Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "brown act violations"

Locke assessments increased in violation of LMA’s CC&Rs and Brown Act

2012-08-23T18:46:45Z

For background information on this story, read the Locke property dispute Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

In December 2011 the Locke Management Association (LMA), a 13-member board of directors, increased all Locke building owners’ monthly assessments by 20 percent, in order to cover their projected ongoing 2012 lawsuit costs against Martha Esch for her purchase of a Locke commercial-residential combination use property in March 2011.

Esch said, “The only reason we’ve seen yet for their lawsuit is the signed statement LMA made in a letter to the seller’s attorney that said they had to notify ‘400 Chinese ancestors of their priority to purchase the Locke property.’ And since I don’t fit LMA’s preferred national origin, I get to hire a lawyer and fight their ridiculous discriminatory lawsuit. Anti-discrimination is still discrimination, and it seems that LMA is doing to me the very same thing they talk about in their guided tours about the Chinese being denied the right to own properties in Locke. Now, they want to make restitution for the 1888 Chinese Exclusion Act on my shoulders and deny me the same right to property ownership in Locke. Seems kind of ironic, doesn’t it?”

As for the 20 percent assessment increases, the LMA board raised the monthly fees in ignorance of their own time, notification, special hearing and membership voting requirements and amount of increase restrictions, violating both their own conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs), and public agency rules known as the Ralph M. Brown Act. On February 14, 2012 the board rescinded the motion, then raised the assessments right back up again on March 13, 2012, once again without giving notice to the property owners and providing a special public hearing on the matter with required 45 day notice, and without the required 51 percent approval votes. Additionally, the LMA Board disallowed Esch from addressing the board on the assessment agenda item before they took the action to raise the assessments again.

“The board’s habit of disallowing the public audience members to speak their concerns on the agenda items has been routine practice since their formation in 2005,” says Esch. “Three years ago they were warned by Lisa Kirk about their numerous Brown Act violations and they were then warned by the DA after Kirk wrote the DA a letter. The board was careful for a few meetings back in late 2009, but then they’ve slipped right back into their former routine, telling us we can’t speak to many of the issues listed on their agendas, and then they go ahead and vote and when we object, they’ve told us we have to wait until the end of the meeting and we’ll get our chance to make a three-minute public comment. Well, then it’s too late as their actioned votes already happened.” Esch continues, “And the public is not provided the email communications, agenda materials and attachments in advance of the meetings that the board members have. They seldom post their agendas in the 72 hour advance requirement and they seldom give enough of a description to understand what the agenda items are about. Another thing they do is that they go off topic and talk about other matters not listed on the agenda during their meetings. Sometimes they slip important items in without listing them on the agendas by discussing them under the Manager’s Report, because they think they don’t have to take public comments for his report.”

One such example is the Key Street Church building in Locke. At LMA meetings in February 2012, and July 2012, discussions of the pending church property sale were slipped into the meeting under the Manager’s Report, circumventing required posted agenda notifications to the public. When questioned by Esch at two separate board meetings, the LMA Secretary could not answer when she had sent out the notifications to the Interested Parties List.

The important matter of LMA’s Right of First Refusal (ROFR) policy and procedures was omitted from agenda listings and avoided in any public meeting discussions on the recent church property sale. “Once again, the LMA board has handled yet another ROFR matter differently on that property sale than the way they are handling mine. I get a lawsuit. Everyone else buying property in Locke gets a free pass to GO,” says Esch.

“The problem is that the board members refuse to sit down and read anything, so they never learn,” says Kirk who has singlehandedly educated many of the concerned townspeople as to their rights to speak at public meetings and their right to the same information and documents the board members receive.

Esch adds, “The board members don’t know their own CC&R’s and bylaws, they don’t know the different zoning uses of Locke’s four streets, they don’t know the Special Planning Area plan for Locke and they don’t care about the Brown Act. Least of their cares are the 62 residents or us few merchants you can count on one hand.”

