Tuesday, October 23, 2007

It'll be interesting

To see who Salzman gets to show up at the Board of Supervisors Meeting today - he's sent the call out to the Orks via the listserve. The usual suspects were already at the last one...
In a message dated 10/21/2007 11:26:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com writes:
Make a difference, show up:
What: Board of Supervisors
When: Tuesday, 9 a.m.
Where: Humboldt County Courthouse

Property owners are going to have to stand united. If they don't it is going to look like the Orks are in the majority. They want to get Palco at all costs, and do not care about the "collateral damage."

Interesting comment on Eric's post though - some of the Orks may BE the collateral damage - at least those in SoHum: ...this isn't about PALCO. It is about telling you folks (especially down in Sohum) that you will NOT be building any residential homes other than downtown any longer. What a laugh. And you guys don't even realize it... But - what about the fact that this ordinance will effectively preclude all of you in Sohum from ever buying any TPZ (and soon to be Ag land) and building a home?

Conditional use permit vs regular is the difference of thousands of dollars. Just getting it thru the planning commission is a minimum of 18 months. Doing a full EIR tens of thousands. No Eric - they are blinding you guys with your own anti-Palco hate. Look harder at the big picture and your way/quality of life.

2 comments:

  1. Another comment from Eric's post - with the text of the law:
    Anonymous said...
    Well, jeez, I'm no bankruptcy lawyer, but the letter from Palco's bankruptcy firm seems to be coming from left field. I agree completely with what i believe Eric is saying, that a letter from Palco's attorneys holds little, if any, weight for the Board of Supervisors. Note that the letter comes from their lawyers, and not from the Bankruptcy Court itself. If Palco's position were certain, or even strong, imho, they would have applied for an order from the Court to send to the County, and not simply rattled their lawyers at the Board.

    But even though I'm not an attorney, I have no trouble looking at Code sections(THE LAW) for their words and actual(or apparent) meanings. Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code does, in fact, "stay" most actions which could otherwise be brought against a debtor which has filed for protection under the Code. The Bankruptcy laws have always been strong in their language granting the Bankruptcy Courts supreme authority over legal matters concerning a bankrupt. That's why you always hear about "protection" under the bankruptcy laws. It exists as a virtual legal limbo for a bankrupt which otherwise might find itself entangled in all sorts of lawsuits. Remember, they're in bankruptcy because the company is IN TROUBLE.

    Anyway, I've copied section 362(a), which gives the general stay applicable to bankruptcy, and also pertinent sections of 362(b), exceptions to the stay provisions, particularly 362(b)(4), which appears to allow the continued operation of government actions of the sort taken last week by Humco. I also include some comments from the legislative history(Congress' expressed intentions) of this code section, which carry some weight when the courts are trying to interpret the statutory provisions. It's long and technical, but some of you out there may be lawyers and actually interested.

    Legislative history… comes from Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute website

    Section 362 (b)(4) indicates that the stay under section 362 (a)(1) does not apply to affect the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce the governmental unit’s police or regulatory power. This section is intended to be given a narrow construction in order to permit governmental units to pursue actions to protect the public health and safety and not to apply to actions by a governmental unit to protect a pecuniary interest in property of the debtor or property of the estate.


    Sections 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) show application of stay that MAY pertain to Humco. Section 362(b)4) appears to show an exception that could apply to Board action.

    Bankruptcy Code

    § 362. Automatic stay
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—

    (1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
    (2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;
    (3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate;
    (4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;
    (5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
    (6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
    (7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor; and
    (8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning a corporate debtor’s tax liability for a taxable period the bankruptcy court may determine or concerning the tax liability of a debtor who is an individual for a taxable period ending before the date of the order for relief under this title.

    b) The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or of an application under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, does not operate as a stay—
    (1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor;
    (2) under subsection (a)—
    (A) of the commencement or continuation of a civil action or proceeding—
    (i) for the establishment of paternity;
    (ii) for the establishment or modification of an order for domestic support obligations;
    (iii) concerning child custody or visitation;
    (iv) for the dissolution of a marriage, except to the extent that such proceeding seeks to determine the division of property that is property of the estate; or
    (v) regarding domestic violence;
    (B) of the collection of a domestic support obligation from property that is not property of the estate;
    (C) with respect to the withholding of income that is property of the estate or property of the debtor for payment of a domestic support obligation under a judicial or administrative order or a statute;
    (D) of the withholding, suspension, or restriction of a driver’s license, a professional or occupational license, or a recreational license, under State law, as specified in section 466(a)(16) of the Social Security Act;
    (E) of the reporting of overdue support owed by a parent to any consumer reporting agency as specified in section 466(a)(7) of the Social Security Act;
    (F) of the interception of a tax refund, as specified in sections 464 and 466(a)(3) of the Social Security Act or under an analogous State law; or
    (G) of the enforcement of a medical obligation, as specified under title IV of the Social Security Act;
    (3) under subsection (a) of this section, of any act to perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in property to the extent that the trustee’s rights and powers are subject to such perfection under section 546 (b) of this title or to the extent that such act is accomplished within the period provided under section 547 (e)(2)(A) of this title;
    (4) under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (6) of subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit or any organization exercising authority under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993, to enforce such governmental unit’s or organization’s police and regulatory power, including the enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment, obtained in an action or proceeding by the governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s or organization’s police or regulatory power;

    ReplyDelete
  2. If PL sells land, and some people built houses how is that different from the homesteaders in SoHum? What would it hurt? They'd be able to afford to build right instead of the claptrap baling wire and substandard crap that's been going on. Really, would it hurt you?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.