Laserfiche WebLink
don't get what you want from the City, sue the City. This is not a girl of public funds and he <br />urged Council to approve the sale of the property to Mr. Ciesielski. <br /> <br /> Chris Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, attorney for Jack Chestnut and Jerry Wagner, argued <br />that there is a State Constitutional provision at issue as well a section of the Code of Civil <br />Procedures about misapplication of public funds. This is not a nuisance suit and he urged <br />Council to review the issues set forth in his correspondence. He stated that the City parcel was <br />never part of the Ciesielski homestead. It had been owned by a developer at the time the City <br />decided to purchase it for a future street right of way. The history regarding Mr. Ciesielski's <br />grandmother should not be germane to this situation. He congratulated staff on modifying the <br />agreement to be an all cash sale. He said he would not try to explain the lawsuit, or ideas of how <br />the property could be used to benefit the community in a greater way. Regarding the agreement, <br />section "J" talks about other considerations for the sale such as concerns about rodents and a fire <br />hazard. That was several years ago when Mr. Ciesielski had piled a lot of firewood on the <br />property and Mr. Wagner was concerned about rodents getting into his mobilehome park and <br />possible fire hazards. There has been some concern about acrimony between neighbors and this <br />sale might somehow settle it. He did not think that was tree. With regard to the sales price, he <br />felt there would be a significant difference between the sales price and what the highest bid could <br />be, possibly $50,000 or more. He felt it was normal to have competitive bidding for property. <br />This litigation could go on for a while, possibly three years. Does the City want the same sales <br />price three years from now? <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked him if he agreed that at one time the property had been all one <br />piece? <br /> <br />Mr. Schlies agreed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked his preference was that the sale of the property go to a competitive <br />bidding process. <br /> <br />Mr. Schlies said he did prefer that and the City would get more for it. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked what Constitutional provision he had referred to. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schlies said it was California Constitution Article XVI, Section 6, prohibiting gifts of <br />public property. He acknowledged it was a somewhat vague provision, requiring a court <br />decision whether something is a gift. He believed the sale is a gift because the sales price is not <br />tested by bidding, the bidding has the potential of going significantly higher, and the actual sales <br />price set is under the appraised value. His contention is the City is selling the property for less <br />than fair market value. The City is then obligated to state other reasons for the sale and he did <br />not think emotional reasons stated by Mr. Ciesielski should be considered. Staff has stated there <br />are other basis for sale such as reducing neighborhood acrimony. He has not seen that justified <br />in case law. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico did not want the case litigated at this meeting. He appreciated Mr. Schlies' <br />comments. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 6 02/19/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />