Rancho Santa Fe attorney wins $1.99 million settlement from city for clients

By Joe Tash

Rancho Santa Fe attorney Steven McKinley has won a $1.99 million settlement for his clients, who alleged in a lawsuit that the city of San Diego’s redevelopment agency acted improperly when it sought to obtain their downtown property.

The settlement, which was finalized July 24 when signed by Mayor Bob Filner, ends a legal saga dating back to 2004.  At that time, the San Diego Redevelopment Agency — which is now dissolved — told La Jollans Chris and Margaret LaFornara that it wanted to buy their property at 14th Street and Market in the East Village, as part of a project to build a mixed-use residential and commercial development over a full city block.

Rather than pursue the acquisition, however, the redevelopment agency put its efforts on hold for about five years, leaving a cloud over the property and preventing the LaFornaras from selling to anyone else, said McKinley.  In 2011, the LaFornaras lost the property to foreclosure, and the redevelopment agency then bought the property from the bank at a reduced price, McKinley said.

“So they never took my client’s property.  They negotiated with my client in bad faith and kept him strung out for six years until he lost the property to foreclosure,” McKinley said.

The two-phase trial began last December before Superior Court Judge William Nevitt.  In March, Nevitt issued a tentative ruling siding with the LaFornaras.

In a tentative ruling, Nevitt wrote that the redevelopment agency’s behavior “constitutes coercive precondemnation tactics and unreasonable precondemnation conduct.”

A second phase of the trial to determine damages to be paid to the plaintiffs was set for this October, but instead, the city and the LaFornaras agreed to the $1.99 million settlement, McKinley said.  Of that amount, $647,000 is for attorney fees.

In essence, McKinley said the redevelopment agency announced it sought to acquire the LaFornaras’ property, then failed to move forward, causing the property to lose value.  One potential buyer was willing to pay $3.4 million for the property, but backed off after learning of the redevelopment agency’s plans, McKinley said.

The agency did offer the LaFornaras $1.2 million for the property in 2010, which, according to court documents, was less than its value as determined by the agency’s own appraisal.

In his written ruling, the judge said the agency had made a “lowball offer” intended to “compel or induce an agreement on the price to be paid for the subject property.”

Deputy City Attorney Carmen Brock, who oversaw the settlement for the city, declined to be interviewed for this story.  She referred a reporter’s inquiry to the office of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, which did not respond to a request for comment by press-time.

Attorney Andrew Rauch, who represented the city as outside counsel in the case, also did not respond to a request for comment.

More than 400 redevelopment agencies were established across the state in past decades.  Their job was to eliminate blight from urban areas by promoting new development.  Among their powers was to acquire private property, through negotiation or eminent domain, and then sell it to private developers for new projects.

The state of California dissolved all of the redevelopment agencies in February 2012.  Successor agencies were given the task of wrapping up their affairs, such as completing projects and paying off debts.

In San Diego’s case, the city became the successor agency, according to the redevelopment page on the city’s web site.  The city has “assumed the former agency’s assets, rights and obligations… subject to some limitations,” said the statement.

In an email, Brock stressed that the settlement will be paid from the funds of the former redevelopment agency, and not the city’s general fund.

The settlement was approved by the San Diego City Council, as well as state officials who are in charge of monitoring the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies and the state Department of Finance, said McKinley.

Under state law, redevelopment agencies received a portion of the property taxes generated through new development in redevelopment areas, called “tax increment.”  When Gov. Jerry Brown began the push to abolish redevelopment agencies, he argued that they diverted much-needed property tax revenue from other agencies, such as schools and cities.

According to McKinley, the settlement should serve as a lesson for government officials about the proper use of their powers of eminent domain.

“I just think it’s a huge vindication of property owners’ rights,” he said.  “So often, these government agencies get carried away with the enormous power they have, there’s a tendency to abuse the power.”

Related posts:

  1. Out-of-court settlement reached in injury lawsuit
  2. County wins First 5 Lawsuit
  3. Public Safety: City of San Diego Urged to Repair and Redesign Faulty Community Roadways
  4. Ag. board cuts off cooperation with Del Mar in possible environmental litigation settlement
  5. Polo Club, city hold ‘positive’ first meeting to discuss interim lease

Short URL: http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/?p=24446

Posted by Staff on Jul 30 2013. Filed under News, Rancho Santa Fe. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

2 Comments for “Rancho Santa Fe attorney wins $1.99 million settlement from city for clients”

  1. Paul G.

    So they only get (after attorney fees) 1.3 million after being screwed out of 3.4 million potential sale for property ? Seems almost a vindication of gestapo government's tactics – government got the property at some unknown 'reduced' price…presumably less than the 1.2 million they offered. This whole use of eminent domain to get a higher taxable user is BS. It used to be for tangible, general good like bridges etc that everyone benefitted from. The current interpretation of ED seems like an invitation for abuse.

    • I will start by saying I am a law clerk for the firm that handled this case. I completely agree that eminent domain gets abused, which is one of the reasons property law is such an important field these days. This type of case, however, is a vindication of property rights even if, ideally for the owner, the abuse would have never taken place. You can read a full summary of the case here http://www.mckinleylegal.com/files/72482984.pdf if you are interested. The city ended up paying the $1.99m settlement, plus about $1.2m for the property out of foreclosure, on top of attorney's fees (they hired an outside firm to litigate). All told, they ended up paying probably between 4.2 and 4.7m (I am estimating attorney's fees for this number) instead of the 3.4 they could have gotten it for or the less than $1m the owner was willing to settle for early in the case (the city really believed it could get away with it). Long story short, if every eminent domain case turned out this way, the city would be much more careful about the way it uses its power.

Leave a Reply

Facebook

Bottom Buttons 1

Bottom Buttons 2

Bottom Buttons 3

Bottom Buttons 4

Bottom Buttons 5

Bottom Buttons 6

RSS Solana Beach, Del Mar and Carmel Valley News

  • Author, illustrator to launch new children’s book at Solana Beach Library August 30, 2014
    Meet author Tonton Jim and illustrator E. Felix Lyon as they launch “Harold and the Hot Rod” (Hound’s Glenn Series Book Two) at 2 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 6, at the Solana Beach Library. There will be readings from the book, illustration demonstrations, Q & A with the author, illustrator and publisher, and refreshments and door prizes. […]
  • San Dieguito Union High School District Superintendent Rick Schmitt’s Monthly Update August 30, 2014
    On behalf of our Board of Trustees, I want to welcome you and our 12,400-plus students to the 2014-15 academic year. The start of a new school year is always exciting. We have spent the summer eagerly preparing for your student’s return on Aug. 26 and look forward to sharing new learning experiences with each of you. For parents/guardians whose students are […]
  • To your health: 5 questions to ask your new doctor August 30, 2014
    At some point, nearly everyone will need to choose a new physician, perhaps because of a change in insurance, a move to a new city, or simply a feeling that it is time to make a switch. Your relationship with your physician is perhaps one of the most important in your life, and you want a provider who is not only highly knowledgeable and experienced, but als […]

RSS La Jolla News