‘Secret’ convention center deal may cost S. Tahoe $1.8 mil.
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe officials have always claimed there is no city money involved in the failed convention center project. Depending on the outcome of a lawsuit in El Dorado County Superior Court, that statement could prove to be wrong to the tune of approximately $1.8 million.
This is because on March 9, 2007, then City Manager Dave Jinkens along with the city’s outside redevelopment attorney, Stacey Sheston, signed an indemnity agreement that puts the defunct Redevelopment Agency, which is now the city because it’s the successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency – on the hook for this amount. The original indemnity was for $3 million, but the difference involved two other properties that are not part of this lawsuit.
Concrete and rebar -- it's what South Lake Tahoe locals call The Hole. Photo/LTN
Jinkens was acting as executive director of the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency at the time he signed the document. He wore two hats, as did councilmembers – they were the City Council and the board of directors for the Redevelopment Agency.
The agreement protected Placer Title Company and Stewart Title Company on loans of more than $3 million that were brokered by Z Loan & Investment and Lake Tahoe Development Company that involved three assessor’s parcels numbers.
Z Loan is considered a hard-money lender. A hard-money lender provides a “bridge loan” and is usually used when traditional financing cannot be secured. This is what Randy Lane and John Serpa, who ran Lake Tahoe Development Company, were in need of to acquire all of the property to build what was supposed to be a more than $400 million hotel-convention center project on the eastern edge of South Lake Tahoe at the state line.
Lane told Lake Tahoe News the need for this type of lender was necessary because traditional financing wasn’t possible because of what he intended to do with the property – acquire buildings and tear them down.
“A lot of [traditional loan] agreements say you won’t do anything that adversely affects their collateral,” Lane explained.
In addition to needing money to buy the properties, Lane was borrowing against the properties before he owned them.
“For the city to say that it never had any financial exposure on the project is just untrue,” attorney David Becker told Lake Tahoe News.
Bankruptcy has since left the more than 11-acre site a pile of rebar and concrete whose integrity is in question after years of exposure to the elements, with not all of the 19 parcels foreclosed on, and Owens Financial – who has the most money on the table – proposing retail along Highway 50 and nothing behind it.
According to Julie Regan at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, “The convention center permit has an approved construction schedule which is valid at least through October 2016.”
Pending lawsuit
The lawsuit that could saddle South Lake Tahoe with the $1.8 million bill involves Harry Segal and Janice Halpern-Segal suing Fidelity National Title Company.
“The Segal family is suing to prove that Randy Lane’s loan should not have been made against their property before the Segals actually sold their property to Mr. Lane. The lender (Z Loan) made their loan to Randy Lane six months prior to the Segals agreeing to sell their property to Mr. Lane,” David Becker, the Segals’ attorney, told Lake Tahoe News.
Becker was not their attorney at the time they were selling their property.
The Segals carried the paper for the sale to Lane. However, Lane and the title companies contend the Z Loan lien takes priority over the Segal lien, even though Lane did not own the property he pledged as security.
“The artificial title, made possible by the city’s indemnity, created a false appearance that Mr. Lane owned the title. Had the city properly publicized the back-door deals, somebody may have caught how risky it was for the Segals to sell their property to Mr. Lane,” Becker said.
This was at a time when Jenny Lane, Randy Lane’s daughter, worked for Stewart Title.
Dina Reed (no relation to this reporter) was Jenny Lane’s assistant when this was taking place. She is now manager of the Stateline branch of Stewart Title. She says there is nothing illegal or unethical about a client’s daughter working on her dad’s paperwork, and that multiple eyes would be on the documents.
Reed said indemnity agreements like this occur with any type of construction deals, even for a residential house.
Debbie Landerkin, manager of Placer Title, deferred all comments to her legal counsel.
Jody in Placer Title’s legal department wouldn’t provide her last name. She was more curious about how LTN obtained the document than answering questions.
