project. Royal’s proposed expansion cannot be accomplished without the acquisition of the Subject Property.”
The complaint continues, “Nishi and Ruff have taken substantial sums from Royal. Both have intentionally refused to perform their obligations under the Royal Option Agreement, and have subsequently actively interfered with Royal’s attempt to acquire the Subject Property.”
“Plaintiff believes that it is Nishi’s intent to instead acquire the Subject Property for itself, in order to develop its own project, commonly known as the Nishi Gateway Project. The development of the Nishi Project was dependent on a June 2016 voter approval of ‘Measure A,’ contemplating an amendment to the City of Davis General Plan designating existing agricultural property as educational research park development property,” the complaint states.
On August 28, 2015, Nishi and Royal entered into the Royal Option Agreement. Under this agreement, Nishi granted Royal the right to acquire Nishi’s rights. In order to accomplish this, Nishi was obligated to deliver the assignment of the original option to Royal, and in exchange they would receive the payment.
This was executed on August 29, 2015, and confirmed and ratified on January 8, 2016. But they allege that Nishi, through Mr. Ruff, refused to release the signature, thus preventing Royal from closing on the acquisition of the original option or the subject property.
The fourth cause of action alleges fraud, in the form of a false promise. They write, “From information obtained during the course of Royal’s efforts to get Nishi and Ruff to perform under the Royal Option Agreement, Royal anticipates that Ruff and Nishi may take the position that there was no enforceable contract or promise and, therefore, as an alternative to its prior claims, Royal asserts that any lack of an enforceable contract or promise by Ruff and Nishi is merely the result of a false promise and fraud by Ruff and Nishi.”
On August 28, 2015, in Davis, California, Nishi by way of Tim Ruff, allegedly “made oral and written statements to Royal and its principal, Ashok Patel, promising to deliver an assignment of the Original Option to Royal in exchange for Royal’s payment of $300,000 to Ruff and Nishi.”
The complaint continues, “This statement was material to Royal, in that the Subject Property purchased by way of the assignment of the Original Option has a unique and particular value to Royal. Had Ruff not made the statements on his own behalf and on behalf of Nishi, Royal never would have agreed to pay, and would not have paid, $300,000 to Nishi and Ruff.”
Exhibit 2 shows the August 28 agreement signed by Mr. Ruff.
The next hearing for this will be on Monday, with a case management conference scheduled for December.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
946-980 Olive Drive
That appears to be the properties used by 3rd Space Art Collective, JB Power Equipment, Murder Burger and Dutch Brothers.
That’s how I see it too Grok . . . unless Google Maps has it wrong.
i hear Ruff and friends are now trying to get UCD to do a deal where it’s a UCD project with full vehicle access to Olive Drive, bypassing the Measure R vote.
Mike, given the revisions that UCD made to the latest discussion draft of the LRDP, access to Nishi is nowhere to be found. It has been removed. So, what you are “hearing” appears to be contrary to what can be “seen” in the LRDP.
Further, the County currently has jurisdiction over Nishi, and as such it is subject to the provisions of the Pass Through Agreement. Any annexation of Nishi into the UCD campus would need to have County involvement, and it is open to question whether the County would risk losing the $3 million per year it receives from the City in Pass Through Agreement payments.would
I think what Mr H meant was a concept being floated for UCD to acquire and develop the property, with the ONLY full vehicular access to be to W Olive… no direct full vehicular access to UCD… all the problems, none of the benefits (to City)… all benefits, little cost to UCD (and Ruff et. al.)… also heard that some former CC members support this… did not get details as to identities, but can guess…
This would be an unfortunate result, but it would help prove the point that we vote on the project in front of us, not the ‘better one’ that some claim we will find if we reject the deal on the table.
That is a truly horrible result. I supported Nishi, but I will fight this abortive-son-of-Nishi. As hpierce says, “all the problems, none of the benefits”. Actually worse then that, as ALL of the autos will go one way, Olive, and there also would not be the income to the City. A horrible idea. Also, there were many great plans in the Nishi proposal, which now could all be pulled back, with no say by the City or citizen input.
hpierce, if UCD purchased the property as-is from the Ruff/Whitcombe partnership, I believe it would transfer with the Land Use designation of Agriculture and the A-N zoning designation unchanged, and it would continue to be in the Unincorporated portion of the County. Is that your understanding as well? Is it also your understanding that if the desire was to convert the zoning from A-N to an urbanized designation, the governing body of such a change would be Yolo County. If so, then the provisions of the Pass Through Agreement would apply.
