ALERT Council Hearing 3:30pm 9/1 Re: PALAMANUI: More Concerns: Testify OR watch broadcast on amaraka.tv
ViewWhat links here.Submitted by margaretwille on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:30am
The following info was sent to me by Charles Flaherty about the Palamanui Development : Please testify at 3:30 Kona, Waimea or Hiilo: (if you ask you can testify for 6 minutes -- because there are two bils #136 and 137) . If you can not attend, then watch this hearing on amaraka.tv. See also my comments in previous blog. Here are Charles Flaherty's comments:
Aloha e, With the new county council majority now in place, developers are back to their old bad habit of making promises of community benefits, getting approvals and “vested rights”, then going back to the county to remove the public’s vested rights while keeping their private vested rights to put more money in their pockets (and the pockets of their favorite consultants and politicians, of course).
This time it is the Palamanui project being developed by Charles Schwab and Hunt Development.
The developers are going before the county council’s Planning Committee tomorrow and 3:30PM at the Sheraton Keauhou with a proposal to back out of its community promises, including construction of a mauka-makai connector road required by the Kona Community Development Plan.
Note in the blog articles below that the Charles Schwab Corporation is facing a number of lawsuits, including a class-action, by investors who allege that they were deceived about the underlying risk of their investments. Schwab’s investments in toxic assets and associated losses, as well as the effect on Hunt Development of the collapsed real estate market are the most likely contributing factors to Palamanui’s request for a “bailout” from the county and our community.
E kala mai, but Palamanui needs to sink-or-swim like the taxpayers who have been forced to foot the bill for the toxic asset mess.
Please send an e-mail to the county council opposing Bill 136 and an e-mail opposing Bill 137: There may be two more hearings on these bills if they are not tabled.
genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us
bford@co.hawaii.hi.us
kgreenwell@co.hawaii.hi.us
phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us
dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us
enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us
donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us
dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us
jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us
countycounciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Sample testimony, Bill 136
Subject: Oppose Bill 136
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 136 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its existing rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to well-reasoned conditions. The Kona Community Development Plan became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 136 involves a Project District Development and represents a new rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone. It is subject to the KCDP ordinance.
Bill 136 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to review and evaluate compliance with the KCDP. Under the KCDP’s land use policies, does Bill 136 trigger the requirements of Hawai’i Revised Statutes 343 governing Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements?
The Planning Director has not provided any written evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 136 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 136 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 136, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui.
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Sample testimony, Bill 137:
Subject: Oppose Bill 137
Aloha Members of the Hawai’i County Council Planning Committee,
I am opposed to Bill 137 for the following reasons:
Palamanui was able to obtain its original rezoning from the county council in 2007 after agreeing to numerous community benefits that were protected by specific conditions. Bill 137 would remove and number of the protections to guarantee timely completion of these benefits.
Bill 137 represents a substantial change to Palamanui’s existing rezoning within the University Village Transit-Oriented Development Floating Zone and is therefore is subject to the Kona Community Development Plan ordinance. The KCDP became law last year and incorporated both private and public vested rights.
Bill 137 violates at least two of the Guiding Principles of the KCDP: Guiding Principle 6, “Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth” and Guiding Principle 8, “Promote effective governance”.
Despite these issues, the Planning Director did not submit this proposed rezoning for the KCDP Action Committee to consider and evaluate compliance with the KCDP.
The Planning Director has not provided any written formal evaluation as to whether this rezoning conforms with the KCDP ordinance. Therefore, this council cannot be reasonably assured that Bill 137 complies with the KCDP ordinance. Approval of Bill 137 by this council may be invalid.
Because of the legal questions surrounding Bill 137, it should be tabled until such time as this rezoning has been reviewed by the KCDP Action Committee and the Planning Director has provided this council with a formal evaluation and assurance of compliance with the KCDP ordinance.
The University of Hawai’i Board of Regents has contracted with Hawai’i Campus Developers to privately develop 420 acres of an adjacent 500-acre property in order to fund development of an 80-acre West Hawai’i campus. This agreement was made prior to the proposed Palamanui project and without regard to the success or failure of Palamanui..
Mahalo,
[Your name]
[Your address]
* * * * * *
Additional Information:
In October 2005, the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents announced that it had signed a deal with an Atlanta-based company, Hawai'i Campus Developers LLC, to develop an 80-acre campus in West Hawai'i on a 500-acre parcel owned by the state. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/10/21/news/story01.html
At that time, Palamanui (named Hiluhilu at that time) proposed to provide a temporary home for the Kona college, a “University Village” within its project site until a permanent facility was built by Hawai'i Campus Developers on the 500-acre state parcel.
The Legislature budgeted $18 million towards this plan.
Two years later, as part of a county zoning agreement for Palamanui, that developer committed to building a 20,000 square feet school facilities on the adjacent state property instead of within its project.