“That document would not be something I could discuss with you because it is not a public document,” Jody said.
Landerkin’s signature is on supplemental joint escrow instructions involving the Segal property. So are Jinkens and Lane’s. That was signed two days prior to the indemnity agreement being signed. At that time Landerkin was dating Bruce Budman who was South Lake Tahoe’s finance director.
The city could have indemnified itself and had Lake Tahoe Development Company take the risk instead of potentially jeopardizing taxpayer money – as might be the case depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.
“Everything that could go wrong in the Segal-Lane transaction did go wrong. And it all started with the city’s indemnity,” Becker said.
South Lake Tahoe City Attorney Patrick Enright told Lake Tahoe News, “If there was a judgment against the agency, it would be a liability of the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency, not the city of South Lake Tahoe.”
What he failed to add is that the current City Council acts as that successor agency – so the city is liable.
Enright said he became aware of the lawsuit in August 2011.
A trial date for the Segal case is expected to be picked Oct. 29.
At this time it is not public how much money the Segals have received, if any, from Lane. They owned a business on land owned by a different party. The parcel was obtained by eminent domain, which was orchestrated through the city.
However, the Segals told Lake Tahoe News, “The money for our retirement was lost as well as the future financial security of our children.”
Who knew what
In 2004, when Marriott Corp. was contemplating being the convention center developer the hospitality company and the city agreed neither wanted to indemnify the project because they did not want to subject themselves to potential legal claims.
But things clearly changed three years later, but no one in power remembers or knew about that change.
Jinkens emailed Lake Tahoe News, “I do not recall the agreement specifically and because I retired in August 2010, I do not readily have access to city records. I speculate, but I am not certain by memory, that the agreement had something to do with the RDA’s use of eminent domain to acquire a few (2-4 properties??) of the 29 parcels needed for the convention center project and the requirement that of the title company to verify that the city has a right to acquire the property before the property was transferred to the developer. I am sure that before any documents were signed by city officers that the city’s then legal counsel approved their use.”
Lake Tahoe News asked the city for the documents and provided Jinkens with a route to obtain them to jog his memory. It has been more than a month and he has not gotten back to LTN for further comment.
Cathy DiCamillo was the city attorney at the time. She did not respond to Lake Tahoe News’ inquiries about the matter. But at that time Jinkens was using outside counsel, including special redevelopment attorneys. Jinkens and DiCamillo had such a rocky relationship that they required a “therapist” to help them work together so it’s possible DiCamillo did not know about the transaction. However, her job before working for the city was as an attorney in the same office as Lew Feldman – who was Randy Lane’s attorney throughout this process.
The City Council at the time was comprised of Bill Crawford, Jerry Birdwell, Ted Long, Kathay Lovell and Mike Weber. All responded to LTN except for Weber. The four who responded have no recollection or knowledge of any indemnity agreement entered into by Jinkens.
Current councilmembers – Claire Fortier, Tom Davis, Bruce Grego and Angela Swanson – did not respond to Lake Tahoe News’ questions so it is not known what they know and when they learned about it.
One question was: Why was an owner participation agreement used for this project and not a development agreement?
Councilman Hal Cole answered only that question. He wrote, “In response to your series of questions about the Chateau project I want to add the following. I was hoping Patrick Enright would fill in the blanks for you on all the legal questions as I could only answer what I had firsthand knowledge of. He did not address the OPA issue. My understanding of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) is it is a contract between a developer and a redevelopment agency that involves the sale of agency owned land. This is what we did for the gondola project. We assembled the land, made the map changes and sold the parcels. An Owner Participation Agreement is a contract between a property owner and the redevelopment agency to allow the development of property owned by the owner/developer. It was the city’s expectation that Randy [Lane] would acquire and assemble the land (new map and all) and then use redevelopment financing for the public areas (convention center space, open space and walkways).”