If, as an end run, UCD wanted to change the zoning from Agriculture to an urbanized designation after the purchase was complete, and was able to do so without having to deal with Yolo County, then the simple solution to West Olive Drive access would be for the City to condemn/abandon the final 6 feet of West Olive Drive and install physical barriers on the condemned/abandoned property to prevent vehicular access. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I believe the chances of Olive Drive Only access from a developed Nishi is somewhare between slim and none, and slim has left the building.
I am not a lawyer of any sort, real estate or otherwise, but I think that Matt’s post is an example of wishful thinking at best. Once the Unversity owns the property, the City and County no longer have jurisdiction over the land use, and as there will be no property tax due, there will be no change in the pass-through agreement. The property will be owned by the State and subject to its whims, plain and simple.
Yes, the City of Davis is going to put up bollards to prevent the State of California from using its land. I’m sure that will work out well. How much money flows to the City from the State? What happens to the City when that money is delayed or redirected to another jurisdiction? That is a battle that will be lost before it starts, and probably the only sort of action that we could take that would make the current situation even worse than it is. Face it, the voters of Davis made a choice. We deserve the consequences of that decision.
You are at least partially right Mark. If the University has unilateral jurisdiction on the property it owns (separate from either the City or Yolo County it still has to comply with the provisions of CEQA (EIR, etc.), which require it to identify and mitigate the impacts produced by the development of the parcel. I suspect UCD would be more thorough about the traffic study portion of the EIR, but in an Olive Drive Only plan, the impacts to the Richards corridor would be massive, and more than likely put UCD in a position where they bear the full fiscal responsibility for rebuilding the I-80 Richards Interchange.
Bottom-line, I think Mike Harrington is just throwing stuff up against the wall to see if it will stick. “I hear . . . ” is an essentially meaningless expression that opens the door to all kinds of (sometimes baseless) speculation.
Matt:
Since we’re all just speculating (at this point), what are your thoughts regarding Nishi’s efforts (as reported by the Vanguard)?
Not sure why you’re blaming Mike, regarding seeing “what sticks”. Would you care to explain your thoughts regarding that?
Ron, the Vanguard article was focused on the Ruff vs. Hotel Conference Center dispute/lawsuit. Mike’s comments had nothing to do with that dispute/lawsuit. He threw that unrelated “I hear” in gratuitously.
Regarding the lawsuit, as I read David’s article there is nothing that qualifies as “Nishi’s efforts.” Nishi/Ruff is the defendant. The Hotel/Conference Center is the plaintiff. There would be no lawsuit unless the Hotel/Conference Center made the legal “effort” and filed the suit.
With that said, you clearly believe that Nishi is making “efforts”. What “efforts” do you believe Nishi is making?
Matt – The election hasn’t happened yet, so whatever you are smoking tonight is still likely illegal.
The problems with Richard are long-standing and entirely the responsibility of the City. The incremental problems caused by Nishi would not be sufficient to replace the City’s responsibility and would have little if any, impact on who pays for the interchange.
Matt:
From article: Plaintiff believes that it is Nishi’s intent to instead acquire the Subject Property for itself, in order to develop its own project, commonly known as the Nishi Gateway Project.”
I understand who the “plantiff” and “defendants” are. I used “Nishi” as a shortcut method to refer to the defendant.
Didn’t David also mention the “behind-the-scenes” effort by “Nishi” to make a deal, with the University?
What makes you think that all of this is false? Why would “Nishi” hang on to the $300K at this point (if it didn’t want the property for its own uses)?
Do you believe that “Nishi” is content with farming the property?
Matt:
From article:
Royal never would have agreed to pay, and would not have paid, $300,000 to Nishi and Ruff.”
Despite the wording above, I’m wondering if this was paid. (Perhaps you or someone could explain.)
Mark West said . . . “Matt – The election hasn’t happened yet, so whatever you are smoking tonight is still likely illegal. The problems with Richard are long-standing and entirely the responsibility of the City. The incremental problems caused by Nishi would not be sufficient to replace the City’s responsibility and would have little if any, impact on who pays for the interchange.”
