The City Council ended their discussion on DACHA (Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association) in much the same way it began – they acknowledged concerns for the residents but at least four members of the council decided to follow the advice of their legal counsel, and to err on the side of caution.
During public comment, Stephanie Teague, one of the longtime DACHA residents, argued that she believes that Twin Pines said that she knows that the city council’s hands are tied.
She believes that city staff made a huge error by not sending the notification to Twin Pines via certified mail, return receipt. She said that the city followed the law that required only a first class notification but failed in their diligence to err on the side of caution, given the lawsuits that Twin Pines has filed.
Ms. Teague argued that this error put DACHA residents at risk of default judgment.
Luke Watkins publicly attacked Ms. Teague, saying that she did not feel it was a problem to attack David Thompson and conspire to take away housing from a charitable organization for private benefit.
He argued that this is what has happened since 2005.
He said that they legally sued, and the ensuing legal conflicts and handling by staff have compounded the problem further. From the very beginning, he argued, DACHA members should have been told that this was a co-op by the city and that they had no right to own the homes personally.
He said that now the city has paid $400,000 in legal fees, plus another $200,000 in support of DACHA. He believes that the city is only compounding this problem because they believe that their legal staff is correct.
He said that the staff needs to admit it has made errors and has been negligent. He said until this happens, they will continue to face legal problems.
He said, “I’m sorry that this happened but we’re not going to just walk away.”
Elaine Roberts Musser, the attorney representing DACHA President Ethan Ireland, argued that the city was on the one hand arguing that their notice was proper, but on the other hand arguing that they need to delay the dissolution hearing of DACHA due to concerns about liability for improper noticing.
“You can’t have it both ways,” she said. “The city is claiming it gave proper statutory notice, yet as a ‘courtesy’ will hold open the noticing period another 120 days – while showing DACHA residents no courtesy.”
She argued such actions are putting the DACHA residents, who have no attorney to defend the cooperative, in legal jeopardy.
“The city’s second demurrer was sustained, but with leave to amend. This gives David Thompson’s organization another bite at the apple to perfect its pleadings – by digging up whatever dirt it can find on the city,” she argued.
She added that many of these residents barely speak English and do not understand “legalese.” Those residents who cannot afford legal fees will not be covered by any motion to quash the actions by Mr. Thompson, assuming the motion is covered.
She argued, “It is up to David Thompson to make sure the CCCD has the correct name and address of his organizations. This is not the city’s responsibility, but his and his alone.”
“The statute says nothing about proof of receipt to any individual or organization,” she added.
“The city bears full responsibility to DACHA residents, should they be subjected to more legal process as a result of the city holding the noticing period open for another 120 days,” Ms. Roberts Musser continued.
She warned: “If the City Council chooses to re-notice, I will advocate vigorously on behalf of my client, as is required by my ethical canons as his attorney. I will resort to whatever legal avenues are available, whether or not adverse to the city.”
“Merely expressing sorrow at the plight of DACHA residents is insufficient action on the part of the City Council,” she concluded.
David Thompson of Twin Pines Cooperative told the Vanguard early this morning, “I completely agree on one issue with Stephanie Hinkle, former President of DACHA, and Elaine Roberts Musser. This unneeded circus which has consumed a great deal of time for almost a month lies at the feet of staff.”
He said, “In April, this year, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation wrote to the City staff and offered to meet about the format for the dissolution hearing. In that same letter, TPCF said that we intended to provide thousands of pages of testimony to the hearing.”
However, in May, “city staff looked at the law and decided to overlook the first two sentences about ‘Interested Parties.’ So the City arrogantly chose not to notify any interested parties. Surely, TPCF was an ‘Interested Party’ as the organization that had sponsored DACHA, had a sponsor board seat, was the beneficiary, was owed money to and had lawsuits against DACHA for breaking numerous California laws.”
“Surely, Neighborhood Partners was an ‘Interested Party’ as it had won a $330,000 award against DACHA and had two lawsuits against the organization,” he continued.
“Why would any staff member in their right mind not consider TPCF and NP as interested parties?” he asked.
“We are surprised that Council Member Stephen Souza is so strongly opposed to upholding California Law for Cooperatives. Mr. Souza makes it clear that Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation will not receive a fair hearing from him,” he said.
He believes that the 120 days are appropriate.
“The 120 days is there to allow the time for information to be gathered and analyzed, circulated and reviewed. Assembly member Jones wanted there to be an open process wherever public funds were used. It is incorrect to say that the law was written to give 120 days to effect a merger. No merger can be done in 120 days,” Mr. Thompson concluded.
“I’ve almost always taken the advice of our city attorney,” he added, “This might be one time when I believe I won’t.”
However, in the end he decided to abstain, arguing, “I can’t see how you can say that you have given proper notice and then reaffirm the notice by noticing again.”
But Dan Wolk, one of three attorneys on council argued, “Under current law we should continue this for 120 days, to ensure that the notice was absolutely correct.”
This was affirmed by City Attorney Kimberly Hood, who sat in for Harriet Steiner, and who advised that council ought to renotice in order to eliminate any question that there is a difference in the name of Twin Pines Cooperative from the name that was used in noticing the entity.
Joe Krovoza moved the staff recommendation and it was seconded by Councilmember Sue Greenwald.
Mr. Souza said, “I will not vote for the city attorney’s advice but I will not vote against the city attorney’s advice, so I will abstain.”
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson urged there to be peace in this process. She noted that both sides want the city to step in but they cannot agree as to what they want the city to do.
Mr. Souza quipped, “There is a better chance of peace between Israel and Palestine than here.
Mayor Krovoza reiterated his point from last week without articulating it again.
Last week he said pointedly that if anything is filed on DACHA that would not have been filed otherwise, as the result of the continuance, that he wants to know immediately. He made it clear that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins not take advantage of the 120 days to take advantage of the relatively defenseless DACHA.
The motion to push this back until February 7, 2012 passed 4-0, with Mr. Souza indeed abstaining.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks dmg, for a very accurate article as to what transpired last night. I think the actions of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins speak for themselves and will continue to speak for themselves… as per Mr. Krovoza’s clear warning last week, to wit:
[quote]Mayor Krovoza reiterated his point from last week without articulating it again.
Last week he said pointedly that if anything is filed on DACHA that would not have been filed otherwise, as the result of the continuance, that he wants to know immediately. He made it clear that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins not take advantage of the 120 days to take advantage of the relatively defenseless DACHA.[/quote]
[quote][i]”Luke Watkins publicly attacked Ms. Teague, saying that she did not feel it was a problem to attack David Thompson and conspire to take away housing from a charitable organization for private benefit.”[/i][/quote]What does this mean? It implies Luke did something bad, but what? By “attacking”? By doing something “publicly”? If one edits out the attempt to characterize Luke in a negative way, the rest of the sentence makes little sense.[i][quote]”Mayor Krovoza reiterated his point from last week without articulating it again.”[/quote][/i]And, how was this magic performed?[quote][i]”She warned: ‘If the City Council chooses to re-notice, I will advocate vigorously on behalf of my client, as is required by my ethical canons as his attorney. I will resort to whatever legal avenues are available, whether or not adverse to the city’.”[/i][/quote]So, Elaine warns of legal action (regardless of the impact on the city) during the next 120 days, and the other side (criticized for the same ethical approach for months) is warned they’d better not take advantage of that same time to take advantage of Elaine’s client.[quote][i]”Last week (Krovoza) said pointedly that if anything is filed on DACHA that would not have been filed otherwise, as the result of the continuance, that he wants to know immediately. He made it clear that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins not take advantage of the 120 days to take advantage of the relatively defenseless DACHA.”[/i][/quote]How the city staff (and, subsequently, Mayor Krovoza) is supposed to determine that any given legal action in the next four months “would not have filed otherwise” is a mystery. Until the mayor “articulates” some standards, we’ll have to depend on Elaine to raise the alarm. Did the mayor “articulate” what penalties the two face if they violate his pointed order?
In summary, we’ve seen all parties fully engaged for months on two fronts, litigation and PR/propaganda–without resolution and at high public costs.
Now that two have agreed that one (the city) has screwed up this project royally, maybe the CC and staff can facilitate a new approach. This mess is ripe for a negotiated conclusion, regardless of how we feel about the participants and how they got to this point.
David. As you pount out the city appears to say they properly noticed then said they erred in the address.
Last week the article mentioned one notice going to Capri Court in another city. And I continue to be confused as to the mixup in the TP proper name. Sue states David Thompson is responsible for giving the city the wrong name of his company? I find that hard to believe.
What I continue to believe is that we need a neutral mediator and probably an investigation. It does not appear this will be resolved any other way and seems a better use of city money than continued legal fees.
[quote]Sue states David Thompson is responsible for giving the city the wrong name of his company?–SODA[/quote]I didn’t say that.
[quote]What does this mean? It implies Luke did something bad, but what? By “attacking”? By doing something “publicly”? If one edits out the attempt to characterize Luke in a negative way, the rest of the sentence makes little sense.[/quote]
I cannot tell you word for word what was said, unless I actually went back and created a transcript of Mr. Watkins precise words from video footage (you can watch the replay on the gov’t channel), but I remember his language seemed to me particularly vicious.
[quote]So, Elaine warns of legal action (regardless of the impact on the city) during the next 120 days, and the other side (criticized for the same ethical approach for months) is warned they’d better not take advantage of that same time to take advantage of Elaine’s client.[/quote]
This is an incorrect interpretation of what happened. The city has argued it made no mistake, yet paradoxically has approved keeping the noticing period open another 120 days “as a courtesy” (to reaffirm notice) because the city slightly misspelled a single word in its notice. The city cannot have it both ways – it gave proper notice, but it didn’t. If the DACHA homeowners are then harmed as a result of the city’s action of re-noticing – because the city is in essence conceding it made a mistake – who pays for the harm to DACHA homeowners? DACHA homeowners had no part in giving notice – it was entirely up to the city to do it.
However, the city has a perfectly valid argument proper notice was given.
1) The city obtained the required list of organizations to notice from the state.
2) The city sent out said notice in the manner required.
3) If there were any misspellings on that list, that is the fault of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins/their organizations –
a) for failing to make sure the state had an updated/correct name and address;
b) for any failure to open their mail.
