This doctrine may soon come into play with regards to Lehman Brothers too – Lehman Brother’s Holdings is bankrupt, but Lehman ALI is not, as are not a number of other lehman subsidiaries, many of them run by the very same individuals.

In the broadest terms, one of the tenets of the alter ego doctrine is that in, say, the case of fraud, it’s the same individuals running one agency (CIC) as another (City of Alameda – e.g. City Council sits as CIC and City Council.) they are in effect one and the same.

http://www.haganlaw.com/hagan_forms/Aler_Ego_Doctrine_2007.pdf

Here’s a quote from one of the Chamber’s statements:

“Finally, the initiative has taken the unusual step of incorporating the development agreement within the initiative. This agreement retains the developer’s rights to request a revision, but only allows the city that right through a special ballot initiative.

The initiative specifies that any side agreements with the city will not be binding over its broad terms and permissions unless passed at a subsequent election, UNDERMINING THE VALUE OF ANY PROMISES TO MODIFY TERMS TO A MORE REASONABLE LEVEL OF RISK for residents and businesses. And while removing the city’s right to negotiate several aspects relating to the project, it also reduces the developer’s commitment to fiscal neutrality to an obligation to negotiate “in good faith” — an admirable goal, but a presumption often difficult and costly to disprove.”

http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5832

Clearly, the Chamber of Commerce is knnowledgeable about these issues and not biased against development, so I think this is a convincing statement.

How could this be binding?

There’s no question that the terms of the ballot measure will be binding if it passes. The development agreement is supposed to be signed within a couple of weeks after the vote, and that will definitely be binding.

Read the comment posted by Donald Mitchell re Oak Knoll (under “Four to Midnight Shift”), about SunCal’s promises vs. reality. I don’t see how an unsigned agreement can be something that we rely on. This is not a “fix”, it’s a run-around.

And again, as has been said so many times before, SunCal can DEFAULT on the DDA without losing control of Alameda Point.

I think your misrepresenting my words. Obviously the DA is a part of the initiative, but it also is a document that gets signed by the Developer and the City after the vote.

Last night, the City indicated that the are working with SunCal to come to agreement on a DDA, which will put in place some of the timing and control issues that the City has indicated they’d like to see.

The City Manager’s office has also indicated that there are discussions, as a part of the DDA, to propose amendments to the DA, as allowed in the DA, to fix issues that have been raised.

Because the initiative specifically allows these changes and because the DDA must be signed in order for SunCal to get both the land and the funding they are requesting, there is no project without them.

It seems a strange position to take: “We are concerned that the initiative doesn’t explicitly deal with X but we oppose any attempts to provide a fix for it.”

Essentially, the negotiations are working to provide more clarity on issues that the City has raised, so that voters have a clearer understanding as to what the developer will be required to provide, and with what confidence.

An example of voters being encouraged to vote for something that will be amended? Alameda’s Measure A in 1973. Chuck Corica, the Father of Measure A, said a month before the vote that he thought it was too restrictive and would need to be amended, but to vote for it in any case. The city then defined “multiple unit dwelling” not to include 2-units.

Anyway, I watched the Council meeting tonight, and the City Attorney said clearly that the initiative has to go on the ballot as it is — no surprise. I want to add also that “initiative” means the entire package, not just the first document. JKW says something above about the “development agreement” as if it were separate from the “initiative” and it isn’t — all the attachments are incorporated into the first document, so they’re all part of it.

So the development agreement can’t be revised before it goes on the ballot, or any other part of the initiative package. I’m not sure if the revisions would be in a separate document or in the DDA — the City Attorney said something about “negotiations” referring to the DDA, but I’m not sure I got that. Either way, I think blanket assurances that we now know that everything’s been “fixed” are silly, and this is where non-spin comes in: How can that be proven?

For starters, let someone come up with a comparable situation in California — voters approved a measure w/ “x” terms in it when in fact it had all been revised up front or after the fact or something? And they knew that, but they voted for it anyway fully understanding that they were actually voting for something else? How will that be explained in the voters’ pamphlet? After the Pro and Con arguments will come the asterisk?

What’s more, this is a clear acknowledgement that a process exists for amending the initiative (the whole thing, including the development agreement), once it *is* voted on. It’s almost like, “Don’t worry, we can change that!”. Start worrying. Whatever gets voted on *can* be revised, as Lauren Do pointed out, according to a process that’s totally one-sided — if the developer requests (agrees to) a revision, then the City Council can vote on it. If the developer doesn’t agree, then it requires a popular vote — the whole city has to vote on it. How can that be fair?

Not to mention good old Section 2.9 ofthe DA which says that SunCal can default on other agreements and not be in default of the DA — yet these “fixes” on the initiative will be binding?

Prove it.

Yeah, I think my previous comments answered your questions.

Neither of them can be found on the secretary of state business portal when searching for a corporation or LLC. Presumably Alameda Municipal Power therefore has a doing business as (dba) document on file with the County Clerk, to be able to work under the name “alameda municipal power.”

Is the CIC a corporation? What is it?

My point, and Barbara’s, I think, is that the statutes are controlling under normal circumstances. If the CIC defaults on a bond, and someone sues, that’s not normal. I would argue the other way – the Alameda City Council sat as the CIC and issued the debt, pushed the project through, etc. ergo, regardless of the statute, the City of Alameda owes me money.

We may soon in fact find out what happens when the CIC can’t repay bonds. The recently released state controller’s report on redevelopment agencies show that for FY 2007-2008, the CIC ran a $4 million deficit. ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/21219795/Alameda-CIC-Table-4-2007-2008-Redevelopment ) and I’m hearing that 2008-2009 and maybe 2009-2010 aren’t much better.

And getting back to your SunCal point. I know what they SAID in their press release, but just because they said it, it doesn’t make it true. (Seems to be a big problem for SunCal.)

As of today, there are no guards at Oak Knoll, no record in court documents of an order to issue the $500K, and SunCal’s spokesperson couldn’t produce any evidence to back up the press release when requested.