Mark, in an Olive Drive Only access project every single person who works at any of the businesses that locate there and every vendor who serves the site and every resident who lives there will have no choice other than to drive their motorized vehicle through the Olive-Richards intersection . . . both for ingress and egress. The only daily trips that will not go through that intersection will be the bike-ped traffic that goes through the existing Putah Creek Tunnel at the back end of the Davis Commons. car/truck. If you put the same 1,800 jobs on the site plus all the occupants of any residential portion that is a s–t-load of daily trips through the Richards-Olive intersection each day. My choice of the words “full fiscal responsibility” might have been a tad hyperbolic, and there are existing City funds from prior South Davis development impact fees, but there won’t be a need for the I-80 Interchange Rebuild unless this hypothetical UCD-ownership Nishi project goes forward, and what other way will UCD have to mitigate the EIR traffic impacts of an Olive Drive Only project?
Ron said . . . “I’m wondering if this was paid. (Perhaps you or someone could explain.)”
I have absolutely no idea Ron.
Why is that important to you?
Matt:
I was starting to question my understanding of the lawsuit. It’s not an important question.
Our communication started because you challenged Mike’s statement, and I questioned the reason for your challenge. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were challenging. For example, is your challenge limited to the statement regarding “full vehicle access to Olive Drive”?
From what I’ve gathered, the property in question might be related to accessing Nishi. (I don’t know this, however.)
Do you have a different take on the article and lawsuit? From your statements to others, it seems like you don’t think that vehicular access is likely. You’ve also pointed out the difficulties that would be faced regarding the pass-through agreement, etc. However, others seem to be challenging your belief.
Also – why do you state that Mike is throwing stuff “against the wall, to see what sticks”? What interest would he have in doing so, and what do you think he is trying to accomplish at this point?
I just don’t understand the overall point you’re making. (I’m not criticizing it.)
Ron said . . . “Didn’t David also mention the “behind-the-scenes” effort by “Nishi” to make a deal, with the University?”
No Ron, nowhere in the article did David mention any such effort. The article focuses 100% on the lawsuit regarding the option for 946-980 Olive Drive.
Ron said . . . “What makes you think that all of this is false?”
I never said any of it was either true or false. Whether the Royal Ganesh allegations are true or false is a matter for the Courts to decide.
Ron asked . . .“Why would “Nishi” hang on to the $300K at this point (if it didn’t want the property for its own uses)?”
I think that is pretty clear. They want to redevelop that area of West Olive Drive, and they believe they will make more than $300,000 in doing so.
Ron asked . . . “Do you believe that “Nishi” is content with farming the property?”
What does that question have to do with the Royal Ganesh lawsuit? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. By asking that question, you are following the same extraneous path as Mike Harrington was following in his 9:34 am comment.
With that said, “Nishi” has no alternative other than to either (1) farm the property or (2) sell the property. With UCD taking an underpass of the UPRR out of the LRDP “Nishi’s” connection to the campus evaporated.
Ron, it is very simple. Mike said “I hear Ruff and friends are now trying to get UCD to do a deal where [Nishi] is a UCD project.” That is a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with either the article or the lawsuit.
Further, posting that gratuitous, off topic statement added absolutely nothing to any discussion of the lawsuit. All it was was Mike sending up a trial balloon to see if anyone would salute or genuflect.
Matt:
O.K. – thanks for the clarification. Still not sure what you believe regarding Mike’s motivation. (I just saw your “salute or genuflect” comment as I was posting this, and am not sure why you think this.)
Also not sure what David’s comment referred to when he stated, “I thought we ran that story last month.”
No further response is needed (to satisfy my curiosity, at least). All of this is just speculation at this point, anyway. (At least, for those of us who might be “out of the loop”.)
I thought we ran that story last month
Rumor I heard was ‘another story’… UCD development with single main access to W Olive, none except existing bike/ped access to UCD…
Matt (or anyone):
What is the significance of this? It does appear that Nishi does not want to release its option to obtain that land for its own uses. This seems to support what Mike is saying.
Also, the LRDP is not finalized.
What do you mean by “Nishi” (as a property owner) and what do you mean by “that land”?