Cole and then City Councilman John Upton served on the committee tasked with negotiating the agreement with Lake Tahoe Development Co. They were the only two councilmembers who ever read the market study that the city hung its hat on saying a convention center was desirable, though the study doesn’t come to that conclusion.
Enright told LTN of the 2007 council, “The city or agency is not aware of when, if ever, individual board members became aware of the agreement. There is no record that the agreement was ever discussed in closed or open session by the Redevelopment Agency board of directors.”
This is why I have called for a forensic audit of the SLT finances. There are numerous transaction that deserve a criminal investigation, such as the illegal transfer of $5M City funds to cover the shortfall from the Park Ave project and the glaring failure of then Mayor Hal Cole to require a performance bond on the convention site construction. There should also be an investigation of why Mayor Cole signed the contract first, even though the contract specified Lane must sign first. (Thank you Kae for your continued service to our community with real, substantive investigative journalism.)
Let’s be sure to NOT re-elect Bruce Grego and Hal Cole!
Bigger—- They were not on the board when this took place. How does your comment apply to this article?
I AM NOT A CROOK. (TRUST ME)
Aside from the scandal, and looking forward: I think it’s a mistake to put either a simple retail front or full convention center in this location.
I would like to see the focus on 3 things for eventual development of the Hole:
1) A center for outdoor recreation/environmental education, and photography + online outdoors website development, related workshops, including research, small business incubation and innovation in these fields, and meeting centers of a size scaled down from needing full convention facilities.
This would be designed to be a unique facility that develops a well known brand name eventually, and could start small and be built up in phases if successful. It might have to be started in part with private foundation grant funding, but would eventually be self sustaining.
The center would attract people from all over to visit and/or come and stay in residency for terms of visit – including some housing facilities for visitors on site. It would be combined with extensive facilities for activities such as climbing walls, eskimo roll training pools for kayaking, skateboarding park, etc. etc. – both for visitors and locals.
Emphasis would be on expanding, studying, actively practicing, and helping put in place a more complete infrastucture to maximize the mountain and water outdoors potential of the South Shore, and cultivate and bring new recreational and environmental protection innovations to other outdoor recreational centers around Tahoe and beyond.
2. Develop a healthy cuisine and wine/craft brew center to serve this facility and the nearby resorts. Start with food courts in the new buildings and food trucks in common plaza areas, that require less investment and commitment from the vendors taking the risk. Emphasize fresh and high quality food, and be selective in an effort to make it a known center of excellent cuisine that by itself will attract visitors due to its reputation – sort of a spinoff satellite of the Bay Area’s food quality and innovations.
3. Well designed common area of park and small plazas with fountains, running water or ponds, winding sidewalks and bike trails, etc. Tie this all in with whatever positive changes may come from an eventual Loop road project if that opens Lake Tahoe Blvd. to more pedestrian traffic eventually (but not by taking out the valuable small businesses already there).
Is it economically or politically feasible? I don’t know. But it’s a nice vision.
Yes, a very nice vision but it’s up to whomever owns/buys the space as to what they’ll do of course. They’ll have to have businesses there that will recoup their expenses, but there is nothing saying Bayou’s ideas couldn’t be cost effective.
We just need it done! Has anyone heard what’s up with the lien holders and?
My what a tangled web
Hal Cole put this deal together Hmmm.
A forensic audit would be a great idea – IF you could get the City to give you the real books. The scandal & probable corruption just continues to be revealed, like peeling layers of an onion. There have been so many irregulatities with the City management over the years that not much suprises me anymore.
Not Born on the Bayou – I like the way you think! If I get elected, you are exactly the kind of person I hope to work with to revitalize this town! There are lots of great things we could bring here. I have said for years, there are many intelligent, ready to work people that have brilliant ideas. There are grants to be pursued, and if you get business people working on these ideas, you might be amazed! Thank you for the positive attitude!
Great story Kae. Thanks for your tenacity!
Oftentimes, elected officials can barely wait to erect monument plaques on new public buildings that they approved while in office.
