Judge stops Glendora redevelopment plans

Judge stops Glendora redevelopment plans

There are 26 comments on the San Gabriel Valley Tribune story from Jun 23, 2010, titled Judge stops Glendora redevelopment plans. In it, San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports that:

For the second time, a judge has declared that Glendora illegally tried to expand a redevelopment area.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Glendora, CA

#1 Jun 24, 2010
Some areas of Arrow Highway especially bordering Covina are somewhat blighted?

Roseland, NJ

#2 Jun 24, 2010
Have any of these judges driven down Arrow Hwy lately?
Pasadena agent

Covina, CA

#4 Jun 24, 2010
You did work for the City of Pasadena, California - your boss is looking for you right now to give you your last paycheck and PINK SLIP.

Next time read the entire Lawsuit Documents, before you open up your mind and belch all over this site.

Since it appears the Glendora, California 91741-91740 City Manager can't tell the truth to anyone let alone a newspapaer reporter June 24, 2010.

The city may have lost out on millions of redevelopment dollars through the two seperate court's decision.

Glendora spent between $350,000 and $400,000 fighting the county in court, a city liar states.

Truth is the City of Glendora will also have to PAY Los Angeles County for it's legal fees and what ever else they decide is warranted, thus Glendora could be on the hook for more than $1,000,000.00 dollars.
this sucks

United States

#6 Jun 24, 2010
Why does LA County have such jurisdiction? Come to think of it, why do we even need counties? It seems like it would be much more efficient for each city to keep it's own money and spend it the way they want to. The government tax system seems like one big

An Inconvenient Truth

Covina, CA

#7 Jun 24, 2010
He tried it in Glendora and then move on to West Covina


West Covina Council Meeting ** districting measure **
S.G.V. EXAMINER January 15 - 21, 2009 Page B7

Mark SMITH, from Glendora talked in length about districting in West Covina. Councilman Mike Touhey asked SMITH if he goes by any other name or an alias? SMITH actually refused to answer and wanted to know why the councilman was asking. Touhey felt he may have used another name and tried do the same thing in Glendora (districting). Touhey suggested a name and SMITH only stated,"Thank you" for thinking he was that person.

However, he never confirmed he was in fact really Mark SMITH. Calls to a number of people in Glendora that often attend council meetings or have interest in the city were asked if they could identify a Mark SMITH from their city. The description of being grubby and dirty looking and like he could be homeless with long hair in a pony tale and close to 50 years old fit the man (Mark SMITH) who spoke at the council meeting.He also identifies himself as Mark SMITH at Glendora Council meetings.

Covina, CA

#8 Jun 24, 2010
Look another spitting or is that dancing Glendora, California 91741-91740 City Council Supporter!

Has this supporter (who spreads lies) read June 24, 2010 SGVTribune? Page A5 - showing how the entire City Counciland Upper management staff in city hall were a bunch of CROOKS.

Glendora lost another Lawsuit!

Could they be trying to deflect responsability for their actions to someone else? No backbones can be found in any of the Glendora City Council member's.
Smith Sucks

Anaheim, CA

#9 Jun 25, 2010
As Mark slanders people here while refusing to post his name, same as when he slandered people on the Harrold board, he talks about others lacking a backbone.

You're the most gutless and frightened little coward in the city Mark.

La Puente, CA

#10 Jun 25, 2010
Will there be Grand Theft charges brought against Glendora, California 91741-91740 for stealing Los Angeles County Tax Money?

Strange how your redevelpoment friends stop taking to you when they find out Glendora lost another lawsuit and you have no more redevelopment money to give to them?

Calabasas, CA

#11 Jun 25, 2010
Only a retard would even pose the question. Oh it is, it's Marktarded asking.

La Puente, CA

#12 Jun 25, 2010
It's pretty tough to admit that your friends in Glendora, California 91741-91740 City Hall and City Council LIED to the Voting residents of Glendora, California and Los Angeles County.

Guess they couldn't bribe two HONEST JUDGES, who later ruled that Glendora was once again in the wrong.

Lying is what Glendora's City Council does best.
One through eleven

Sierra Madre, CA

#14 Jun 25, 2010
While Glendora, California 91741-91740 is used to getting it's way no matter what, this was not to be in the legal fight with Los Angeles County, Ca..

This legal wrangling started in:

Superior Court of the State of California, Central District: Case No. BC358511.

Monterey County Superior Court of the State of California: Case No. M82091.

6th Appellate Court of Appeal of the State of California: Case No. H032945.

Now this case will go back to, Monterey County Superior Court of the State of California: Case No. M82091.

For the final disposition as requested in the orginal filing requests that the Court grant to Los Angeles County, 1-11 items in the orginal Case No. BC358511.
A year before

Covina, CA

#15 Jun 28, 2010
What next Glendora, California 91741-91740 will you spend more money only to watch it wash away on a case that has been decided twice before, infact this type of case was heard and ruled on in 2005 a whole year before you decided to jump in to your own lawsuit.