4) The purpose of the 120 day period is to merge with another cooperative, not for the purpose of manufacturing legal liability.
5) There is absolutely NOTHING in the statute that requires receipt of said notice.
[quote]Now that two have agreed that one (the city) has screwed up this project royally, maybe the CC and staff can facilitate a new approach. This mess is ripe for a negotiated conclusion, regardless of how we feel about the participants and how they got to this point. [/quote]
“The city has screwed up this project royally”? Who were the “expert” consultants hired to carry out this disastrous project/suck naive DACHA homeowners into the project in the first place?
In regard to negotiations:
1) It takes two to tango.
2) Secondly, and I know this from personal experience, one side digging in its heels and insisting on the outrageous that no one in their right mind would agree to does not represent good faith negotiating.
[quote]What I continue to believe is that we need a neutral mediator and probably an investigation. It does not appear this will be resolved any other way and seems a better use of city money than continued legal fees.[/quote]
The city has been named as plaintiff in two lawsuits. DACHA has been named in three. One was resolved in the city’s favor. One was resolved in DACHA’s favor. There is still one lawsuit pending against the city, and two against DACHA. The city has the financial resources for a paid attorney to defend it. DACHA has no financial resources and no one to defend it. The city has no choice but to pay legal fees to defend itself. DACHA is powerless to defend itself. Imagine trying to ward off body blows from from a bully – with both hands tied behind the back…
By California law for cooperatives the City is required to notice the hearing to two separate lists. The first is a list of “Interested Parties” and the second is to a list of limited equity housing cooperatives provided by the California Center for Cooperative Development. These are two separate lists for different purposes.
The City chose not identify or notify any ”Interested Parties”. This was a neglectful choice by City staff. Clearly with everything that has gone choosing to ignore a requirement to notify “Interested Parties” is arrogant and neglectful. Why would Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation and Neighborhood Partners not be considered “Interested Parties”? The City has had our correct name and address for years why did it neglect to use it?
The unwillingness of the City to accept that creditors, lenders and others with an economic stake in DACHA should be noticed as “Interested Parties” is unacceptable to me as part of the lending community for 30 years. TPCF works with lender organizations throughout the nation. I have never seen such an enthusiasm as there is in Davis for trampling on creditor rights. It is a disturbing stance.
The second part of the noticing requirement is to notify all limited equity housing cooperatives in the state. Clearly, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation or Neighborhood Partners are not limited equity housing cooperatives. So therefore, TPCF and NP are not on that list and are not entitled to be on that list. It cannot be the fault of Mr Thompson or My Watkins to get the spelling right or have the right name and address as we are not on that list and should not be on that list. There was no misspelling of the name as there is a Twin Pines Cooperative Community on that list but it is a housing cooperative in Santa Clara. That co-op was also sent mail at Capri Court in Davis but there is no Capri Court in Davis. There is however, a Twin Pines Cooperative Community with an address on Capri Court in Campbell, California.
When I asked from the podium on August 1, what was the status of the “Dissolution Hearing” no one (City Council, City Attorney, City Manager) provided an answer. Yet they all knew and not one of them chose to tell me. How is that for transparency?
The purpose of the 120 day period is also for the City to obtain information and testimony on a series of findings. The law recognizes that a co-op may or may not effect a merger and provides two paths both taking 120 days. Given that 100 days have gone by since I asked Mr. Ireland for (among other items) the Tax Statements for DACHA for 2009 and 2010 120 days seems too short. Ms. Musser, why not get your client to provide the documentation to ensure we have a fair and impartial hearing. Who is really holding up the process? I consider it to be DACHA and it certainly feels like DACHA wants to avoid the requirements of the law.
City staff seemingly and possibly purposefully chose not to notify two very interested parties. A simple common sense approach would have saved everyone time and money.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]Ms. Musser, why not get your client to provide the documentation to ensure we have a fair and impartial hearing. Who is really holding up the process? I consider it to be DACHA and it certainly feels like DACHA wants to avoid the requirements of the law. [/quote]
Mr. Thompson, why not get your lawyer to contact Mr. Ireland’s attorney to ensure fair and impartial due process? Who is really holding up the process? I consider it to be “other than DACHA” and it certainly feels like “other than DACHA” wants to avoid the requirements of the law.
Correction: …contact Mr. Ireland’s attorney, whose name you were already given, to ensure…
DACHA has a long history of not following their own articles of incorporation and bylaws and not following California Cooperative Law, Nonprofit law, Corporate Law etc.
More the pity is the fact that city staff have participated in many of the DACHA board and Membership meetings where DACHA was never able to achieve the legal quorum required by the bylaws. In fact staff participated in a meeting where DACHA discussed suspending the bylaw that said you could not vote if you were 30 days in debt to DACHA. So an illegal quorum of members voted to improperly suspend the bylaws so that ineligible members could vote to borrow $4 million in public funds. DACHA could not achieve a quorum legally so they found a way to achieve a quorum illegally. And city staff were there and knew this happened.
However, in their report to the City Council, City staff recommended that $4 million in public funds be provided to an organization that could not achieve a legal board quorum or a legal membership quorum, and they never told the Council of these improper actions. What type of due diligence is this? And people wonder about what staff are doing down at City Hall. With this type of record City Housing needs to be outsourced.
