Advertisement


Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

SunCal’s Pat Keliher Can’t Get The Job Done For Alameda Point

Action Alameda News has it on good authority, from multiple sources, that SunCal’s CEO, Bruce Elieff – personally indebted to multiple bankrupt SunCal projects to the tune of $230 million – has been in Alameda for much of the past week to try to negotiate a deal for Alameda Point.

With SunCal’s fortunes at the February 2, 2010 ballot box, for their Measure B Alameda Point initiative declining, local SunCal representative Pat Keliher, who, quite possibly illegally, promised at the January 7th League of Women Voters forum on Measure B to reimburse Alameda for the cost of the special election, should measure B pass, evidently called in the big guns from Irvine.

No word yet on the outcome of those discussions with Elieff. But the real question is – where is DE Shaw? SunCal, as evidenced by the cleanup at SunCal Oak Knoll, clearly has no money of their own, and they and their proponents repeatedly tout DE Shaw as their financial savior. Who, from DE Shaw – the deep money pockets to actually finance the development by SunCal of Alameda Point – has been at the meetings at Alameda City Hall this past week. Who? Who from DE Shaw who as the authority to write a check, has attended?

8 comments to SunCal’s Pat Keliher Can’t Get The Job Done For Alameda Point

  • barb

    What? Are you saying that SUNCAL isn’t already paying for the special election? I think SUNCAL and Kathy Moehring should have been required to put the money up front before anything was done towards holding a Special Election and making the citizens of Alameda pay for THEIR SPECIAL ELECTION. What a bunch of cr____s! (That which Nixon claimed not to be).

    If MEASURE B loses, can the City get the money back? What if MEASURE B passes, can the City get the money back? They don’t even have the courage of their profit motivated convictions to pay for an election that gives them millions of dollars in profits? This is the most disgusting thing I have heard about SUNCAL and Moehring to date. It is just morally wrong, wrong, wrong!

  • The City of Alameda is paying for the special election. At the Jan. 7th meeting, Pat Keliher volunteered that SunCal would pay for the costs of the election “if Measure B passes.” It’s illegal to offer something of value in exchange for a vote.

  • barb

    Its like that game we played when kids: Heads I win, tails you lose!

  • charlie

    Recall that in November, Mayor Johnson, Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilman Matarrese voted in favor of needlessly having an early special election in February instead of more sensibly placing the SunCal initiative on the general-election ballot in June. If someone must be blamed for the unnecessary expense of this special election, then jab those fingers at Johnson, deHaan and Matarrese.

  • Johnson, deHaan and Matarrese set the election date in accordance with election law and the advice of the City Attorney, after much deliberation, and after Tam and Gilmore suggested violating state election law by setting a June 2010 date.

    SunCal could have submitted their signatures for verification for a much earlier in 2009, for a November, 2009 election. But they didn’t, they decided to wait. Sources tell us it was because someone in the City asked them to hold off to foil the firefighters’ attempts to get their measure on the ballot.

    In any event, it’s still in violation of the law to offer something of value in return for someone’s vote.

  • charlie

    It’s my understanding that the election law you refer to is open to interpretation depending on whether one follows a loose or restrictive reading, so the City Council had to choose between A) the loose reading and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for an early election on a single issue of no real urgency, or B) the restrictive reading and placing the SunCal initiative on the general-election ballot in June. Johnson, deHaan and Matarrese sadly chose option A.

  • Not quite. They all questioned the City Attorney who was pretty clear that the law and all available interpretations of it said February. And again, SunCal sat on the initiative for months – if they wanted a November 2009 election, they should have submitted their signatures to the registrar sooner.

  • barb

    SUNCAL wanted more time, and DEHAAN, JOHNSON, and MATARRESSE had the guts to say no. If TAM and GILMORE had followed the urged “SUNCAL” interpretaion of the election code to do what SUNCAL wanted done, that would have extended the election- and any challenges thereto, past the time of the ENA, thereby extended the ENA by operation of the terms of the ENA itself. The sooner this fiasco is over the better. Why allow an entity as disingenuous as SUNCAL more time on our dollar in our town? Every moment we are stuck with them in the ENA, is a moment when we could have been doing something positive for Alameda. SUNCAL can blame no one but itself for delaying this past a November election. They knew how many signatures they had in their hands, we didn’t. I think SUNCAL was so bogged down with its financial crap going on in other cities (facing review by the Alameda County District Attorney for criminal charges for that which SUNCAL couldn’t be bothered to remedy at OAKNOLL) that it simply didn’t have the money or resources to focus on a November election. They didn’t want the lead press to be pictures of its officials entering pleas in criminal court at the same time as the election. So they had to resolve the OAKNOLL mess first. By the way, has that all been cleaned up now?

  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • https://t.co/HPqGk4LNjh ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens https://t.co/nTsVqPkP47 ,

Directories