In addition to the illegal assessment increases, the Zone 5 commercial-residential owners are being charged inconsistent rates for no explained reason. Property owners of two vacant buildings in Zone 5 are being charged the full commercial assessment rate of $120 per month while more than half the occupied store buildings in Zone 5 are being assessed at the Zone 4 residential-only rate of $60 per month. Many of the buildings on Main Street and Levee Road Zone 5 commercial-residential properties are used as residences only, and make use of their commercial store sections for dead storage instead of open shops, against Section 8.2 of LMA’s CC&Rs and the Locke Special Planning Area ordinances. Four of the other 16 historic century-old properties in Zone 5 continue to be left vacant and abandoned, and are being allowed by LMA to further fall into disrepair and the impending threat of demolition. Some of these owners are charged the Zone 4 residential assessment rate of $60 per month, while others are charged the Zone 5 commercial assessment rate of $120 per month. There is no rhyme or reason for the billing inconsistencies, and LMA offers no valid explanations when asked about the varying assessment rates. The owners receive no realized value for the monthly taxation, and there is no incentive for property owners in Zone 5 to run businesses and contribute to the vitality of Locke.

Locke commercial property owner Tony Maldonado was never told by LMA that during 2011 he was overpaying his monthly assessments at the 2010 higher rates, and received no apology or refund from them. Maldonado adds, “It’s ridiculous. Here’s a perfect example. Rancho Murietta is a private gated community with security guards, a baseball field, swimming pools and a private golf course, and they have comparable monthly assessments. And what do we have for our assessments here in Locke? We have cracked sidewalks to trip on and a building that you have to be careful when you walk by because it might fall on you.”

Another Sacramento area homeowners’ association like Rancho Murietta, also offers its homeowners a cornucopia of services and recreation activities and facilities is Sun City, and its home owners’ assessments are just $287 annually. By comparison, Locke property owners are charged more than 200 to 400 percent that rate, and get literally no services for their money. “We get broken sidewalks, rotted-out wood walkways, empty buildings, animal feces and flies, and unmaintained parks. We have no community center, no basketball or tennis court, no swimming pool, no town picnics, no nothing for us, just a group directors who are not into sharing or being friendly to us renters,” says a long-time resident in Locke who wishes to remain anonymous.

“It appears the LMA and the county government would rather see the town simply fall into further disrepair, and for the few remaining businesses in Locke to just dry up and leave town," says Diane Thomas, owner of Locke Chinese Medicine.

“The main reason Locke struggles is because there is no merchant support from the LMA or encouragement to run a business here,” says Lisa Kirk, owner of Strange Cargo, a Main Street eclectic collectibles and books shop. She adds, “Business concerns such as broken sidewalks, handicap access, signs for the town and two rude residents who chase off tourists from Levee Road are not issues that the LMA will address, even though it’s been brought up before them continuously to promote a positive business environment. I can only assume that’s why I’ve seen eleven businesses come and go since I started doing business in Locke in 2005. For seven years, I’ve been asking the board for simple things like town signage, yet instead they came out with a historic walking tour brochure and selectively excluded our active businesses from it, saying that we were residences only and not historical. They could have instead chosen to help promote us and put in that our stores are actually licensed businesses.”

Editor's note of disclosure: Article author, Martha Esch purchased a Commercial/Residential property in historic Locke, California in March 2011 and the Locke Management Association has filed a lawsuit against her, disputing she has the right to own the property and run her business. The case is pending a jury trial in Superior Court in 2013.

Disclosure: For further information regarding the ongoing Locke dispute, please contact Martha Esch at (916) 776-1000.

Locke property dispute (part 1)

2011-09-07T20:39:39Z

Public Agency Lawsuit to Seize $21,000 Home from Rightful Purchaser near Sacramento, California...

In the rustic, antique wood-built town of Locke, California, founded from 1912 to 1920s, the Locke Management Association (LMA), a thirteen (13) member board put in place in 2003 to maintain, preserve and manage the town is prioritizing its limited $60,000 operating budget to attempt to undo a recent property purchase that occurred. The buyer, Martha Esch, struck a deal to purchase one of the town’s dilapidated properties with seller, Dona LaBlanc for a $21,000 purchase price. The LMA claims both women circumvented the agency’s rules in order to complete the sale. The property was previously owned by LaBlanc’s cousin, Laura Ulewicz, who died in 2007.