The same should be done at the Convention Center Hole.
Not sure who would initiate the lawsuit against the City, Steve – would it be the public? I’ve heard the names of all involved for years – and none have a good reputation. It is time to file against these parties in my opinion. Until then this town will never recover from its downward spiral. SLT is evidently just as crooked as Bell, CA officials. Great story, Kae!
Excellent reporting, Kae. However, it’s a bit unfair to tar Cathy DiCamillo with no facts she had anything to do with this. Yes, she formally worked at the now defunct Feldman, Shaw & DeVore, as did I at the time, but we both left the firm long before these transactions. When we did work there, we each had our own separate legal practices. Just because we formally worked with Mr. Feldman, does not mean we worked on any of these deals. In my experience, Ms. DiCamillo always acted with the highest integrity.
On another note for investors reading – a group like the Tahoe Institute for Natural Science would make a great tenant at the Stateline hole. Their mission is to advance the natural history, conservation and ecosystem knowledge of the Tahoe region through science, education and outreach. It could be surrounded by eateries and more shops. Monterey has its aquarium and we could have our Institute showing what lives beyond the city in our region.
Deb, are your comments facts or opinion about Cathy?
Lou: I was stating my personal knowledge from working with Cathy.
Lou: Also, from my personal knowledge, we both left the firm, before the events noted in this article occurred.
Deb Palmer, Esq.
Excellent reporting, Kathryn. What a pleasure to realize that there’s a real newspaper in South Lake Tahoe doing real reporting instead of looking out for the interests of the “ol’ boy” network. If only you’d expand your investigative coverage to Douglas County as well.
Great reporting Kae. The saga continues with our city and its “Leaders?”. Sounds like “Payton Place” in the financial world. I think they could make a Series about our town. Really sad!!!!
So, how do we elect responsible citizens to do a good job for our city when we typically hear political rhetoric from people who are running? I guess we may have to know each candidate personally to get a good feel for what their potential may be.
Tornado, I invite you to get to know me at the Chili for Conner at the American Legion Hall on October 12th. You don’t have to pay, even though it is a fundraiser, if you just want to talk. I will also be having another “Coffee with Conner,” so watch my Facebook site, Conner for Council, for the next one. Or, I will meet you for coffee. My phone number is 544-7412. Look at my record for the past three years volunteering to be President of the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, the “little guys” chamber. I am not in anyone’s pocket, run two small businesses of my own, and have been here, working, in our town for the past 31 years.I don’t have a personal agenda and I have nothing to gain personally from being on Council, except the satisfaction of seeing my town rebuild itself and seeing my neighbors working again.
Where the Hole sits is an ideal location to offer a training ground/recreation-environmental focused center as mentioned above. The hotels near Stateline lack an easy access, attractive & user-friendly public area. The Lakeside beach feels exclusive, being only for pass holders. El Dorado Beach’s new improvements (Lakeview Commons) is a draw for the campground and nearby rentals. The Hole could provide a nice user-friendly outdoor sitting area where events like film festivals can be shown in the summer. The Rec Center pool has a cover for winter, making it useable year-round. This could be done at the Hole as well. There is a huge opportunity for the Hole to turn SLT into a destination. I hope someone steps up and makes it happen.
Mr. Jinkens was Exec. Director of the South Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and City Mgr. at the time this whole fiasco started and now when questions arise he uses the “I simply don’t recall” defense in reponse to LTN’s inquiries? I call BS on that. Anybody as experienced and as smart as he is knows exactly what their culpability is.
The Segul was not the only family and property owner greatly impacted . This shows the city knew lane and Serpa were borrowing hard money and yet they still gave them a permit to build without a final map, a performance bond or permanent financing, placing all the property owners who carried paper in a very weak and precarious positions. The city’s public private partnership for this project now sees the city claiming they have nothing to do with this and it is now just a private project, yet the threat of eminent domain was used on all the property owners by Lane with the city’s full backing.