The City Attorney and Mayor Asmundson both stated publicly that the $4 million in public funds lent to DACHA were not to be used for litigation. Yet we find in 2010, Danielle Foster of City staff instructing the City to send a check for $29,000 to DACHA’s attorney.
During 2010, DACHA’s lawyers attempted to do an improper dissolution of DACHA without following California Cooperative Law. We have all the email correspondence between DACHA’s lawyers and the Attorney General’s office. TPCF caught DACHA’s efforts, brought it to the attention of the AG’s office and the AG reminded DACHA that it must follow the law.
The protestations by DACHA seem empty given they were caught previously not following the law on dissolution. Once again, this week and last, DACHA attempted to not follow California Cooperative Law.
I’ve shared the discussion about DACHA with many other co-op leaders around the country. No one has ever heard of such a series of serious allegations. Nor has anyone heard of a city staff taking such a role.
Now that the dissolution process has adopted a hearing date for February 7 a group of us will start supplying information to the City.
If anyone out there would like to assist us by doing research we would be glad to have your help. As this is the first limited equity housing cooperative to go through this process in the USA the DACHA dissolution process will be a landmark study. We’re looking for people with professional backgrounds that could look into certain aspects of DACHA. Call me at 757-2233.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote][i][u]JS[/u]: “So, Elaine warns of legal action (regardless of the impact on the city) during the next 120 days, and the other side (criticized for the same ethical approach for months) is warned they’d better not take advantage of that same time to take advantage of Elaine’s client.”
[u]Elaine[/u]: “This is an incorrect interpretation of what happened.” [/i][/quote]Are you saying David’s report is incorrect or that my summary and observation are incorrect? I understand your view about the city’s interesting “both ways” (or “err on the side of caution”) approach and how it might disadvantage the former DACHA folks.
I just find it interesting that we’ve been so critical of the other party for months for taking legal steps, making trouble for the poor coop participants and the city, trying to collect a legitimate judgement, questioning the actions of coop leadership, etc.
Into this setting, you proclaim you “will advocate vigorously on behalf of my client (and) resort to whatever legal avenues are available, whether or not adverse to the city”–sounds a lot like what the others have been doing. Again, I appreciate your [i]pro bono[/i] help to your needy client. But there’s a little irony here, I’d say.
With respect to negotiations, you’re correct that it takes more than one–three, in this case. Mr. Thompson, in my opinion, doesn’t appear to be the holdup; he’s repeatedly and loudly announced he’s ready. You’d know better, but this impassé looks long and expensive to me.
Thanks for your observations. The rest of my comments/questions about how the meeting is covered are for David.
I’m left with a big unanswered question: Why did the city decide it would be helpful/smart/good to foreclose on DACHA in the middle of the judgment payoff, and what was the plan for dealing with the unpaid debt once the city took over the coop property?
Follow up: Is the judgment liability a suitable topic for negotiation discussions? Seems that the taxpayer cost will be much less than what we’re facing otherwise, as SODA suggests, regardless of who has won in the past and who might win in the future.
[quote]By California law for cooperatives…
…two separate lists…
…creditors, lenders and others with an economic stake… should be noticed as “Interested Parties”…
…purpose of the 120 day period is also for the City to obtain information and testimony…
…he law… provides two paths both taking 120 days…[/quote]
Please show me where in CA Civil Code Section 817.2 there is a mention of your “interested” “interpretations” of the law:
[quote]The procedure for the dissolution of a limited-equity
housing cooperative or workforce housing cooperative trust that
receives or has received a public subsidy shall be as follows:
(a) The city, or the county for any unincorporated area, in which
the limited-equity housing cooperative or workforce housing
cooperative trust is located, shall hold a public hearing. The
cooperative or trust shall pay for all costs associated with the
public hearing.
(b) The city or county shall provide notice to all interested
parties. The notice shall be given at least 120 days prior to the
date of the hearing. The city or county shall obtain a list of all
other limited-equity housing cooperatives and cooperative development
organizations in the state from the California Center for
Cooperative Development, if the list exists, and provide notice to
all of the entities on the list in an effort to create a merger with
an existing limited-equity housing cooperative or workforce housing
cooperative trust. The notice shall be mailed first class, postage
prepaid, in the United States mail.
(c) If the dissolving limited-equity housing cooperative or
workforce housing cooperative trust merges with an existing
cooperative or trust, to the extent possible, the merger shall be
with the geographically closest cooperative or trust.
(d) If the dissolving limited-equity housing cooperative or
workforce housing cooperative trust does not merge with an existing
cooperative or trust, both of the following shall occur:
(1) Upon completion of the public hearing required pursuant to
subdivision (a), the city or county shall adopt a resolution
approving of the dissolution and make a finding that the dissolution
plan meets the requirements of state and federal law, meets the
donative intent standards of the United States Internal Revenue
Service, and is free of private inurement, which includes, but is not
limited to, a prohibition on any member receiving any payment in
excess of the transfer value to which he or she is entitled pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 817.
(2) The city or county shall forward all of the information and
written testimony from the hearing to the Office of the Attorney
General for the Attorney General to consider as part of his or her
ruling on the dissolution.[/quote]
[quote]With respect to negotiations, you’re correct that it takes more than one–three, in this case. Mr. Thompson, in my opinion, doesn’t appear to be the holdup; he’s repeatedly and loudly announced he’s ready. You’d know better, but this impassé looks long and expensive to me. [/quote]
What one repeatedly and loudly says and what one actually does can be two entirely different things.
[quote]Into this setting, you proclaim you “will advocate vigorously on behalf of my client (and) resort to whatever legal avenues are available, whether or not adverse to the city”–sounds a lot like what the others have been doing. Again, I appreciate your pro bono help to your needy client. But there’s a little irony here, I’d say. [/quote]
The entire quote was “as is required by my ethical cannons”. I truly mean no disrespect, but do you really appreciate/have any idea of the number of inordinate hours I have put into this case pro bono? Why would you assume my tactics are the same as that of the opposition? Ever heard the expression “there is more than one way to skin a cat?” Have I cost the city so much as a single penny to your knowledge? Can the other side say they have not cost the taxpayer money? I think not. I don’t see any irony here. What I see is a group of naive lower income residents sucked into a doomed project without knowing what they were getting into.
Huh, but excuse me?
The parties are all in pitched litigation that the city should have settled years ago, and plaintiffs are not supposed to take advantage of legal rules and openings created by city staff screwing up the notice that the law clearly requires?
Excuse me?
I dont know if there is an opening or not in the next 120 days, but I can tell you for sure it is malpractice for the plaintiffs attorney to ignore any advantages that are handed over on a silver plate by the city attorney and yet more screw ups.
The damages at issue run into the seven figures, and the city should start acting like it has some risk here, and pay attention to its exposure.
The City Attorney should recuse herself from a contract and negotiation that she set up in the first instance.
Rochelle, you are a trained McGeorge Law litigator. That school generates some of the best and sharpest litigators I have ever seen since I left the federal government in 1990 to work in this area. When I am against a McGeorge trained lawyer, I worry a lot more, and work much harder to win.
Get independent counsel and treat Harriot like the fact witness she clearly is.
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation has indeed repeated on a number of occasions that we are willing to mediate with the City.
What puzzles us is that the City Council in its August 28th response to the Grand Jury verified in a signed statement that “settlement discussions have begun”.
When in fact the City did not turn up for a court ordered mandatory settlement conference on June 9.
By our thinking public funds have now been used to pay 29 different lawyers to work on the DACHA case. What a travesty of the staff use of $600,000 in legal fees,$300,000 in staff time and the City losing $18,000 every month on ten empty homes. So a million dollar waste!
We have been willing to be part of an independent investigation, the City won’t.
We have been willing to mediate. The City won’t.
So the public dollars keep on being wasted.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
It is hard to believe someone is serious about “mediation” if they make continuous and vicious accusations of wrongdoing on the fly at every turn. It is not conducive to a “meeting of the minds” now is it?
[quote]By our thinking public funds have now been used to pay 29 different lawyers to work on the DACHA case. What a travesty of the staff use of $600,000 in legal fees,$300,000 in staff time and the City losing $18,000 every month on ten empty homes. So a million dollar waste! [/quote]
Flawed models usually result in very flawed outcomes – which should be an object lesson…
Elaine, we’re arguing some things I don’t think we need to be. I included your complete quote the first time, then clipped it for space the next time when I was trying to better explain my original point. I’m sure you wouldn’t criticize the opposition’s words if they were quoted exactly as you were, and I wasn’t criticizing yours.
My comments were positive ones about how attorneys view their ethical responsibilities to clients, regardless of what “side” they’re on. It seemed ironic to me that we’ve been criticizing “the other side” for months for vigorously advocating their client’s interests and resorting to all legal avenues. (But, maybe I should have searched the lexicon for a better choice for the incongruity I thought I’d spied in David’s report.)
Beyond the general commentary noted above, I’m not assuming anything about tactics, only ethics (as your words described them). Anyone involved in protracted lawsuits will end up costing money and time in the effort. Again, this is not a criticism or an accusation, but a fact of litigation life.
Right now, I see the city as the party that has the most to lose continuing along the present course. And, the most to gain by a negotiated settlement.
Finally, no, I cannot imagine how much you’ve contributed to this DACHA resident effort. But, you’ll remember, maybe, that I noted with admiration your work the first time I saw it revealed in the [u]Vanguard[/u].
[b]Mr. Harrington:[/b] — Another big dose of the unvarnished truth. I am becoming a fan of your cut to the chase comments…
I wish you would run for City Council, again…
I thought it was disgusting the other night to see Dave Thompson and Luke Watkins use the Good Cop bad cop routine to beat up on the homeowners. Watkins attack was quite grotesque, and in poor taste. It appears Mr. Thompsen does not want to get his hands dirty, letting others do it for him.
Also, I thought it was interesting to watch sue greenwald, who is normally willing to get on her moral high horse every 2 seconds, suddenly abdicate all of her thinking and decision making to the city attorney.
[quote]Right now, I see the city as the party that has the most to lose continuing along the present course. And, the most to gain by a negotiated settlement. [/quote]
Thanks for your kind comments.