A brief summary of the Town of Locke
The tiny town currently has approximately the same number of residents as it has buildings (about fifty (50)), mostly renters and a few owners. Several of the buildings are vacant. Locke is a well-kept secret and a favorite destination on weekends for in-the-know tourists, photo clubs, artists, bikers, and car clubs. It’s loaded with colorful history of its immigrant ancestors. In 1930, the U.S Census recorded 410 residents in Locke whose origins were from China and nineteen (19) other countries. There is an iconic Main Street bar called “Al the Wops” which is still in business under the same name given it in 1934, by its Italian founder, Al Adami. Al began selling his famous steaks there in 1934 and the steak tradition (among others) continues. The one-block-long town looks like an old-west movie set. In fact, Clint Eastwood and a few other silver screen actors and directors have used the town for their movie sets - most recently, “On the Road,” a soon-to-be-released big screen adaptation of Beat Generation novelist, Jack Kerouac.

Despite the occasional fame Locke enjoys, the parks and side streets go largely unmaintained, the sidewalks are in terrible disrepair, and basic fire response safeguards, such as fire extinguishers and accessible alarms are virtually non-existent. A connective sprinkler system was put on the exterior of most of the Main Street buildings in 2002, but residents have been told by fire officials that the system cannot be tested without turning the entire chain of pipes on and a building would have to be engulfed in flames before they’ll kick on automatically.

The Dispute
Regarding LMA’s quest for Esch’s property, in a March 26, 2011 letter signed by LMA’s Chairman, Clarence Chu, a statement was made: “… to enable the LMA to carry out its legal obligations to its Historic Preservation purposes. (This includes our responsibility to notify the 400 Chinese Ascendants and Descendants of Locke of their own priority to purchase the Locke property).” The “400” statement has been the only reason given by the LMA for its option to exercise its ROFR (Right of First Refusal) on the property.

LMA’s pursuit to give preference to a single ethnic group to buy the property is in probable violation of State and Federal laws. Locke Federal HUD investigators immediately began an investigation on the LMA and its parent organization, the SHRA (Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency) for the discriminatory statement made in the March 26 letter and the LMA’s policy regarding ROFR (Right of First Refusal) – a rule in LMA’s CC&R’s (Codes, Covenants & Restrictions) which allows the agency to match a bona fide offer on any property in the town or to assign the right to purchase - provided they act within 25 days of receiving notification by the seller of the offer.

LMA’s lawyer, Stephen J. Beede has an additional hurdle to convince a Superior Court Judge - that the 25 calendar days had not expired by the time they finally got around to acting - yet, it had expired by four days. Esch, an Ohio-born artist and art teacher says she, LaBlanc and Placer Title Company waited out the time period, completed the property transfer legally and has she believes she has every constitutional right to retain its ownership.

While the LMA board members voted unanimously 6-0 to exercise its ROFR (which raises the question whether the six directors in attendance who voted unanimously in favor of exercising ROFR actually constituted a majority of the 13-member board); there was no discussion of funds allocation for the purchase, hence no vote for allocation of funds from LMA’s sparse budget; additionally, there had been no closed door meeting previous to their March 8, 2011 meeting to fall back on.

Although the Buyer is not mentioned anywhere in the policies and procedures of the LMA’s CC&R’s, Attorney Beede’s lawsuit holds Esch party to the action based on the fact that she was in the audience at the March 8, 2011 meeting and sat silent, making no objection when the board members voted unanimously to exercise its ROFR on the property for which she was in escrow. Esch says she knew that they were late to vote, but it was not her responsibility to educate the board members how to count to twenty-five. She adds that if she’d said anything, she would’ve been scolded for interrupting. At many prior LMA meetings she and others have been referred to by the former Chairman disrespectfully as “invitees,” (non-property owning renters) and are told frequently not to speak to issues until their three minutes during public comment at the end of the meeting.

