Jack Kirkpatrick
05-02-2009, 07:42 PM
Assemblyman Hill with the likely support of Senator Yee are up to their "How to beat the system" to pay off Half Moon Bay's $18 million lawsuit to Chop Keenan! Today, Hill announced that $10 million might be provided by the "California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to help settle the lawsuit." This bank was "created in 1994 'to promote economic revitalization, enable future development, and encourage a healthy climate for jobs in California' that generally makes loans to local governments to finance the construction of infrastructure."
Does this mean that the city is going to pay for infrastructure or pay off a legal judgement? Based on the law and mission of the I-Bank, legislative members are stretching the truth; where is the "truth in lending law" for convoluting this loan into something it was not meant to be? As I understand infrastructure, it is the basic technical support for developing industry or housing such as roads, water, sewage facilities, power grids, and telecommunications....
I see creative financing being shaped by the city council that created their own problem by their failure in the 1990s from honoring their original planning commitment to Mr. Keenan. Will $10 million be moved from one or more HMB accounts to pay off an $18 million judgement and will that lost money be replaced with a $10 million loan to other HMB accounts? That doesn't sound like a loan to Chop Keenan to build an infrastructure. Yet, HMB will have a loan with interest and doubtful spending on any immediate infrastructure to the Beachwood property. This is like having paid an $18 million debt and holding another $10 million in deposits not used and paying a substantial interest for 30 years on a unused loan or something more disingenuous.
HMB, the city council and their district politicians thinks the taxpayers are suckers. It is time to keep loans as loans, settlements as settlements, and stop stripping the banking system of monies that the electorate authorized by propositions and legislating to create specialized banks that was not meant to settle a lawsuit!
It is time to let HMB go the route of bankruptcy or float a bond using a legitimate bonding source instead of circumventing the purposes of governing and financing!
Does this mean that the city is going to pay for infrastructure or pay off a legal judgement? Based on the law and mission of the I-Bank, legislative members are stretching the truth; where is the "truth in lending law" for convoluting this loan into something it was not meant to be? As I understand infrastructure, it is the basic technical support for developing industry or housing such as roads, water, sewage facilities, power grids, and telecommunications....
I see creative financing being shaped by the city council that created their own problem by their failure in the 1990s from honoring their original planning commitment to Mr. Keenan. Will $10 million be moved from one or more HMB accounts to pay off an $18 million judgement and will that lost money be replaced with a $10 million loan to other HMB accounts? That doesn't sound like a loan to Chop Keenan to build an infrastructure. Yet, HMB will have a loan with interest and doubtful spending on any immediate infrastructure to the Beachwood property. This is like having paid an $18 million debt and holding another $10 million in deposits not used and paying a substantial interest for 30 years on a unused loan or something more disingenuous.
HMB, the city council and their district politicians thinks the taxpayers are suckers. It is time to keep loans as loans, settlements as settlements, and stop stripping the banking system of monies that the electorate authorized by propositions and legislating to create specialized banks that was not meant to settle a lawsuit!
It is time to let HMB go the route of bankruptcy or float a bond using a legitimate bonding source instead of circumventing the purposes of governing and financing!