As to the issue of negotiations, let me give you an example that may better illustrate the city’s dilemma.
1) When I was going through my 3 1/2 year divorce and before I became an attorney, I essentially agreed to splitting the marital property down the middle. Seems reasonable, right? My husband had a Pitt Bull of an attorney, who would never agree to anything remotely reasonable (he was advocating for way more than half the marital property).
2) I went through three attorneys, who preferred to work on me to give in to the other side’s unreasonable demands, rather than fight this tenacious/outrageous attorney.
3) I finally found a fourth attorney who was willing to fight for what was right. I told this lawyer up front not to bother mediating, I had already tried three different times w/o a scintilla of success. The other side was never, ever going to be even remotely reasonable.
4) To make a long story short, I received my divorce on the grounds of adultery, which was pretty much unheard of. I was awarded 92% of the marital assets which was also unheard of – my ex had to pay all my attorneys fees.
5) Some lawyers find that being unreasonable is a very successful tactic FOR THEM, because it racks up hourly fees, despite it not being in their client’s best interest. My ex ended up broke, and owing the IRS $10,000. Fortunately he had a good job, so eventually bounced back, and was ordered to pay court ordered child support or have his wages garnished. But my ex did himself no favors by remaining completely unreasonable in the circumstances (at one point he was buying his married girlfriend jewelry while paying no child support for three children, one a newborn).
6) But had I not had the financial wherewithal to fight my ex and his obnoxious attorney (my parents funded my lawyer), I very likely would have lost just about everything – the case on adultery, the marital assets, attorneys fees.
Do you see the parallels here?
Just as an aside, and an interesting bit of trivia, my fourth attorney was the same one who represented John Bobbitt, if any of you remember that case!
[quote]It seemed ironic to me that we’ve been criticizing “the other side” for months for vigorously advocating their client’s interests and resorting to all legal avenues[/quote]
I’m just curious. Do you consider the opposition serving a subpoena on a child – who has nothing to do with the case and despite proof being given the child is a minor – as “vigorously advocating their client’s interests and resorting to all LEGAL avenues”?
[quote][i]”Do you see the parallels here? Just as an aside, and an interesting bit of trivia, my fourth attorney was the same one who represented John Bobbitt…”[/i][/quote]Okay, I’ll bite, but [u]only[/u] because you insist. The parallels: You and Lorena share the same number of letters in your names (of which the majority are identical letters).? And, each of you separated your ex’s from substantial assets for justifiable reasons?
Problem is: Thanks very much for your kind comments. My work and personal committments already exceed 30 hours a day, so I don’t have the time.
But I do hope that someone will run against the rate hikes in June 2012, which will align that person with Sue if she runs again. Running on lower rates and taxes these days is far better than Steve and Dan’s running on a platform of higher taxes.
The Democrats were creamed last year by lower-taxes candidates, and so will the Davis water project and anyone pushing it on the rate payers.
[i][quote]”It seemed ironic to me that we’ve been criticizing ‘the other side’ for months for vigorously advocating their client’s interests and resorting to all legal avenues.”
“I’m just curious. Do you consider the opposition serving a subpoena on a child – who has nothing to do with the case and despite proof being given the child is a minor – as ‘vigorously advocating their client’s interests and resorting to all LEGAL avenues’?[/quote][/i]I’m against law-breaking. If subpoenaing minors is illegal, I’m against it.
But, again, I’m not judging tactics–only observing how critical we’ve been for so long that Mr. Thompson’s attorneys took [u]any[/u] legal action against DACHA and the city, let alone might have been “vigorously advocating their client’s interests.” It’s a little [s]ironic[/s] fascinating to me.
I’m also arguing to put behind the past vigorous advocating in favor of establishing an atmosphere for the negotiations that you and Thompson say both sides are ready to undertake. Only problem, as I see it, is that the other other side (the city) is the only one that has the capability to start negotiations on the road to resolution. We also have the most to benefit. [quote][i]”When in fact the City did not turn up for a court ordered mandatory settlement conference on June 9.”[/i][/quote][b]David T[/b]., please be more specific. How could the city refuse a court order? Did the city attorney get the order overturned before the scheduled conference? What happened afterwards? Contempt finding? Conference rescheduled? What really happened here?
[quote]Okay, I’ll bite, but only because you insist. The parallels: You and Lorena share the same number of letters in your names (of which the majority are identical letters).? And, each of you separated your ex’s from substantial assets for justifiable reasons?[/quote]
Apparently my analogy was too obtuse for you. Let me make it a bit clearer:
1) In a legal dispute, one side can be completely unreasonable despite disingenuous protestations to the contrary.
2) An attorney will sometimes take the path of least resistance to the detriment of their own client, rather than stand up to a difficult and unreasonable attorney in opposition.
3) One side can choose to be completely unreasonable – it is a tactic.
4) If the reasonable side has the emotional and financial wherewithal to fight back, they will probably “win” in court.
5) Being unreasonable (smelling blood in the water) most often works when the other side is completely defenseless.
6) Those that do not have the wherewithal to fight back lose everything.