Esch points out the LMA has made other improprieties, such as opening their own escrow with Old Republic Title Company in Lodi, CA on the property the day before her own escrow with Placer Title closed on March 15, 2011. She believes they were trying to block Placer Title from closing her escrow. LMA opened their escrow without LaBlanc’s or her permissions or knowledge and without any public or noticed closed-door meetings for their escrow – all probable violations of the Brown Act.

The LMA, a public 504-C3 non-profit, falls under the Brown Act which is in place to ensure public transparency. The Brown Act requires public agencies to give advance public notification of its closed and open meetings, timely and adequate information on meeting agendas, summaries of meeting minutes and actions taken, and the opportunity for the public to voice their opinions on matters of discussion at meetings.

The absence of public or closed-door noticed discussion of escrow funds allocation and subsequent opening of its own escrow on the property on March 14, 2011 were done in total secrecy and may constitute a contractual tort in addition to alleged violations of the Brown Act. Several other Brown Act violations by the agency have been alleged to have occurred during and since the property was deeded to Esch on March 21, 2011. Lisa Kirk, a friend of Esch and business owner in Locke has been keeping records of the series of Brown Act violations the LMA board has made.

In early April, Esch refused to cave to the LMA lawyer’s written demand for her title and signed a HUD complaint regarding the discriminatory policies of the LMA, giving preference to a single national origin. Esch began actively rehabilitating her property to transform it into an art and music studio with residential quarters, such as the one she rented and operated since 2005 across the street.

A few weeks later, without any written or verbal complaints from the LMA that she’d done anything wrong, she was served with a second lawsuit filing from Attorney Beede - an injunctive restraining order: for trimming her trees; painting her wood siding and her propane tank brown; for removing an abandoned sign post from in front of her building; and for opening her art and music studio, an unauthorized use of the building, according to Beede. However, two weeks prior to receiving the second lawsuit filing, the county had granted Esch a business license for the location. Esch feels the restraining order Beede filed on behalf of LMA is retaliation for refusing to hand over her title and for filing the HUD complaint.

Additionally, the agency has refused to accept and record her monthly $100 assessments, which she now deposits directly to their bank account through the bank teller, despite Beede’s recent objection, and won’t acknowledge receipt of them. LMA has refused her written requests to view its recorded meeting minutes and agendas; and it has stonewalled her requests for its Historic Review subcommittee to review her building plans so she can obtain required Sacramento County building permits and proceed with having the repairs and updates done to her building.

Esch is represented by Sacramento Attorney Mark A. Wasser, who has filed a demurrer to Beede’s first action of demand for title to the property.

On August 17, 2011, Sacramento Superior Court reviewed Beede's additional filing for the injunctive restraining order to be placed on Esch to prevent her from further trimming of trees, painting, making necessary repairs and using her business license within the property. The injuctive hearing filing was denied by the court, due to lack of evidence that Esch had done anything wrong, countered by the evidence that Esch's attorney Mark Wasser presented which included the fact that Locke Management Association had violated one of their own CC&R's by not giving Esch any prior written or verbal notice of their complaints before filing for the injunction with the court.

The property dispute hearing is scheduled to be heard on December 22, 1011 in Sacramento Superior Court.

FURTHER INFO View online: Sacramento Bee front page article of June 28, 2011

http://www.sacbee.com keywords: Locke dispute

Continue to "Locke property dispute (part 2)"

Editor's note of disclosure: Article author, Martha Esch purchased a Commercial/Residential property in historic Locke, California in March 2011 and the Locke Management Association has filed a lawsuit against her, disputing she has the right to own the property and run her business. The case is pending a jury trial in Superior Court in 2013.

Disclosure: A friend who is adept at journalism assisted me to present my side.of this ongoing challenge the LMA has put on my shoulders. I welcome all opinions and encourage fair statements from LMA board and its attorney on this public forum.