Everybody suing everybody else over everything, same as usual

Lawsuit news! Nothing but lawsuit news!

Yeah. I think you can see why I don’t always report on every piece of lawsuit news: There’s nothing stopping anyone from filing suit for any reason, so while it’s often interesting to know what’s being challenged in court (hey, you never know what might succeed), most of it ends up being just a lot of legal fees signifying nothing, and there are more important things going on. Today’s a slow news day, though, so a perfect day to play catchup, and give you all some information for filling out your restraining order brackets.

11 comments on “Everybody suing everybody else over everything, same as usual

  1. Even though I really do think the traffic study in Sacramento’s EIR was completely bogus (it relied on data from a single May, the lightest traffic-month we have, and when’s the last time the Kings played games in May, anyway?), I viewed this lawsuit as having little chance of succeeding. The “riots” argument was, well, actually kind of insulting. This is coming from someone who thinks this project will run in the red, as nearly all of these projects do.

    It’s the June 22 lawsuit that is far more compelling.

  2. So I was talking to an attorney down here about the giant hole in the middle of downtown Sacramento that, next year, will have turned into the new Kings arena. This guy is tangentially connected to arena funding. He believes that the new arena is going to bankrupt Sacramento. He went on to say that it would have been much better to convert the quarter-billion-dollar arena costs into cash and just dump it from an airplane, from high above the city. He pointed out that that would serve the citizens of Sacramento much better than would watching a downtown basketball game, plus it would be vastly more entertaining.

  3. geoff, I think this new arena is going to result in an increase in tax revenues of exactly zero dollars. They want to make revenues off of meals, but my question is, Don’t those people eat already? How many people are going to stay in hotels after arena events? About the same as do now. What’s our hotel occupancy rate right now? Not high enough. How many people are going to park downtown? For about 120 nights/year, about an additional 4,000 — and if you apply 100% of that revenue to the arena bonds, you are way, way short.

    All I can come up with is we’ll be about $10M short, and that may be too low an estimate. It’s not a guess; it’s a rough calculation. I’m not speculating, I’m looking at revenues and expenses, and $10M is about the low end of what we’re going to lose. With a population base of 500,000, we can collectively absorb that, so “bankrupt” is probably a strong word. However, we’ll have to vote on something to bail us out, and the only way I’ll vote in favor of that is if the Council resigns first. When the Council begins debate on this, I will speak before them and tell them just that.

    I will vote for it; they just have to quit first.

  4. “Just so long as you didn’t convert it into quarters. That would be bad”

    Or live turkeys #WKRP

    And no-one mentioned my pending lawsuit against the Ricketts family for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I think I’m guaranteed to win as the premise is easily demonstrable, but I am assuming that I will receive compensation on par with the USFL’s judgment c1989.

    But it’s the principle that matters, right?

  5. Mike:

    I’m told Glendale just released it’s parking revenue figures for the first half of the NHL season at the silver elephant…

    Are you ready? It is $16,000. And that’s not per night, that’s total.

    Remember when the big fight over how to fund the subsidy for this team revolved around who would control the parking rights? Seems like they won’t even generate enough cash to cover the bill for the lawyer that drafted the contract…

  6. This fantasy that parking revenue is going to repay the bonds has to stop. I have a feeling that the first term sheet citing that all of the revenue to pay back the public purse would come from parking was written to give the city a smoke screen for the final deal. Every media outlet in town, from the Bee to Channel 3 to KFBK to Channel 10 to Channel 13, parrot the parking myth continuously. The final, approved, official documents are VERY clear on the matter:

    “Importantly, net parking revenues are not actually dedicated to debt service.”

    So how will the bonds be paid? The documents are also clear about that:

    “The City covenants to take such action as may be necessary to include all Rental Payments in its annual budgets for the City’s General Fund and to make necessary annual appropriations for all such Rental Payments.”

    The costs are “rental payments” because the city is leasing to a financing authority who is subleasing back to the city. The important phrase here is City’s General Fund. Note – it does not mention parking, hotel taxes, or any other specific source of revenue — JUST the city’s general fund.

  7. Not sure if that is directed at me (I assume so), but I was not talking about the parking provisions in the present contract with IceArizona (or whatever they call themselves these days, whomever is now part of the ever changing ownershp group).

    When the grammatically challenged Mr. Hulsizer was attempting to orchestrate the purchase of the franchise several years ago, one of the trial balloons floated was that the city would ‘buy back’ the parking rights from the Coyotes for an gigantic sum in order to ‘help’ Mr. Hulsizer – an arbitrage specialist – to pay for the encumbered asset. The problem with that particular plan, as I recall, was that the franchise didn’t own the parking rights, the city did.

  8. … and of course, that it was unlikely that hockey fans who refused to pay more than $12 for hockey tickets would willingly pay $25 to park at the arena at which the tickets will be used… but by now, we are some way off the original topic.

    Back to lawsuits…. the NHL appears to have failed in it’s bid to hang the cost of running the Coyotes (after they chose to buy the club back through bankruptcy) on their former owner (Moyes).

    I believe the city also abandoned it’s plan to sue the Goldwater Institute for damage they claim the group did to the city via their democratic opposition to a near-bankrupt city paying hundreds of millions of (tax) dollars to multimillionaires to operate a hockey club rent free in a building that the taxpayers also built for them.



    And finally, what I like to call the “Beasley dividend”:


  9. Another matter is repayment of the outstanding bonds on STA . It says in those documents that if the City builds a facility that competes with that arena that the tenant no longer has to make payments on the bonds. Now, I suppose the new agreement could contain clauses that supersedes this clause in the STA contract, but even if they do, that still makes the old debt unsecured. The property behind those bonds drops to a value of zero dollars.

    I think the goal here was to get the project to the point of no return so we have to keep moving forward, regardless. I understood months before the final vote that the deal was done, even though, formally, this project is not backed by parking revenues. That would not be legal. It’s backed by the general fund, and will ultimately be paid by city residents, most of whom will never enter that arena.

  10. Of course, all this litigation would be worth it if the verdicts were read out this way…
    …still waiting for the Spanish Inquisition – that NOBODY expects, Oh, bugger…