If the could is correct, Glendora you have spent $4 Million Dollars on a lost cause.

Calabasas, CA

#16 Jun 28, 2010
Nothing but window dressing and nothing you post will take away from your slander on the other thread.
Lady Justice

Covina, CA

#18 Jun 28, 2010
The truth and Justice really stopped Glendora, California 91741-91740 from winning any lawsuit connected to Redevelopment Tax Money.

Infact those who spent the $1 Million Dollars and supported this hair-brain scheme should leave office right now, to save the further shame later.
Twice as loud

La Puente, CA

#19 Jun 29, 2010
If there was any truth to what Glendora, California 91741-91740 has "spewed: out a facts then of course the first Court hearing would have cleared them of any wrong doing but they lost that one, then a second bite at the apple produced the same results as the first Court hearing.

Glendora has LOST $4 Million Dollars so far, now the drunk gamblers want to try for a "Third Strike."

Shall we all wait and watch a third failure?

La Puente, CA

#22 Jul 1, 2010
Yet another example of a Glendora, California 91741-91740 in failure mode. Run by it's failed City Council and developer friends, trashed by backroom deals with developers and Athens Services.

Anyone seeing a common theme across the California, stealing tax money to create a phoney progressive cheat sheet that isn't any better that the politicans that are bought and paid for by special interests (big buck donners) not with standing Glendora's best paid and backed City Council peoples.
This is Why

Covina, CA

#23 Jan 9, 2011
The slicky politicans, housed at Glendora California city hall and political doners were given a dose of reality by California Supreme Court.

Many a politican at the local and State level were caught flatfooted with this ruling, all their big political and self interest economic plans blew away. They had used Redevelopment as a stepping stone to weld power through influence pedaling (bribes).

A lawyer who has represented opponents of redevelopment projects, argues that what may have started as a good urban improvement idea has morphed into a growing monster.

Many redevelopment areas no longer fit any reasonable definition of blighted, citing Glendora California as now the NEW poster child of greed an stupity in flaunting, abusing Redevelopment State laws.
Poster Child for invest

La Puente, CA

#24 Jan 25, 2011
Take a long look at a newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times, Tuesday 01.25.2011, pages AA1 an AA4..

Once again Glendora California has been keeping it's on the ball, not only were they slapped down in THREE court actions, trying to defend thier illegal action against Los Angeles County.

But now an investigation has been started state to find out what Glendora and others have really been doing with this money, there are laws dictating just how a cities redevelopment agency may accure and use redevelopment monies.

Glendora has already shown they were in the wrong from the beginning untill the end when the California Supreme Court ruled, NO to GLENDORA's counter lawsuit against Los Angeles County.

Bad Glendora, go sit in the corner, take your time out, you don't play nice with other's.
Sorprano s

La Puente, CA

#25 Jun 16, 2011
It's plan and simple, Glendora, California (Douglas Tessitor) broke the law concerning Redevelopment and now all the cities in California are paying for Glendora's greed! Of course what Anthony Adams tried and failed at was another blunder!

Douglas has ruined the GLCA (Gold Line Construction Authority and the city of Glendora also!

A fight broke out Wednesday on the Assembly floor as Assemblyman Warren Furutani confronted Assemblyman Don Wagner over comments deemed offensive.

The two members jawed angrily in each other's faces before Furutani appeared to give Wagner a shove, prompting several colleagues to separate them in the final minutes of Wednesday's budget session.

The two-bill proposal compels redevelopment agencies to backfill state coffers and give money to local governments under threat of elimination. Wagner, R-Irvine, testified that it was comparable to a Sopranos shakedown scheme, "The Sopranos."

That prompted Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La CaƱada Flintridge, to demand an apology for the Sopranos reference "as a proud Italian American."

Wagner retorted that he'd "apologize to any Italian Americans who are not in the Mafia and engaged in insurance scams," setting off a murmur among lawmakers.

Minutes later, Furutani and Wagner were in each other's faces and had to be broken up by three other lawmakers. The back of the Assembly chamber was soon flooded with legislative aides who came to see the commotion.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, an Italian American, also talked to Wagner about his comments. Gatto said he wasn't offended by the first Sopranos reference but that the apology was offensive.

Both redevelopment bills ultimately passed and went to Gov. Jerry Brown, who had proposed eliminating the agencies altogether.
Sorprano s

Covina, CA

#26 Jun 16, 2011
The only thing that was accomplished, deeper indebt.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

San Gabriel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maywood locos are crazy!!!!! (Nov '09) 10 hr BIG SLOPPY FLOPPY... 27
Montebello City Council Meeting NOV 30 11 hr Reality 8
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 11 hr Bruin For Life 32,599
News To combat crime, Santa Cruz council members con... (Jul '10) 11 hr you want 61
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr Well Well 20,700
16058 anoka Pacific Palisades (Mar '09) 13 hr Jim 5
News Puppy Pals Ranch Announces a Special 'Long Term... (May '08) 14 hr St Francis 11

San Gabriel Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Gabriel Mortgages