The Hole and Loop Road issues, while contorted and contentious, ultimately provide this community with an opportunity to reinvent its’ core lodging and retail area and bring it into the 21st Century. Decades of ‘planning’ with infuriatingly slow implementation of even basic improvements like sidewalks, bike paths and efficient public transit have left us struggling to compete with more forward thinking destination resorts.
Citizens have become increasingly concerned with the downward spiral of our economy, infrastructure, lake clarity and lack of transparency in political processes. More citizen involvement in civic issues has spawned many viable ideas to move us in a positive direction.
I believe the hole and Loop Road must be dealt with simultaneously. Any Loop Road project MUST include a solid, funded plan for the hole. I also envision a mixed-use, food & lodging, entertainment, convention and educational center. Imagine a place where not only new businesses and those relocated for a community sourced and approved Hwy. 50 realignment can thrive, but also a huge, green constructed, high-tech multi-purpose building that could be configured for everything from conventions to large music events. I envision a HUGE building, much of it below ground level, built to high environmental standards…perhaps even a living roof with a geodesic dome greenhouse in a park-like setting. The inside walls would be total high-tech and could project any scene from real-time outdoor conditions to the Grand Canyon to the moon. We would have a totally unique venue, very versatile in what type of event could be hosted and no one would loose any sleep over a thumping music event or raucous reunion event. If we ever hope to reinvent our economy while protecting our environment, we have THINK BIG to have any chance of catching up with and surpassing other destination resorts that are currently out-competing us in attracting the 21st century visitor.
As has been pointed out in several other articles, many (if not most) of the aging lodging properties surrounding Stateline are running well below occupancy rates necessary to make them financially sustainable. Even if they had or could borrow the money, those owners are rightfully hesitant to upgrade their properties due to the many uncertainties in the general and local economy, a complicated permitting system and a lack of a clear plan for the area. It would be easy to identify the poorest performing properties and offer the owners fair compensation for their property. I would suggest that a percentage of those owners would like to retire or move on and would welcome a buy-out. Properties that are financially viable could be offered space in the hole area where they would become part of a new, green built center for lodging, food, entertainment, education, recreation and conventions.
So how do we get consensus on how to proceed with such an audacious plan? To come up with al plan for the Loop Road, I’ve recently suggested that we should combine an aerial photo of that area with all the traffic, TOT, police calls and any other pertinent data available and feed it to a computer with a CAD program which could combine all that information to generate a design that would most effectively achieve the objective….a revitalized, green, walkable, bikeable, transit served core zone with desirable lodging properties. This takes all the politics and nimbyism out of the equation as it would be purely data driven. Then we could debate the merits of that plan along with any others that have been put forward. Let’s get these community-sourced ideas out there, roll up our sleeves and git ‘er done!
Dont kid yourself. Every “Board member (ie. City Council member)” knew. There was a complete lack of due diligence.
What Mr. Cole fails to mention, is that EVERY development project also ALWAYS has a performance bond (especially one of this magnitude!)–which Mr. Lane could not secure. The City opted to move forward without one, putting at risk the Segal’s and every other small business owner that became caught up in this fiasco.
Mr. Enright’s comment about it being unclear what the Board knew… dont believe it. In fact, Jenkins and the former Finance Director commenced their campaign against me as City Attorney (supported by Cole, Grego, and Lovell) when I refused to sign off on their reports to the City Council behind the scenes and in hearings, that this deal had “no financial risk” (as to later proposed bridge financing) to the City. It wasnt and isnt true. The City’s O’Rourke-created-current-Council-endorsed spin on this project as merely a “failed development project” rather than a resounding municipal failure… lack of due diligence, failure of oversight, and officials-in-entirely-over-their-heads, is flatly untrue and likely unethical. But ethics werent the biggest priority of these three council people, Mr. Jenkins, or the former finance director, whose name I thankfully forget. As a result of irresponsible government behavior, many people have lost everything they worked for their whole lives. Terribly sad all around. Apologies by these Council people would be far more appropriate than false disclaimers of all liability.