Who is defenseless in the DACHA case and who is the bully? ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS…
The factoid involving a notorious case had nothing whatever to do with the parallels I was drawing…
[quote]Right now, I see the city as the party that has the most to lose continuing along the present course. And, the most to gain by a negotiated settlement. [/quote]
It all depends on what deal is being offered to a city. If the deal is “pay what I say you owe, and that will be the moon and stars and every planet in between”, how is that in the best interest of a city to agree to such a preposterous deal? Getting the picture of a city’s dilemma?
[quote]I’m also arguing to put behind the past vigorous advocating in favor of establishing an atmosphere for the negotiations that you and Thompson say both sides are ready to undertake. Only problem, as I see it, is that the other other side (the city) is the only one that has the capability to start negotiations on the road to resolution. We also have the most to benefit.[/quote]
1) Why is the city the only one that has the capability to start negotiations? It takes two to tango – one cannot tango alone.
2) How could you possibly know that a negotiated settlement would be in the taxpayers best interest, if you don’t know what the terms of the deal are?
[quote]I’m against law-breaking. If subpoenaing minors is illegal, I’m against it. [/quote]
As I said before, actions speak louder than words…
[quote]But, again, I’m not judging tactics–only observing how critical we’ve been for so long that Mr. Thompson’s attorneys took any legal action against DACHA and the city, let alone might have been “vigorously advocating their client’s interests.” It’s a little ironic fascinating to me. [/quote]
Perhaps it is time for you to start “judging tactics”. DACHA homeowners have been repeatedly referred to as “deadbeats” among other malicious terms. They have been dragged into debtor’s exams and asked completely inappropriate questions. These are people who barely speak English. If you have ever been on the receiving end of the abuse of legal process, it can literally kill you – I’m missing a body part because of it…
The people that NP sent a summons to were on the names of the list that DACHA provided us from checks DACHA made out in the amount of over $190,000 in the alleged improper payments to members.
DACHA made out a check for almost $20,000 to two names at that address. Those two names cashed that check for nearly $20,000.
NP summonsed thsoe two names on the DACHA check to its members to the court. Regretfully, the name on the check was the name of a young girl.
If the name on the check was wrong why did the check not get sent back to DACHA and made out to the two adults in the household. We regret that DACHA provided her name.
A process server beat on Luke’s door in the early am and Luke’s young daughter answered it and a process server thrust documents into her tiny hands.
David
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[i][quote] (A) If the deal is “pay what I say you owe, and that will be the moon and stars and every planet in between”, how is that in the best interest of a city to agree to such a preposterous deal? Getting the picture of a city’s dilemma?
1) Why is the city the only one that has the capability to start negotiations? It takes two to tango – one cannot tango alone.
2) How could you possibly know that a negotiated settlement would be in the taxpayers best interest, if you don’t know what the terms of the deal are?[/quote][/i](A) I’m not suggesting the city “agree to such a preposterous deal,” only that we try to negotiate a mutually satisfactory settlement. That would be in the interest of former DACHA-ites, Thompson and the city. I see no dilemma for the city in trying.
Are you saying there already have been unsuccessful negotiations, ones that failed because the city couldn’t get the opposition past such heaven-and-earth, “preposterous” demands?
(1) The former DACHA folks have nothing left with which they can negotiate. The Thompson side has been publicly calling for negotiations with the city for a long time. That would leave the city as the key to get negotiations underway. The city, however, has been noticeably quiet.
It sounds as though you know that the city, in fact, has been negotiating in good faith with the “preposterous” Thompson. What do you make of his claim that the city refused to show up for a court-ordered negotiation?
(2) Of course, I “don’t know what the terms of the deal are.” (You do?) Obviously, I’ve been laboring under the impression from my main source of DACHA inside news, the [u]Vanguard[/u], that no negotiations are underway. My basic assumption is that potential exists for consuming massive quantities of our tax money if we forego negotiation in favor of fighting out this mess in court.
I’m also thinking that any completed negotiation would include benefit former and present DACHA resident.
[quote]The people that NP sent a summons to were on the names of the list that DACHA provided us from checks DACHA made out in the amount of over $190,000 in the alleged improper payments to members.
DACHA made out a check for almost $20,000 to two names at that address. Those two names cashed that check for nearly $20,000.
NP summonsed thsoe two names on the DACHA check to its members to the court. Regretfully, the name on the check was the name of a young girl.
If the name on the check was wrong why did the check not get sent back to DACHA and made out to the two adults in the household. We regret that DACHA provided her name.
A process server beat on Luke’s door in the early am and Luke’s young daughter answered it and a process server thrust documents into her tiny hands. [/quote]
1) Someone would seriously argue they believe a 16 year old child actually cashed a $20,000 check? LOL
2) If one wouldn’t want this sort of thing done to one’s own daughter, why would one do it to someone else’s daughter?
3) In this case the DACHA resident’s child was served and had to appear in court – not merely accept a piece of paper on behalf of a parent absent from the doorway, if that even happened.
As I said before, actions speak louder than words/unsubstantiated allegations…
[quote]Are you saying there already have been unsuccessful negotiations, ones that failed because the city couldn’t get the opposition past such heaven-and-earth, “preposterous” demands? [/quote]
Now the picture is coming into focus…
[quote]The Thompson side has been publicly calling for negotiations with the city for a long time.[/quote]
Actions speak louder than words…
[quote]My basic assumption is that potential exists for consuming massive quantities of our tax money if we forego negotiation in favor of fighting out this mess in court.