Palamanui's developer, a partnership among investment brokerage firm owner Charles Schwab, Kona contractor Guy Lam and Texas-based Hunt Development Group, also promised to provide utility infrastructure to the state's 500-acre campus parcel. The combined cost for the building and infrastructure was estimated to be $5 million and were supposed to be complete this year.
Lingle has refused to release the $18 million claiming that the money would be used on the HCC Hilo campus and not in Kona.
This has allowed Palamanui to use its promise to build the 20,000 square foot building and infrastructure on the state land as a political weapon.
This weapon was with the Leeward Planning Commission and the county administration to lessen the original public interest rezoning requirements imposed on Palamanui.
This is the same pattern-and-practice that has allowed developers in West Hawai'i to build without necessary infrastructure.
Schwab - YieldPlus Funds
Date Filed: March 18, 2008
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Northern District of California
Ticker Symbol: SCHW
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the first class-action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corporation (NASDAQ:SCHW) on March 18, 2008, alleging that Schwab deceived investors about the underlying risk in its Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (SWYPX) and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (SWYSX).
The lawsuit claims Charles Schwab and the funds' underwriter deceived investors about the underlying risk in the funds, which were sold as cash alternatives, but were in fact highly speculative and risky mortgage-related structured debt, according to the complaint.
The complaint also states that the funds' registration statements failed to include required facts about the investments - specifically that the funds have a high vulnerability of suddenly becoming illiquid and that the net asset values were highly speculative and inflated.
Since HBSS filed the first suit, many other firms filed similar class actions, and these were consolidated by the Federal Court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 3, 2008, the Honorable William H. Alsup appointed five members of the YieldPlus Investor Group to the position of lead plaintiff and instructed them to interview and choose lead counsel. On August 14, 2008, the YieldPlus Investor Group submitted their decision to the court to retain Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. On August 18, 2008, the Court approved that decision.
To participate in this lawsuit as a member of the class, investors do not need to take any action at this time. If the Court certifies the case as a class action, a notice will be sent to investors in these funds. In the meantime, we can continue to provide you with updates about this litigation if you provide us with your information by clicking here. If you have information that you would like to share that will help in the prosecution of this case, please e-mail Hagens Berman at info@hbsslaw.com.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
July 13, 2009 - UPDATE - Plaintiffs are due to file an expert report relating to their request for class certification on July 17, 2009. Fact Discovery will close on November 27, 2009 and Expert Discovery closes on January 4, 2010. Trial is currently set for May 10, 2010.
Reuters Blogs
Commentaries
Now raising intellectual capital
« Previous Post
Next Post »
12:14 June 12th, 2009
Et tu Schwab?
Post a comment (2)
Posted by: Matthew Goldstein
Tags: Commentaries, Charles Schwab, Derivatives, Lehman, Structured Notes, UBS
Discount brokerage Charles Schwab may be facing a Lehman-sized headache.
It appears some Schwab brokers were actively selling so-called structured notes–derivative-like investments–that were issued by the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. The structured notes were pitched as principal protected, meaning investors might not make a lot of money if a strategy failed, but they wouldn’t lose their initial investment either.
The only problem with the sales is pitch that the Lehman issued structured notes were guaranteed by Lehman. The notion that an investors’ prinicipal investment was 100% protected went out the window when the Wall Street firm filed for bankrupty last fall.
Lehmans’ collapse is proof that unless an investment is backed by the federal government there really is no such thing as a “100% principal protected” note. In other words, there are no free lunches for investors on Wall Street.
Seth Lipner, a New York securities lawyer, says he’s on the verge of filing an arbitration claim against Schwab on behalf of a Florida couple who purchased Lehman structured notes through Schwab. He claims Schwab “misrepresented” the risks associated with these notes. Lipner’s clients invested $60,000 in these now all-but-worthless notes. But Lipner suspects Schwab peddled Lehman notes to many other customers.
Schwab wasn’t immediately available for comment. But if they call back, I’ll update with their response.
Up until now, UBS was the biggest known seller of Lehman structured notes in the US. In fact, New Hampshire securities regulators, earlier this month, filed a cease and desist notice against UBS over the sale of Lehman structured notes. Regulators claim UBS brokers “exaggerated” the safety and security of the notes.
Structured notes, which use a derivative to give investors exposure to a wide range of asset classes, long have been a big seller in Europe and Asia. In fact, a Lehman entity in Amsterdam issued some $30 billion of these notes to overseas investors. Regulators across Europe and Asia are investigating the sale of these notes and some are agitating for reforms.
Of course, it’s a wonder why anyone needs to buy a structured note in the first place. Buying an index fund or a basket of stocks or commodities will often get an investor the same kind of asset exposure as a structured note.
All structured notes do is just give banks another way to rake in fees and dupe investors into buying something they really don’t need.
Thank you Margaret Willie for your blog info. Hopefully people will testify.
No comments:
Post a Comment