SunCal Sues Owner of Disputed 26-acre Parcel

In the on-going battle between SunCal and Disney over the former's proposal to rezone a portion of the Anaheim Resort Area to allow a 1500-unit residential housing development, OC Blog readers are well aware that Anaheim Council Members Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez, and Lucille Kring have sided with SunCal.

While most readers also know that Democrat Galloway's motivation is the 15% of proposed units set aside for lower income workers, ostensibly those working in the Resort, Republican Council Members Kring and Hernandez have hung their support on "property rights" for Dudley Franks, who owns the land in question, and SunCal, which has an option to purchase the land if they can get the land entitled for the residential development. Members of SunCal's political team have picked up the "property rights" mantra, arguing vociferously on this blog and in other forums that the issue is "all about property rights." In pursuing this argument, they have figuratively trotted out Dudley Franks as the victim of Disney aggression.

But what happens to the property rights argument if the property owner and the developer part ways? We will find out soon enough, as a lawsuit filed last week pits SunCal against Franks. A copy of that lawsuit can be viewed here: Download sccv_frankfamilypartnershipetal_complaint.pdf

Reading the lawsuit, we find that SunCal has had an option on the property since April of 2005, and that after five extensions Dudley Franks, the property owner and the person who actually has "property rights," chose not to grant SunCal another extension when the current option expired on October 1, 2007.

Thus, SunCal has no property rights and no longer even has an option to purchase the land in question. If property rights are your cause, they now reside solely with Dudley Franks.

It is rumored that Franks has since started negotiations with another developer whose project would be compatible with the existing Resort Zoning that allows hotels and retail usage.

Clearly, the Franks family is the holder of property rights here, and they have tired of waiting for SunCal in its fight against intense community opposition to its proposed zoning-change scheme. While SunCal argues in its lawsuit that Franks was obligated to extend the option again to December 21, any rational person should understand that an extension to December would be pointless, since the matter would not be resolved until votes on the SOAR initiative and referendum next June. This smacks of a desperation move by SunCal.

The big question is: what now for those defenders of property rights, Lucille Kring and Bob Hernandez? Will they abandon their stated principles and advance a new argument for SunCal, or continue to defend property rights and, thus, Dudley Franks?

We should find out soon enough if cries of "property rights, property rights!" were a hollow argument for Kring and Hernandez, or a true philosophical belief.

Comments

[Anaheim H.O.M.E.]

The new "developer" to purchase the Franks property is DISNEY.

They used a similar ruse to purchase the strawberry field from the Japanese family.

[Jubal]

Frustrated Republican needs to learn the difference between property rights and a contractual dispute.

[Come on!]

This story wreaks of political spin. You should have started it with "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE". When Jubal writes about this topic, he includes a disclaimer that he consults for SunCal. Where's your disclaimer that you consult with, work for or are a scribe for Team Disney? Just asking..

[STANISBACK]

Suncal backed out on a huge development in Bakersfield with two large homebuilders citing the lack of water availability and then days later starts up its homebuilding unit to compete with the same home building companies that they walked away from. Now they are suing a landowner, because he has contractual right not to extend an option for Suncal to buy his land. The LA Times also mentions that Suncal neglected to pay the fee to extend the option to buy the land. I doubt if Disney is going to buy this land as Anaheim H.O.M.E. suggests. If it had not been for the interference of Anaheim H.O.M.E., we would have Epcot West sitting where DCA is today. The recent actions of Suncal show that Suncal is not a developer that you can trust or should do business with. We will eventually find out who is in negotiations with the Frank Family and my guess is that it is a developer who will put in hotels on that site that will bring in the necessary income to support the additional police that are needed in Anaheim. If you don't already know, Anaheim has the lowest ratio of police per capita than any city in the nation of 300,000 or more people and considering that on some days of the year thre can be more than a million people in the city, the size of our police force (sworn officers) is nothing short of incompetance by our city council who would rather put housing where it does not belong and will never generate the revenues to hire more police officers.

[Euclidman]

After Frustrated Republicans post, I was surprised to learn that property rights includes the right to breach a contract. The writer must have attended the Disney School of Law.

Perhaps the writer could tell us how the SOAR initiative protects the property rights he/she is so concerned about?