[/quote]
Massive amounts of public funds can be expended on useless negotiations…
[quote]I’m also thinking that any completed negotiation would include benefit former and present DACHA resident.[/quote]
How? Remember the opposition considers DACHA residents “deadbeats” and worse, or so they have maliciously said in public ad nauseum. In what way is this conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation? Again, actions speak louder than words…
There was a Court Ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference set for June 10. On behalf of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation I showed up with the attorney representing TPCF prepared to enter into serious settlment discussions.
The City Attorney showed up but without her client – being the City of Davis (the City Manager or a Council member should have attended). She provided an argument to the Judge that the City chose not enter into settlement discussions.
August 28, City tells Grand Jury – settlement discussions have begun.
David
President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]”I’m also thinking that any completed negotiation would [s]include[/s] benefit former and present DACHA residents.”
[i]”How? Remember the opposition considers DACHA residents “deadbeats” and worse, or so they have maliciously said in public ad nauseum. In what way is this conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation?”[/i][/quote]We all seem to agree that the DACHA folks find themselves without power or resources (except for your substantial pro bono efforts) to wage the battle.
As long as their past actions are at issue in this dispute over the city’s role taking DACHA’s assets (but not paying off obligations), they remain in this undesirable fix.
Right now, their fate is at the mercy of the city/Thompson attorneys, but they are unable to affect either of the other two parties. I’d think a city/Thompson resolution would include agreements that would provide specific relief to DACHA-ites or, at the very least, would indirectly reduce their involvement.
How the sides have insulted each other in the past certainly could hinder negotiations. It has been a pretty nasty, unproductive, public battle for sure.
The concern of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation is the upholding of Cooperative and other laws in California, the upholding of the DACHA Articles and Bylaws and the adherence to provisions in the loan documents.
Almost all of the board and membership meetings conducted by DACHA from fall of 2005 to today (September 2011) were improper. Six years of board and membership meetings where there were never enough eligible members to achieve a legal quorum does not bode well when it comes to the law and the actions taken.
Add to this the participation of city staff in many of the meetings where the alleged illegal actions took place and you have a problem.
And then the city provides DACHA with about $200,000 of public funds for their legal defence.
Why did City staff allow all this to happen. It could all have been solved so much easier,
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]Right now, their [DACHA residents] fate is at the mercy of the city/Thompson attorneys, but they are unable to affect either of the other two parties. I’d think a city/Thompson resolution would include agreements that would provide specific relief to DACHA-ites or, at the very least, would indirectly reduce their involvement. [/quote]
Dream on… DACHA residents are caught in the middle of a fight between the City and Thompson/his organzitions, and no one seems to particularly care about the plight of these low income DACHA homeowners who were cozened into this flawed project without knowing what they were getting into, since a good deal of them speak English as a second language. Now that the whole project has fallen apart and the rot underneath has been exposed, the DACHA homeowners have been left hanging defenseless in the nearest tree, twisting in the wind, financially ruined, while the principles duke it out w each other. Do you honestly think that either side is suddenly going to “come to the rescue” of the DACHA residents?
[quote]How the sides have insulted each other in the past certainly could hinder negotiations. It has been a pretty nasty, unproductive, public battle for sure.[/quote]
Nasty on whose side? Who used the pejorative term “Deadbeats for Dollars” in public. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS…
[quote]The City Attorney showed up but without her client – being the City of Davis (the City Manager or a Council member should have attended). She provided an argument to the Judge that the City chose not enter into settlement discussions. [/quote]
The City Attorney represents the city. There is no requirement in law that the City Manager or a Council member attend such a meeting. If one side steadfastly refuses to be even remotely reasonable, there is no point in continuing settlement negotiations indefinitely, as it would cost the city a boatload of needless money in endless, fruitless, costly, unproductive wrangling over nothing of substance. At some point if the other side remains intractably unreasonable, the matter must end up before the courts and a judge.
[quote]The concern of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation is the upholding of Cooperative and other laws in California, the upholding of the DACHA Articles and Bylaws and the adherence to provisions in the loan documents.
Almost all of the board and membership meetings conducted by DACHA from fall of 2005 to today (September 2011) were improper. Six years of board and membership meetings where there were never enough eligible members to achieve a legal quorum does not bode well when it comes to the law and the actions taken.
Add to this the participation of city staff in many of the meetings where the alleged illegal actions took place and you have a problem.
And then the city provides DACHA with about $200,000 of public funds for their legal defence.
Why did City staff allow all this to happen. It could all have been solved so much easier,
[/quote]
Repeating allegations over and over again does not make them true. In regard to the two lawsuits against the city, the city’s first demurrer was sustained as to the first lawsuit – so obviously the charges were dismissed. The city’s second demurrer was sustained as to fraud, and the other charges were sustained with leave to amend – so obviously the charge of fraud was dismissed, and unless the pleadings are perfected the rest of the charges will be dismissed. The court found in DACHA’s favor with respect to one lawsuit, when it actually had a lawyer to defend it. AGAIN, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS…