School district files objections to Signature case ruling
Original post made on Jul 5, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 4, 2008, 12:00 AM
on Jul 5, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I read the article and as I write this I have not gone back to research any of the points described in the article. But it seems the district is essentially arguing why it should not pay up as ruled, not arguing the case itself, except to say it is also trying to provide wiggle room for an appeal.
On the surface the points it raises regarding the logic of the ruling saying the contract is illegal and therefore it cannot be held for costs associated with the contract seem to hold water. On the other hand, common sense says that the school district did agree to enter into activities and did engage in those activities that caused the plaintiffs to incur costs, and in the end the district showed bad faith in carrying through whatever it attempted to agree to.
So, I think we have to let the legal process continue in order to figure out where this will end up.
on Jul 6, 2008 at 8:46 am
If you know the history of Signature Property in Pleasanton they have a pattern of bad faith. Signature Property had a commitment to pay for a large part of the cost to improve Vineyard Ave as one of their mitigations for the Ruby Hill community. They got out of paying it using the same bait and switch that they have now used with PUSD. The deal was set up for the road to get built through developer cooperation then after the fact Signature refused to pay their share saying no one could force them to because the city did not go through the proper bidding process. To this day they have not paid their share. This happened after or simultaneous to the school contract so the district would not have yet seen the pattern. It was all happening at the same time McKeehan was marrying our City Manager. So we had the fox guarding the hen house.
In the early days of Ruby Hill Signature got 1.5mil in park mitigation fees back from the city when McKeehan used a loophole that gave credit toward park mitigation fees if a developer built a park for their community. This was done to give developers an incentive to build more community parks. It was never anticipated that that park could be behind a gate and inaccessible to the rest of Pleasanton.
I believe that loophole has been closed but the community funded a private park in RH. Signature got the money not the homeowners.
Still no answer as to why Signature did not pay school fees for many of their houses in RH.
If the second contract is not legal does that mean the first one that it replaced still Is? Signature had a much greater obligation in the 1992 agreement which is why they wanted out of it.
Frank are you saying you think it is reasonable to continue to absorb legal costs? I genuinely don't know. Signatures win record defies all sence of right and wrong.
on Jul 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Doesn't Ruby Hill allow anyone to enter as long as you register at the gate? Or do you have to specifically be visiting a Ruby Hill resident? (BTW, not a big fan of gated communities here...)