I read Mr H’s narrative as confirmation of the VG article, that Ruff Et al., are part of a ‘bait and switch’, breach of faith/contract, and power play thing…
hpierce:
Thanks for clarifying. I guess I misunderstood who owned the land in question. (I thought there was a third party involved.)
In any case, it appears that something is occurring behind the scenes, which might really impact the city.
In terms to negative impacts to the city, yes, ongoing. They will grow and get worse. And in terms of the cause… do a selfie with your cohort of NOE peope and those that voted no on Measure A due to FOT… and then spend a lot of time looking at it.
One factor is that this may explain why the hotel conference center hasn’t settled its suit and isn’t going forward.
I am co-counsel in the case challenging the EIR. It appears from the positions taken by Ruff that it’s going to be a fight to the death, and the public needs to know we are fighting for their interests
i can confirm there is a lot of drama and struggles involving Nishi, West Olive Drive, and the owners of said parcels. What you see in the referenced case is just the barest tip of the iceberg. NONE of that struggle favors Davis residents or city government.
You are not fighting for my interest, and I dispute that you are fighting for the interest of the city. I believe you are working for you own self-interest and your friends that don’t like change for one reason or the other.
I understand that Mike is divisive (for some). But, I’m sure glad that he’s there. I wish the current council had more like him.
Ron… there goes half of the last few threads of credibility you were holding onto.
Well, maybe I should take that as a complement (since we’re pretty much on opposite sides, regarding endless development efforts).
I have fond memories, when Mike was on the council. (The only one who listened to slow-growth concerns, at one point.) (Contrast that with some others at the time, who I’d prefer not to name.)
And no – I don’t believe that he’s involved in slow-growth efforts out of self-interest. There’s easier/better ways to “make money”, if that’s all that one is interested in.
I understand that some view Mike differently than I do. And, I understand (some) of the reasons for this. But, I’m really glad that he’s there.
Reminds me of a song “I got friends in low places.”
Yeah, heck he’s only cost the city millions of dollars
Frankly:
I recall Mike saying some kind and respectful things about you, on this very blog. Never heard a bad word from him, toward you. (It seemed that you knew each other to some degree, personally.)
Perhaps your view of “slow-growthers” is becoming too personal. Perhaps you can’t see that others believe that their view is legitimate, as well.
And Chamber Fan – just saw your response. I don’t know if what you’re stating is entirely accurate, but (in general) I’m glad that Mike might provide a legal alternative, if needed.
I also don’t believe that the “other side” plays entirely “fair”, regardless.
Hey, Mike and I are neighbors and respect him as a neighbor, but I do not respect his “work” disrupting every development project proposed. He also cost the city a ton of money leveraging (exploiting) his license to practice law. I can compartmentalize. I don’t take this debate personal, but I will fight for what I think is right… including calling people on their selfishness and their actions that I see as being bad for Davis.
In every debate someone is more right and someone is more wrong. I don’t dispute that there are benefits to having a slow-growth opinion working to balance what can be come out of control growth. However, we are talking about NO ON EVERYTHNG. You NOE people are out of control and are causing irrefutabel and irreparable harm to this city.
Frankly (because I am), I think you are operating above your pay-grade on these issues. You don’t understand the consequences.
Frankly: “Frankly (because I am), I think you are operating above your pay-grade on these issues. You don’t understand the consequences.”
I’ve heard this line from you, before (not just to me). You’re making some assumptions (and disregarding that some “pay grade” employees may have a background in, and understanding of accounting). City staff (who make recommendations regarding development) are also “pay grade” employees.
In any case, I’ll assume that you’d rather leave decisions up to council members (perhaps similar to Mike Harrington, or Sue Greenwald – who seemed to be “targeted” by a specific group, perhaps because she attempted to reign in some costs related to that group). I also recall that none of the “pro-development” council members at the time were as interested, to reign in such costs.
Or, perhaps you’d prefer the “model” used by many other cities, where developers contribute large sums of money to help get their “friends” elected.
“it appears that something is occurring behind the scenes,”
At this point, this would seem to be the only thing that is clear at this point. It is hard for me to believe that Mr. Patel and Mr. Ruff, and /or their respective partners, all experienced businessmen would have entered blindly into an agreement with no contingencies whatsoever knowing that the Nishi project as presented would be subject to an uncertain vote. I am very curious about what is happening ” behind the scenes”. I look forward to hearing more about this.