As for Kring, Hernandez and Galloway, they demonstrate their support for property rights by opposing the SOAR initiative.

[David Michael]

Interesting comment in the AP story just released

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7332100?nclick_check=1

>>"The Frank Family Partnership is apparently blowing off a $46 million deal," claimed SunCal attorney Skip Miller. "We're a very good buyer. We have zoning approval and we're anticipating project approval. But all of a sudden, they just walk away?"

Attorneys for the partnership said it was SunCal that turned its back on the deal, signed in April 2005, by failing to pay $500,000 to extend a deadline to purchase the land.

"We were absolutely stunned," said Ed Connor, attorney for the partnership. <<

Based on what the Frank Family Lawyer said, it was SunCal who failed to make the payment and broke the deal.

And that is what the legal system is for, to decide who broke the deal.

[Anaheim H.O.M.E.]

"Interference of Anaheim H.O.M.E."???

Epcot West was a Bait and Switch by Disney to obtain $500 million of our tax money.

Anaheim H.O.M.E. exposed the Disney Bait and Switch operation from day one.

[Karl Rove]

It seems to me that if SunCal really wants the land, and is certain that their project will eventually move forward, then all they really have to do is amend the agreement to close escrow in the current status and it is a done deal.

Now if SunCal were to offer that to the Frank Family, would they turn it down?

Maybe Master Jubal can shed some light?

[David Michael]

By the way, for those who are interested, CSUF is hosting a public forum on the issue this Thursday night, starting at 6:45 PM.

Here are the details....

http://campusapps.fullerton.edu/news/2007/63_realestate.html

[STANISBACK]

Anyone notice that the LA Times article says that Suncal says that they have already invested $10 Million in the , $5 Million of which went to lobbying? I can guess that $5 Million went to the Frank Family for extending the option 8 times, but where did the other $5 Million go? We can assume some went to advertising and to hastle the SOAR folks, but hey, $4 Million or more went someplace else. Anyone want to throw out a guess? Maybe Jubal would like to comment as he always seems to be making comments about how much SOAR has spent to keep housing out of the resort zone.

[Westsider]

This is shedding bright new light on this simmering issue.

The more I read about SunCal and their tactics and actions in the last 18 months, the more shifty they appear to be.

Where is Jubal to give us the SunCal side of this latest chapter? I'd be interested to read his take on this one.

[colony rabble]

The Frank family has been more than patient while SunCal turned the City against them and three Council members! It is time for SunCal to put up or shut up, either close escrow or go home! I would prefer they go home, they have brought nothing but grief to my beloved City. I look forward to Thursday night at CSUF, Lorri Galloway has a lot of explaining to do!

I dont see how Suncal can benefit from this project anyway? I mean the price of housing has droppped significantly and the legal costs associated with persuing this issue are bound to take a major chunk out of the profits from this project. With so many housing projects cancelled, stopped, or sold off at fire sale prices, I just dont see the benefit to Suncal by persuing this item. Just an observation not an opinion.

[Westsider]

All of the recent actions and formal public communication from SunCal recently gives the appearance that SunCal is trying to find a way out of this mess.

SunCal has to understand that they are doomed. They picked the wrong fight with the wrong organization in the wrong city at the wrong time. Now they are trying to find a way out without the public seeing them wipe the egg off their face on their way out of town.

At least that is what all of this looks like, and all of the statements from SunCal appear to be trying to do. If that is incorrect, this would be the time for SunCal to step up and buy the property outright and stop stringing the Frank family along with escrow extension after extension.

[redperegrine]

I doubt if SunCal has any of the sense of shame that you are describing, Westsider. That would be out of character. It's all about money.

It's ironic (and yes, sad) that Frank now knows who he's dealing with - after shilling for them on the property rights smoke screen.

[colony rabble]

I am really surprised that none of this came up during last night's debate at CSUF. (Todd Ament is a rock star, and Lorri did even worse than I expected) the whole debate kept pounding on compromises for this parcel, and nobody addressed the fact that SunCal is out of the picture now. Rather confusing, but the issue still needed to be discussed, as there are other parcels in play that could be converted to residential uses, and we will have to battle this out again. Dudley Frank is not the only landowner looking for a sale.

Now that even SunCal's allies see what they are all about, perhaps those in power can make it clear that SunCal is not welcome in Anaheim in the future. Have they EVER produced something for our City that was not disruptive?

[David Michael]

Interesting detail over at the OC Register Blog...

http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/

>>A buyer is in negotiations to purchase the plot where SunCal proposed to build homes in the Anaheim Resort.

Attorney Ed Connor, who represents the property owner, declined to say who the potential buyer is. But he insisted that the buyer is not Disney. And the buyer plans to develop the plot with a tourist use, as it was originally intended.

Just last week, SunCal filed a lawsuit against the property owner, Frank Family Partnership, over a breach of contract. But Connor said SunCal walked out on the purchase when it failed to pay $500,000 to extend the contract.

A default notice was sent Oct. 4, and the partnership began negotiations with a new buyer shortly after. Connor said news of a deal could come within the week.

The 26-acre plot, where mostly mobile homes sit, has been at the heart of a long-standing debate whether housing should be allowed in the resort tourist zone. Disney launched a campaign to fight SunCal’s proposed development, filing a lawsuit and spearheading two ballot measures.<<

[STANISBACK]

Well Anaheim H.O.M.E., looks like another of your Disney conspiracy theories have been put to rest. Disney has never had an interest in owning the Frank Family property and they have now confirmed that Disney is not negotiating to buy the property. Westcot would have been built had not people like you been so paranoid about Disney. Read David Koenigs post at
http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=mt071101dk

[the brain]

SunCal Who?

just..asking?

[pinkperegrine]

"All about the money"?

I thought David Zenger was supposed to be some kind of libertarian/conservative? And now he's castigating the evil profit motive?

What does he think Disney's motive was? Love of mankind?

Amazing how this faux-conservative Zenger never had a word to say about Disney's ballot-box zoning initiative. Maybe we can boot Zenger off the County planning commission and just have the citizens of the 4th District vote in his stead.

I can't believe Norby appointed this guy to the planning commission.

[pinkperegrine]

Now that even SunCal's allies see what they are all about, perhaps those in power can make it clear that SunCal is not welcome in Anaheim in the future.

You people amaze me. You may not like what SunCal was proposing, but they went through the proper channels and obtained a rezone the proper way. Disney has behaved like a thug throughout, and you yahoos are all cheering the owner of your company town. Lemmings.

[pinkperegrine]

Why not dispense with apperances and just make Ed Grier the Lord Mayor of Anaheim?

[David Michael]

Did SunCal do it the right way?

The original zoning commission did not approve the project, instead SunCal had to call in "favors" with the City Council and have an appeal hearing.

Was it in the rules, yes.

But on the other hand, it was also within the rules to start a referendum and gather enough signatures with 30 days to have the decision placed in front of the voters.

[redperegrine]

Pinkie, I never resented SunCal's approach or technique. In fact in one comment I recognized the fine old American tradition of land speculation.

I did question what seemed to me to be a blatant evasion of CEQA.

I never really cottoned to the notion that SunCal was a good guy, and certainly not a victim in any way. This whole kerfluffle was about who could better manipulate the local politics in Anaheim. And going up against Disney was a pretty risky speculation.

[Biff]

You people amaze me. You may not like what SunCal was proposing, but they went through the proper channels and obtained a rezone the proper way.

There have been a lot of SunCal defenders here who've taken pains to stress that SunCal's actions (going to Council for its rezoning, to ask for its ballot measure, etc.) were legal -- and I've never really doubted that they were.

But are they normal?

For the case of the average Joe Condodeveloper who's seeking to build anywhere other than the Resort District, how often does our council go over its Planning Commission and city staff in order to pave the way for Joe's nonconforming 1,500-unit development? While this is still an active matter before council, how often do individual councilmembers lend their names to political mailings, phonecalls, and public appearances on Joe's behalf? And how often does our council contemplate putting retaliatory measures, designed to help Joe and only Joe, on the ballot?

You can manifest as much fight-the-power-man, dont-let-Disney-run-things attitude as you want, but let's not willfully ignore the fact that an unremarkable developer with an unremarkable development has been able to wield an awful lot of power in this city, for reasons that have never yet become clear.