CV Communities/Wildomar City Hall Win Round 3…

June 14, 2014

…OVER ALLIANCE FOR INTELLIGENT PLANNING

However, in the larger context of a 10 round boxing match-like litigation  slugfest, yesterday’s denial of the Alliance For Intelligent Planning(“Alliance”)-requested Preliminary Injunction, by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Sunshine Sykes bears little impact on the ultimate legal resolution of the underlying issue that Tract Map 25122 had expired in 2008 and the City of Wildomar’s Planning Department staff had no legal authority to extend the long-delayed, and environmentally-obsolete, tract map.

Yesterday’s hearing was required because the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) originally granted by Judge Sykes, automatically expired on June 13, 2014.

However, Judge Sykes only ruled on the issue of converting the TRO into a Preliminary Injunction, which would have continued  limitation  of the amount of dirt importation and grading at the proposed construction site at the corner of Palomar and McVicker Roads.

However, depending on how aggressively the developer initiates his grading plans, the developer runs the significant economic  risk that, should the Alliance for Intelligent Planning prevail on the underlying issue of the tract map expiration, the developer could be exposing itself to expensive remediation, such as having to remove dirt imported while the litigation ensued.

Quite naturally, the Alliance, and the concerned  Wildomar citizens it represents, would have preferred  a granting of the preliminary injunction by Judge Sykes,  but complex litigation doesn’t always run in a straight line.

What matters is the final outcome.

Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com.

The next hearing is set for July 25, 2013 , when CV Communities has an opportunity to undermine the basic premises of the original lawsuit.

Since I was the only member of the blogosphere in attendance at the hearing (and intend to be at the next hearing as well), it appears that Wildomar Magazine  will  continue to be your Internet news publication of record for Wildomar. Anything else written will be second hand hearsay information .

Advertisements

Are Wildomar Staffers And City Council Smarter Than Los Angeles….

June 8, 2014

…COUNTY’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE?

As you know, the Wildomar City Council recently agreed to facilitate a $15,000,000 bond issuance (“Conduit Financing”) through the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”), on behalf of Sycamore Academy, publicly stating that there is no potential legal exposure to the City of Wildomar, in doing so.

In a report to the entire Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Chief Executive Officer for the County of Los Angeles, dated May 27, 2008, regarding Conduit Financing Policy, the following notable quotes:

1) “We understand that borrowers may prefer  dealing with a CMFA… due to less stringent credit enhancement requirements… However, with a risk management perspective,  we believe it is the County’s best interest to work with borrowers through existing financing entities, which will give  County more protection.”

2) “In addition, existing County policy requires that the bonds be further secured by a letter of credit,  bond insurance, or some other type of credit enhancement. “

3) “Unlike  the financing authorities administered by the county and the state CMFA.”  is a  shell entity  “administered by a private contractor..”

4) “The County will not approve the financing through a “non-state” JPA (such as CMFA) …, unless the borrower obtains credit enhancement. “

5) “All of the County conduit financing policies and procedures  are intended to protect the County and your Board  from potential liability.”

6)  “In the last five years there has also been an evolution in securities litigation, with the trend in… the federal courts for extending potential liabilities against third parties who participate in failed  bond issues…  This trend increases the risk that the County could  become involved in litigation.. simply by having approved an issuance of bonds by CMFA, if the borrower is unable to meet its debt service obligations. “

 7) “The increased risk of County involvement in litigation following a borrower’s default makes the County’s policy requiring credit enhancement  all the more important .”

 8)  “In light of the heightened risk, the County should also obtain an opinion of disclosure counsel with respect to the accuracy of statements made to investors.”

Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com.

Despite their brave pronouncements, the City of Wildomar appears to be in error regarding potential liability.

Please click on the following link to read the entire six page report (doing your own due diligence), as follows: