Powered by Max Banner Ads
CATER is in court today (in this case meaning me, with Cynthia on hand to assist me and Cory Briggs on the phone representing the Inland Oversight Committee, his firm’s own plaintiff in the case), facing an ex parte hearing on the bonds case we filed against the City of Anaheim. That is the first bonds case, as we’re preparing to file another one against this new attempt — because while some of the deficiencies in the City’s first attempt to were addressed, others were not.
The Briggs Law Firm detailed the legal reasons for our intention to file a reverse validation case on this second set of bonds — which most of you will find boring. Both in the letter below, and in Cynthia Ward’s speaking on behalf of CATER in front of an enormously hostile drummed-up crowd, we associated CATER with IOC’s arguments — but I wanted to reach out to the Council as well on a level that they would be more likely to understand. I wanted to share this with the public; now’s a good time.
July 22, 2014
Mayor and City Council
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 2nd Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Statement of Opposition to Item 27 on July 22, 2014 Agenda
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I write on behalf of the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility, or CATER, of which I am General Counsel. CATER is in receipt of a letter sent to you today by Mekaela Gladden of the Briggs Law Corporation, on behalf of the Inland Oversight Committee (“IOC”). That letter is attached below. CATER formally associates itself with IOC’s legal argument and admonitions to the City Council. That done, CATER reserves its right to take appropriate legal action regarding this new bond indenture.
CATER writes to you separately, and in a less formal tone than did Cory Briggs’s office, to ask a clear and simple question: why, rather than court further delay, lawsuits, and payment of legal costs and fees for both CATER and IOC, do you not simply put this proposed bond indenture to a public vote?
This proposed bond indenture is, in every substantive way, an act by the City of Anaheim, to take on speculative debt for the City of Anaheim, the costs of default upon which would have a massive effect on the City of Anaheim. (If Anaheim argues that it cannot be held financially responsible for a possible default by the new Joint Powers Authority, then it is presumably paying an interest premium for that increased investor risk.) We contend that, under those circumstances, Anaheim’s City Charter and the state Constitution require a vote of the public. While you disagree on that point, surely we can agree that reigning law permits such a vote. You had agendized financing Convention Center Expansion for your February 4 meeting, in time to place it on the June primary ballot, so you could have done so.
You apparently plan to blow past the deadline to place municipal measures on the November ballot (which you could do with permission from plaintiffs in another suit that you lost). Now, at an expense that should not have been necessary had you acted properly, you could still call a special election.
Judging from your July 15 meeting, at which you created the new Joint Powers Agreement, you seem committed to establishing a precedent that Anaheim’s citizens have and deserve no right or ability to closely examine and pass judgment on plans to finance future major public expenditures. This proposal, and your plan to combine the City Treasurer and Finance Director positions under the City Manager’s direct control, suggest that you are devoutly (and unnecessarily) committed to the principle that once Staff develops a plan for major investment, no one, and surely not the public, should be able to stand in its way. Putting aside the legalities for now, we ask, simply as a matter of prudent public policy: WHY?
Greg Diamond, on behalf of CATER
Attached: Letter from IOC