Wahoo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:07 PM:Let the sparks begin! Think this will mess up the airport deal they just signed off on?

Grump wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:47 AM:AELD can go pound sand, the land belongs to the residents of Oceanside.

bye bye fly wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:03 AM:Go AELD!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:30 AM:Pretty simple. When the city does not have the right to sell land because of an agreement with the FAA, weel then the city can not sell this. This woyuld be like someone selling off another persons home.

The FAA rules the airport issue. If they say no sale then it is no sale and Oceanside gets sued for making a unlawful deal and pays damages as proven in court. Another nuisance suit initiatied by our consistently incompetent city leadership. We operate like carlsbad only slower, stupider and ignorant of learnings over the years. I love this town....

OC ASLEEP wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM:Is it true, the city made an agreement to sale the land back to the seller if improvements were not made within five years. If this was a legal agreement at the time, should it not be the same today. Why didn't the city make some kind of improvement,enough to block a resale. Would the money that will now be spent in court have been better spent on the improvements. Must be naive thinking on my part.

Yes But wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:21 AM:Yes, the City will not be able to sell the land, and it will be improved as part of the airport (sorry bye by fly), but that won't stop AELD from suing the City for a breech of contract, and they'll probably win.

It's not so much like trying to sell another persons land, as it is having a contract to sell your land to two different people at the same time. I've seen this in more regular transactions where a seller has contracts with two buyers, and the buyer that doesn't get the property can sue the pants off of the seller.

The City should have seen this coming, and in the end it's going to cost the City (i.e. taxpayers) a good chunk of change to make it go away.

FTM wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:17 AM:The city agreed to sell back the land in 5 years - and now because of the real estate crash the land is worthless.
I think the city was planning on selling it back at a profit, not a loss.
The OC company probably will win the suit, (unless the pilot's organazations want to ramp up thier political contributions machine again to buy the land themselves).
If some OC company put a high profile tax generating concern on the property and the new concern complains about the airport you can pretty much kiss your airport goodbye.

Common Sense wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:47 AM:The City Counsel Members that have historically voted against Airport improvements and ran the airport into the ground, should be held accountable for negligence. AELD should win the suite, but the Council should pay for it, not the Oceanside citizens.

Yes But wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:04 PM:The company agreed to buy the land back for what it paid, so the City couldn't have made a profit on it even if they did want to sell it back.

I would also guess the company would be paying much more than it is currently worth if they bought it back today at the same price they sold it for. So why would they want it back?

The answer is they don't. All they see is a nice, big, settlement for themselves, since the City is between a rock and a hard place. They know the city can't sell it back to them, so is by default in breech of their contract. Pretty smart of them really when you think about it.

The FAA won't allow the sale of the land, so the company CAN'T build a "high profile tax generating concern" on it. FTM is wandering the halls of his own imagination once again. The airport is going nowhere.

Speculation at best wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:16 PM:The FAA absolutely knew the terms of the deal at the time the land was purchased. Oceanside has a contract to sell the land back at the purchase price if it was not developed for airport use within five years. This latter term was known to all, especially the City Council members at the time of purchase. It the prior owner wants to buy it back let the courts decide who has the most clout; at least we are not looking at an inflated value for the land that the City must make up the difference. Really, I do not see what difference it makes how this turns out for the City other than some lost airport opportunities; and these changer weekly with the shifting City Council support for the airport anyway.

pro bono wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:37 PM:This is a great pro bono for all the lawyers in the Oceanside Airport Association. They took on the Mira Costa firing of the president for free why not to protect their precious little hobbyist airport. This is a real laugher and very ironic. The same airport group that helped buy the last two elections may have to move to a real airport like Carlsbad. Good riddance I say. Take your sullied councilmembers who voted for taking the Feds money with you. Does Kern, Feller and Chavez ring a bell airport fly babies. Take your little teenie weenie bi-planes with you to Carlsbad. You have caused enough problems in our city.

what are the damages wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:33 PM:Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages

I see the first three elements, the damages is iffy. I suppose AELD can go after specific performance and try to get the land back. This would make it a situation ripe for imminent domain. In which the price would be less than the city originally paid!!! Bizarre, I do not understand what AELD is trying to do.

To pro bono wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 PM:Let’s not forget what got us to the point of indecision regarding the 14.7 acre Deutsch Company purchase. The City Council majority shifted with the Mackin election as did the support for the airport. Had Council Member Sanchez not shifted her position on the airport during the McNeil Council election loss the airport would be well on it s way to fighting the FAA for its puny life instead of fighting over the former Deutsch property. The lack of clear and sustained City Council direction on the airport caused this mess, not Kern, Feller or Chavez.

Time to go wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:00 AM:The airport needs to go. It is an eyesore a money pit and holds up development of the property to actually bring good consistent income. Who ever is responsible for taking the FAA money should be fired for setting us up now to be sued by the same federal bureacracy. Give AELD back thier land and pay off the Feds with the money you get back from AELD. Just be done with this funky little ugly money pit and take their nasty airport group to another city.