<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alameda Point Development Initiative &#8211; Public Benefits Could Cost $375 Million, SunCal Only Committed to $200 Million</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.actionalameda.org/actionalamedanewsblog/2009/11/06/alameda-point-development-initiative-public-benefits-could-cost-375-million-suncal-only-committed-to-200-million/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.actionalameda.org/actionalamedanewsblog/2009/11/06/alameda-point-development-initiative-public-benefits-could-cost-375-million-suncal-only-committed-to-200-million/</link>
	<description>See us now at www.Action-Alameda-News.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:59:52 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://www.actionalameda.org/actionalamedanewsblog/2009/11/06/alameda-point-development-initiative-public-benefits-could-cost-375-million-suncal-only-committed-to-200-million/comment-page-1/#comment-3151</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://actionalameda.org/actionalamedanewsblog/?p=2794#comment-3151</guid>
		<description>SunCal and D.E. Shaw are not &quot;committed&quot; to $200 Million.  They are committed to paying whatever they feel like paying, no more no less.

The trick in this game is that once they are granted increased densities/multifamily housing under the ballot measure, they will file vesting tentative maps, which the City will approve.  The word &quot;vesting&quot; means a property right is created, and the City cannot change it.   

As a result, even if D.E. Shaw and SunCal decide not to proceed with all of the planned public improvements, they can tell the City to go pound sand.  And when the City says &quot;Hey what about the development agreement?&quot;  D.E. Shaw, SunCal or their successors can say scr@w you, we aren&#039;t gong to perform.  They can file a fbankruptcy for their entity which owns the land, to get out of the obligations under the development agreement.   Then, either thorough a bankruptcy fire sale auction, a Chapter 11 Plan or a plain old foreclosure, someone can buy the land short nof all of the expensive promises...but with the vested right to build under the vesting tentative maps which state law says are not destroyed when a development agreement is cancelled.

Clever lobbyists for the Building Industry Association got that principle of law years ago, but its only come into play as our economy has soured.

D.E. Shaw and SunCal make no binding promises.  Vote accordingly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SunCal and D.E. Shaw are not &#8220;committed&#8221; to $200 Million.  They are committed to paying whatever they feel like paying, no more no less.</p>
<p>The trick in this game is that once they are granted increased densities/multifamily housing under the ballot measure, they will file vesting tentative maps, which the City will approve.  The word &#8220;vesting&#8221; means a property right is created, and the City cannot change it.   </p>
<p>As a result, even if D.E. Shaw and SunCal decide not to proceed with all of the planned public improvements, they can tell the City to go pound sand.  And when the City says &#8220;Hey what about the development agreement?&#8221;  D.E. Shaw, SunCal or their successors can say scr@w you, we aren&#8217;t gong to perform.  They can file a fbankruptcy for their entity which owns the land, to get out of the obligations under the development agreement.   Then, either thorough a bankruptcy fire sale auction, a Chapter 11 Plan or a plain old foreclosure, someone can buy the land short nof all of the expensive promises&#8230;but with the vested right to build under the vesting tentative maps which state law says are not destroyed when a development agreement is cancelled.</p>
<p>Clever lobbyists for the Building Industry Association got that principle of law years ago, but its only come into play as our economy has soured.</p>
<p>D.E. Shaw and SunCal make no binding promises.  Vote accordingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