Tia: you referenced the process for acquiring the option. I’m not a real estate lawyer, but whenever I have purchased property, there is an escrow account opened at a local title company, and that is where the money meets the sale documents. Nothing is final until the money is free and clear in escrow, and all original documents are there, and then the deed is filed, and money disbursed. I’m not sure why the parties to the Patel-Ruff Option did not do this, but it seems that Ruff-Nishi got the $300,000 purchase money, but did not transfer the option to Patel for whatever reason.
“but did not transfer the option to Patel for whatever reason”
It is the “for whatever reason” that is of interest to me.
Mr H… surely you know the recordation of an option agreement is not the same as a Grant Deed? Even most professional, non JD ‘strutters’ know that! At least professional attorneys… generally, option agreements may or not be recorded… on the DV replica, see no evidence of recordation…
I think the business agreements were made with the assumption that Nishi would pass. Nobody considered the depth and breadth of fools that vote in this city. I think the Measue A failure was a milestone in this city related to future development. Better strap in for all sorts of “bad” results for the residents of Davis… including the county canceling the pass-through agreement.
And all along this path of Davis being the beneficiary of impacts without monetary benefits, the fool Davis voters will just keep crying “unfair” in their fits of entitled elitism.
Frankly: “I think the business agreements were made with the assumption that Nishi would pass.”
That’s one heck of an assumption!
One doesn’t put down $300,000 on an assumption… the Patels certainly would not… they have a stand-alone project if certain litigants back off…
Tia: I wish I had time to write a major article about events revolving around West Olive Drive but no time
i will say you will soon see an update to Measure R going on the ballot. We want to fix up and stabilize the horrible process that led to the City negligently putting Nishi on the ballot when it was far from complete or ready for prime time
We will additionally add a requirement that the R vote include all ancillary development. The City and Nishi tricked the public into thinking the vote on A included the major revision of the zoning for West Olive Drive Never again.
The City and Nishi tricked the public into thinking the vote on A included the major revision of the zoning for West Olive Drive
Alan, here is my understanding of what Mike is talking about – At the time Nishi was put on the ballot there was a separate City Council action that rezoned West Olive drive allowing for much denser commercial use. The Nishi project / Measure A was always talked about as the whole thing both West Olive Drive and the Nishi Property, but the reality is the only thing voted on was the annexation of the Nishi property. The rezoning of West Olive Drive stands even thought Measure A lost.
Personally I would like to hear an explanation from the City Council as to why the 2 parts of the project were compartmentalized. I would also like to know why they couldn’t wait to do the rezoning until after Measure A, or have it contingent on the passage of Measure A.
I want to point out that at the time of the rezoning of West Olive Drive, no money was contributed to fix the traffic on Richards, or mitigate the impacts from what can be built in the new zoning. This also would have been a good time to start getting funding for a grade separated crossing from olive Drive to the Down town.
Grok… to be clear, there was no effective re-zone except within current City limits… which was not subject to a vote. Perhaps that’s why it was ‘compartmentalized’?
Hpierce, agreed that all rezoning at West Olive Drive was within the City limits and was only subject to a vote of City Council.
As to why it was compartmentalized, yours is certainly a technical answer for why, but it does not answer the motivation or political question of why City Council would allow such a large rezone that was part of a project that might fail at the ballot, or without getting any grantees on mitigation.
It makes me wonder how on one end of Olive Drive there can be a massive rezone with no mitigation, while at the other end of Olive Drive there seems to be a push to extract all of the costs for an at grade crossing from a single developer.
I don’t know the answer to this, perhaps someone else does. What were the CEQA requirements for rezoning all of West Olive Drive like that? How were they met?
It will be interesting to see what the Lincoln40 draft EIR has to say about West Olive Drive traffic since they are commissioning a new traffic study.
Believe that’s the remaining part of Harrington’s suit against Nishi
As clarification I meant NOT at grade crossing, and guarantees of mitigation.
If the questions I raised in my post are the subject of Harrington’s lawsuit, then it seems like Harrington has a pretty good reason to bring suit.
PS> and someone should also look into the suspicious demise of the historic Nishi farmhouse, which I and many others shared back in the 70s……. such a bargain….we had 12-14 people living in that large place on occassion, not to mention the assorted friends who also crashed there at times….large, two stories with an attic and a full basement….they just don’t build ’em like that any more in this area…
It was some time ago, however, was the arsonist ever found?