This article is incorrect in terms of the City’s liability regarding any debt of the redevelopment agency (now the Successor Agency). The separation between a City and a Successor (redevelopment) Agency is clearly defined and upheld by many cases in the courts and upheld further as a result of the dissolution of the redevelopment agency.
When AB x1 26 was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov Brown, (that is the law that dissolved redevelopment agencies) it clearly defined the obligations of redevelopment agencies as solely the obligations of the (former) RDAs and now the Successor Agency. Debts of the Successor Agencies are not debts of the City. AB x1 26 was recently amended by AB 1484, which did not alter or reassign the liability.
In fact, Section 34173(g) of AB X1 26 and AB 1484 provides as follows, “A successor agency is a separate public entity from the public agency that provides for its governance and the two entities shall not merge. The liabilities of the former redevelopment agency shall NOT be transferred to the sponsoring entity and the assets shall not become assets of the sponsoring entity. A successor agency has its own name, can be sued and can sue. All litigation involving a redevelopment agency shall automatically be transferred to the successor agency.”
This is an important distinction and clarification because as the state moved to dissolve the agencies, the subsequent lawsuits argued those basic points, namely, “what if the state dissolves the RDA? Who, what agency, what entity, is responsible to pay the debts and obligations redevelopment agency?”
In upholding the state’s decisions to dissolve RDA, the California Supreme Court relied on the very clearly defined separation of powers and authorities between RDAs and their sponsoring agencies (in this case, the City) and reaffirmed the section cited above – that is, that debts, obligations and even judgments from a lawsuit to which a redevelopment is named as responsible party, will be a debt of the redevelopment’s Successor Agency, not the City.
We already see this in practice today as the City’s RDA has been dissolved and the debts of the RDA are placed on a document called the “Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule ROPS).” Payments for those debts are then approved by the Successor Agency, and submitted to Oversight Board for approval and finally to the California Department of Finance(DOF), State Controller’s office and County Auditor for approval and review for conformance and compliance with the law (AB x1 26 & AB 1484). All those agencies have to approve the obligations (debts) of the RDA and pay those obligations out of Tax Increment collected in the project areas.
The debt obligations of the (former) RDAs are clearly now the responsibility of the Successor Agencies. The CA Supreme Court also upheld those portions of AB x1 26 and AB 1484 that specify even when Successor Agencies don’t have sufficient Tax Increment (property tax) to pay the debt of the former RDA, that the County Auditor or DOF will have to loan to the Successor Agencies the funds to ensure the bond obligations are paid. There is nothing in the laws that would transfer a debt of a Successor Agency to a sponsoring agency (the City).
Also, if any of the obligations of the RDA were able to be reassigned to a sponsoring agency to pay the debt (again, in this case, the City), not only is that NOT legal under AB x1 26 & AB 1484 as I have described, if it were legal it would have been done immediately to absolve the successor agencies of the debts they now have to pay, which in turn would have given additional property taxes to the other agencies.
The laws regarding redevelopment and the dissolution of the agencies have been complex and change frequently. I hope this post makes the liability portion more clear, but it’s not intended to explain everything related to this complicated subject.
~Nancy Kerry
530-542-6043 (City Office’s phone)
Strange most indemnity agreements and title insurance require prompt notice to the Indemnifying party or insurer.
Judge Bailey took a year or more and still didn’t issue a summary judgment. Now the issue has to go to trial. The title companies have been paying for attorneys all this time.
You would think the title company would have tried to enforce the indemnity agreement by now if for no other reason but to keep their obligation to notice from voiding the agreement.
If the title companies did send notice on the indemnity agreement someone at the City has kept it secret.
The city council should agendize this and ask the city attorney to bring the paperwork forward at the next meeting. If the paperwork supports the story above, they should make a motion to ask the state attorney general to get involved. With this kind of monetary risk and possible misbehavior by an appointed city official, we must get to the bottom of this as soon as possible.
Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than smart.
Who could have ever foreseen the takeover of the redevelopment projects by the state?
Back to the Hole,
can volunteers go in and temporarily bury it? It would at least be open space and not an eyesore dragging the city down.
Hey Nancy, Thanks for the effort put into that response to K. Reed’s investigative journalism but you had me at “Debts of the Successor Agencies are not debts of the City.” I hope you’re correct about that and can prove it. It’s time we get this nightmare behind us so new ideas that citizens like Tom W., Bob, Not Born on the Bayou and others have can be discussed. I don’t think we can move forward until we get this legal stuff resolved and behind us, right now we’re stuck in “goin’ nowhere”, who wants to invest in such a gobblygooked mess?
Surprise, surpise, surprise as Gomer Pyle (Jim Nabors) from Andy Of Mayberry used to say. The city council of SLT was involved with the rip off known as re-development. Gee, no shock there!
Emininent domain forcing people out of their homes and business, shady dealings between title companies and to top it off, the developer taking loans out against property he did not have title to. Then Mr. Lane just bails out on the whole thing leaving SLT holding the bag.
So now we are left with a hole and possibly a huge debt.My suggestion? Bulldoze the foundation , fill in the hole with dirt and build an amphitheater like Hawkins at Bartley Ranch in Reno. Great place for music, plays, and all kinds of stuff. Come winter have the city of SLT or Caltrans dump some snow there to make a small sled hill. A few picnic tables and BBQ’S and we are good to go.
Just a few thoughts , Old Long Skiis
Sooo, has anyone noticed that the “redeveloped” property, right across the street from our hole in the ground is going
to trustee sale for a whopping $60 million . I suggest that
we bring Terry Trupp back to town, if he is still alive, and make him mayor. Then let him start a large “grow” operation in the hole and sell it onsite. Hell, if we can’t even
let Mike open a Gentleman’s club, our town doomed to the redundancy of people moving here from a failed past, failing again, and then moving on to some other town.
Wasn’t Cathy DiCamillo the City Attorney when the project began? I think if a suit is filed every EMAIL that ever went out or came in needs to be subpoenaed. Those computers belong to the public and are not private property. They never go away, or so I’ve heard.
Wow! First off, hats off to Kae for a first rate investigative story. Second, I like what I see/hear from people. There are a lot of bright minded folks in this town! Great ideas coming forth and that’s a good start. Third, all those involved in this fiasco should be held fully accountable and should not be part of our city council or government. This means voting out incumbents who were a part of this. Lastly, maybe we as a city and community can now get together in making sweet lemonade.
How long will it take this community that certain lawyers and law firms receive money on the front and back end. The amount of corruption that is going on here is disgusting. I had hired Feldman, Shaw and Mclaughlin for my dissolution of marriage. 40,000 I paid on a loan. I showed Mr Shaw several documents with inside trading and forged signatures. Funny Stewert title and Fidelity where all on my recordings. It is my understanding that a officer of the court as an obligation to uphold the law not break it. I am disappointed in El Dorado county dealing with legal matters. I think transparancy needs to be addressed here. On another note both Fidelity and Stewert title falls under Corelogic bussiness. If you look at the proxy report under 2007, you will see that certain tax breaks took place during the mergers of these title companies. These all took place before the collapes of the market. Stock holders made alot of money during these time. I have done extensive research on these companies and would be happy to submit anything I have. I have lost my world to these law breaking attorneys who care about one thing……Money and power
Deb, Thanks for the response but your personal knowledge is not the same as facts about issues such as this.
My Wife and I use to love flying out to S.Lake Tahoe from N.C. To ski and snowboard. We loved Heavenly! But since the idiots in charge allowed this terrible destruction of wonderful little quaint places to stay and eat, we’ll never be back! I hope the town officials who are responsible for this mess ALL GO TO JAIL !