In a stunning admission Tuesday, the Autry administration revealed that it had been negotiating the Running Horse deal with Donald Trump's lawyer without a city lawyer being present at every meeting. During Tuesday's council meeting, council members were concerned that the city is in sensitive negotiations over a bankrupt real estate project, yet there wasn't a city lawyer in the room.
But City Manager Andy Souza said those concerns are off base. While the city attorney may not have been at every meeting, every document that goes to the Trump organization has been vetted by the city attorney's office, according to Souza. Besides, most of the discussions so far have been "informal negotiations" and the city attorney will be fully involved in the "formal negotiations" with Trump, Souza said.
City Attorney James Sanchez was more skeptical. He told the council that he is concerned that his office hasn't had more involvement in the Running Horse negotiations and recommended to the council that his representatives be at every meeting with the Trump organization.
Talk about stating the obvious. This golf course/housing development is in bankruptcy and now Trump wants city help -- meaning taxpayer dollars. But City Hall apparently is doing this deal on the fly without a lawyer. Amazing. You can't blame Trump. He got rich by getting the best end of real estate deals. It's up to the city to protect Fresno's end of the deal.
Council Members Brian Calhoun and Larry Westerlund raised the lawyer issue Tuesday. They said Running Horse has the potential to be a very risky deal for the taxpayers and having the city attorney more involved in the negotiations will protect public funds. Calhoun said he'd feel a lot more comfortable about the city's involvement if city lawyers were part of the negotiations. So would the rest of us.
Westerlund was more blunt about Souza's negotiating tactics. Not having an attorney for the city involved is a lot like "going to a gunfight without any ammunition," Westerlund said. (BTW, I had no idea that Westerlund had a sense of humor).
Souza bristled at the Westerlund line, and said he took offense at the councilman's "mischaracterization" of the negotiations.
I have a question for the mayor: Is it wise to be negotiating a real estate deal with the developer who has written a book about how he eats his prey for lunch and not at least have a lawyer for the city looking over the deal points as they are being discussed? The mayor thinks we should trust Trump. When it comes to putting up millions of city dollars, I'd like a little more than a "trust me" clause in the escrow papers.
I can just hear Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, calling The Donald about progress on Running Horse negotiations: "Mr. Trump, there's good news and there's bad news." Trump asks for the bad news first. . . "This Running Horse deal is a huge mess that needs a lot of sorting out before it can be profitable," Cohen says. "We'll really have to low-ball the city to make the deal work." Then Trump asks for the good news. "The city doesn't even have a lawyer at the table." Trump smiles and tells Cohen, "Give them the old Trump razzle-dazzle."
Note for those cursed with absolute literal-mindedness: The previous conversation was made up. . . I'm now returning from my one-paragraph trip into satire. . .
At the end of the City Council discussion Tuesday, it was clear that council members want the city attorney at every negotiatng session with Trump. That strategy should have been obvious from the start, but things aren't always obvious down at P Street. What does it say about those in charge at City Hall when they don't think they need a lawyer when negotiating with Donald Trump?
They wouldn't get very far on "The Apprentice."
Did the city negotiate the Big Dig in Boston? Oh, maybe I'm thinking of the most famous sailed-way-past-its budget bomb in film history, "Heaven's Gate." It nearly caused United Artists to file bankruptcy.
Remember it's not all about Autry. The City Council is a part of this as well.
As an attorney I know my own limitations. I don't think there is any one attorney who could represent the city in this, but a major law firm with at least four specialists: real estate, eminent domain, municipal law, and corporate law, is mandated. Are these city folks mad? Or is there another dimension to this that I am missing?
Well, if you insist .... You’re stupid! (You did say, "Call me stupid...." didn’t you?) Just kidding JimBo! Couldn’t resist!
Why do I get the impression that Trump’s battalion of slickster lawyers are about to pull a fast one over on the "good old boys" down at city hall? Expect something to go "sideways" on this one!
I'm beginning to wonder if Trump's team is really as slick as people think they are, or are they just playing dumb to lull us to sleep?
First there was their "surprise" that the City RDA couldn't condemn non-blighted land on the edge of the city. Now there's that email from Cohen which almost seems calculated to turn public opinion against the deal, not to mention increasing skepticism on the City Council.
There may be some benefit for the city to have this project completed. But those benefits are far too marginal for the city to stick its neck out and take the financial risks on behalf of a billionaire.
Thanks Jim.
You are bringing some light on this dark subject. The original investors that bought the land have been totally thrown under the bus for the multi-billionaire. There would not be a project in the making if not for their $17 million dollar investment.
Give Fresno a break, our mayor and Mr. Trump are both celebrities, and isn't that what counts these days.
Also remember Fresno's mayor selected a economic development director who must also be looking out for the city's interests.
Good luck Fresno.
The City of Fresno needs to stick to investments it knows best, like turkey processing plants.
Can Mr. Cohen practice law in California without a California attorney license?
There's plenty of poor judgment down on P Street. On October 9th, Council member Blong Xiong wrote a letter on his city letterhead to the U.S. District Court on behalf of General Vang Pao. The general is accused, with others, of plotting the violent overthrow of the Laos government.
While the council member is certainly entitled to express his personal opinion, is it appropriate to do it on city letterhead, possibly making it appear the City of Fresno government supports Vang Pao?