Marina, you have posted dozens and dozens of times about this. Why don’t you go to the DPD and FD and look at the files? Then right an article?
MH>…I think it was only a handful but most ignored it and still do… 😉
Just out of curiousity, I would like to see some photos of the old farmhouse at some point (if anyone has them).
And Marina – I find your stories interesting (e.g., regarding life in that farmhouse). I’d also like to know more about the history of that house, prior to that time. (I read the Wiki article that Don cited, as well.) You’re right – they don’t “build them like that”, anymore. (Mostly from glued-together sawdust, these days. Except for the frame.)
wish I would have had some pics- I believe it would have qualified for historical designation – heck it was old when I was living there nearly half a century ago… and likely would have warranted citizens concern that it be saved if it didn’t disappear so quickly before the development plans were publicized. I see that others shared that there is more to the story which I hadn’t seen before…(not surprising, as often there is more to many a story and by that year I was so deep into truly 24/7 work at the university)
do I have time, MH….I still work 24/7 and so much else….
Isn’t there a DV intern who could do it?
I have been very sick for some years, and am retiring and leaving this rat hole for a way better country in just a few days 🙂
I thought someone, like a developer would at least come forward with some lies about what may have happened…
Do you even recall when that occurred?
I will have way better fiber optic 1 gb internet where I am heading than in this ATT disaster in Davis….. for a real vacation and a real healing escape….
If it was after the days of internet, and if the old PD and FD files are accessible to me, I may 🙂
The only interns we have specifically go to the courtroom.
MK, all buildings (house and storage/work units) on the Nishi Property were raised sometime before April 2008, and were all there in February 2007. The razing of all the building occurred sometime less than a year after the death of Barry Landy who was hit by a train at the only vehicle access to the property along the Arboretum. Very soon after this, the house was no longer rented. Landy was a close friend of one of the property owners, and I had assumed (I am possibly wrong about this as it is an assumption) that the property owner didn’t want to chance anyone else renting room or work space there being killed at this very dangerous crossing, and that that is why all the buildings were razed. I never heard about a fire there, nor can I find it in a google search. I do know the house, which always had lots of cars in front of it, appeared unoccupied shortly after the tragic accident, with no cars out front.
That seems to be the story. https://localwiki.org/davis/Nishi_Property
Bad cite there, Don… there are many distortions and flat-out untruths in the cited account… particularly re: access, names of facilities (should be “Putah Creek Bikepath”)… looks like it was written by a certain member of the development team…
Correlated in time, but not necessarily (unlikely) in causation… have heard of other reasons for the razing, most due to health hazards and the indigent squatters… had walked thru them before they were razed… filth, trash, needles (not the sewing kind), etc. Barry’s death was indeed tragic, but strongly believe not directly related to the razing…
I also have a newly minted attorney in my immediate family…my son’s fiance just got her JD and passed the bar… maybe she may be interested…
my hubby also dabbled in the law…but it was in family law
and I took many courses in business law at UCD and when on my MBA
But, really were the same developers involved? that would truly be interesting.
As a supporter of the neighbors at Paso Fino, and who managed to save many a tree on the Ricci Farm now known as Woodbridge…. you know….do I trust them? developers I mean
maybe we should expand your intern program, David?
Perhaps then you may not be supporting No on Nishi/No on A? and the like…some of us, I know are stretched very thin….need interns and helpers…
oops a slip…all know the DV was Yes on Nishi/Yes on A
Marina: the DV was not Pro A David kept it balanced …
thanks for the clarification MH…I was kinda late to that dance..
Matt:
I think you mentioned (above) that the property owners might believe that they can make more than $300K by redeveloping West Olive Drive, and that this might be the motivation to keep the property (which ultimately led to the lawsuit).
Perhaps this provides some perspective, regarding Grok’s statement (as follows):
“maybe we should expand your intern program, David?”
I think that Marina may be onto something here with her use of the word “we”. Many posters have suggested topics for articles that they themselves are not equipped to write due to time or confidentiality constraints. Perhaps some of these individuals and others would be willing to donate to a specific ongoing fund to hire interns to write articles on issues they feel are not being adequately addressed. Thoughts ?