Town Square

Post a New Topic

Mobile park owner sues city for $29 million

Original post made on Oct 16, 2009

The owner of the Vineyard Villa Mobile Home Park on Vineyard Avenue has filed a $29-million lawsuit against the city of Pleasanton after both the city's Planning Commission and City Council rejected his bid to convert the park into ownership lots.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 16, 2009, 7:39 AM

Comments (13)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Enraged
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:41 am

Our city is working hard to ensure there is affordable housing for all citizens and is protecting the rights of these homeowners. On the other side is a greedy landowner who wants to force these homeowners to buy the land under their mobile homes for six figures, surely pushing them into a hardship or homeless situation -- and he's suing the city for $29 MILLION because he thinks this damaged his "reputation?" There's a special place in hell for people who take advantage of our senior citizens and hard-working members of society.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:46 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"Councilmember Matt Sullivan stated: 'Sometimes, believe it or not, the state of California does not make laws that are in the best interest of the greatest number of people."

HAHA neither does Matt Sullivan!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:19 am

I really do not care either way but my comment is this -- those who say the Lin's should be allowed to build monster homes on the ridge line just because they own the land better not balk at letting this owner do what he wants with his land also. Works both ways.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:18 am

This lawsuit was filed within hours of Schwarzenegger vetoing Assembly Bill 566 Web Link to clarify what "survey of support" means. Both the majority of the Assembly and Senate believe that cities should be allowed to reject a conversion if the residents do not support it. Democrats voted for the bill and Republicans mainly voted against it.

Web Link

The state law in reference was put in place for resident-initiated conversions, not landowner-initiated conversions.

On Feb 25, Nava put forth a bill clarifying the existing "survey of support" language which is in state law to "survey demonstrating support of the majority of the residents of the mobilehome park."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get it right, Stacey
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Actually, I believe it was Jerry Thorne who made the comment that the attorney attributed to Matt Sullivan. Stacey - you're a well known Sullivan-basher, but at least give credit where credit's due!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Get it right is correct. Those were Jerry Thorne's comments, not Matt Sullivan's.

I guess Richard Close, the lawyer for the park owner, can't even get the city council members straight. Or maybe it is the Pleasanton Weekly trying to bash Matt Sullivan again.

From the August 18, 2009 p.7 meeting minutes, paragraph 2, on the city's website:

"Councilmember Thorne assured the applicant that his comments are not a personal affront and that he understands staff's recommendation. He said that as an elected official he is tasked with making decisions that will serve the interest of the greatest number of people in the community. Making a decision tonight about what will happen in 10 years is neither appropriate nor in those
residents' best interests. He cited this as another example of inappropriate state intervention in local planning issues and said the Council needs to stand against it without intimidation by threat of lawsuits. He explained that he is an avid protector of personal property rights but this does not benefit the majority of the community and he cannot support it at this time."

For proof, click Web Link and then click on Item 1. for the approval of the August 18, 2009 minutes.

Pleasanton Weekly, please issue a clarification or correction to your article. And check quotes before you print them. You could have checked the Pleasanton meeting minutes. That is responsible journalism. Indicating that this was Matt Sullivan's quote is not being very thorough. You could have referenced the brief, but clarified in the article that the comments originally were made by Jerry Thorne. Please make an attempt to get your quotes correct.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Yes, that does sound like Thorne and it would be highly ironic if Sullivan said it. But the quote isn't the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Stacey, the quote is paraphrased in the minutes because minutes are not word-for-word transcriptions. Look at the video of the meeting online for the exact wording of what Jerry Thorne said at around time 01:23 into the meeting and it is Thorne. Hosterman made the motion and Thorne seconded it.

The on-demand video is here Web Link and just go to the August 18, 2009 meeting and click on Video and use the bar below the screen to move the time exactly to 01:23:10 .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I'm already watching the video. Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Castlewood
on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Good for you "Get it right"! Stacey often misrepresents facts...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Oh, but it wasn't I who presented the quotation wrong. My failure was in not verifying the information for myself, which one must dig up the video in order to do. Even so, my point was that it was ironic if it were a quote from Sullivan.

Besides, where do I misrepresent facts and what proof do you have that it is "often"? Back up your accusations with evidence, especially if you want to chide me for not verifying the speaker of the quote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get it right, Stacey
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2009 at 8:00 am

It would be ironic if Sullivan made the statement? Ok - let's just make things up so that the world looks the way we want it to. Sullivan and McGovern are the only Councilmembers concerned with the general public in this town. The other three continue to throw you and everyone else under the bus to satisfy their Chamber and developer benefactors. Wake up, Stacey!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Oct 25, 2009 at 11:41 am

Stacey,

Are you an old bitty sitting around in a rocking chair? College grad with a big ego and no job? Get a life! It's obvious you don't have one.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Bandwidth and the spinning wheel: Net neutrality
By Gina Channell-Allen | 4 comments | 1,050 views

A fitting tribute to Ken Mercer
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 801 views

Lulu is back home!!!!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 565 views