Source: https://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/2010/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:42:51+00:00

Document:
Con artists are very good at tricking consumers into parting with money or divulging personal information that can be used to commit fraud. To help test people’s knowledge about financial scams, the Fall 2010 issue of FDIC Consumer News, published by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, features a quiz on common frauds and their warning signs. Other timely articles discuss FDIC insurance coverage, solutions to mortgage and other debt problems, “credit protection” offers, student loans, ways to save money at tax time, and automated overdraft payment programs.
The latest issue can be read or printed online at www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnfall10.
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today fined Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) more than $300,000 for failure to properly manage PCBs at its Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Landfill. In order to protect human health and the environment, EPA regulations and facility specific permit requirements require that PCBs are properly tracked, stored and disposed. EPA vigorously enforces PCB requirements and will continue to monitor this facility and other PCB storage and disposal facilities.
The CWM Kettleman Hills Facility is a commercial hazardous waste facility located in Kings County, CA. The facility handles the treatment, storage and disposal of PCBs, hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The Kettleman Hills Landfill is the only landfill in California federally regulated to handle PCBs, and is just one of ten PCB regulated landfills in the country.
During a series of 2010 inspections, EPA investigators found that CWM improperly managed PCBs at the facility. Further analysis revealed spills next to the facility’s PCB Storage and Flushing Building. Samples taken by EPA and CWM in and around the building detected PCBs at elevated levels ranging from 2.1 parts per million (ppm) up to 440 ppm. These levels are above the regulatory limit of 1 ppm and, in soil, demonstrate that PCBs were improperly disposed of in violation of federal law.
In January 2010, EPA committed to working with the State of California and the community of Kettleman City to both investigate compliance with federal laws and research environmental stressors. The current fines relate to the mismanagement of PCBs within the confines of CWM’s property. There is no evidence to suggest that the current spills posed any danger to adjacent communities. The question of whether there is any human health or environmental risk of PCBs migrating off site is being evaluated by a PCB congener study that is nearing completion.
PCBs are liquids that were used in electrical transformers, capacitors, circuit breakers, voltage regulators/switches, plasticizers, and additives in lubricating and cutting oils. Tests have shown that PCBs cause cancer in animals and are suspected carcinogens in humans. Acute PCB exposure can also adversely affect the nervous, immune, and endocrine systems as well as liver function.
The EPA’s Hazardous Waste Program oversees the safe management and disposal of hazardous waste including PCBs. Concerns about human health and the extensive presence and lengthy persistence of PCBs in the environment led Congress to enact the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976. The Act authorized EPA to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances, as well as to control any of the substances that were determined to cause unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.
In addition to the PCB releases, CWM failed to fully comply with information and decontamination requirements. A PCB container label and some materials containing PCBs did not display essential data required by federal law. EPA investigations also found that CWM failed to decontaminate PCB handling areas prior to continued use.
CWM has cleaned up PCB releases at the facility under a cleanup plan approved by EPA and the State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The plan was submitted to the agencies and approved in September and October 2010. DTSC issued a Corrective Action Order on October 18th that required CWM to clean up PCB contamination in accordance with state and federal requirements. CWM will be submitting a final report documenting its cleanup to both agencies.
LTA No. 2010/066 - Assessors' Handbook Section 581, Equipment and Fixtures Index, Percent Good and Valuation Factors, dated November 29, 2010, has been posted to our website.
LTA No. 2010/065 - Assessors' Handbook Section 534, Rural Building Costs, dated November 29, 2010, has been posted to our website.
LTA No. 2010/064 - Assessors' Handbook Section 531, Residential Building Costs, dated November 29, 2010, has been posted to our website.
This program will provide a practical overview of important environmental regulations and issues that are likely to impact transactional real estate lawyers and their clients in California, such as AB 32, Proposition 23, SB 375, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), state and local “green building code” rules, and voluntary private-sector sustainability initiatives. The presentation will also cover trends respecting environmental regulations likely to impact California businesses.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR WEBCAST PARTICIPANTS: Webinar registration for this program closes on 11/30/2010. Early registration is required. Login information will be forwarded to each webinar registrant twenty-four hours before the event, so please ensure that your email address is correct. To receive full CLE credit for viewing the webinar, registrants must login individually (it is recommended that registrants login five minutes early).
This product is also available as a Live Webcast. If you prefer to attend the live webcast, click here.
Get in on the ground floor, http://commercialappraiser.services.officelive.com help us create a Commercial Review Appraiser Site.
Has anyone taken the time to submit their input regarding Appraiser Independance and "Usual and Customary Fees" on the FDIC website? Remember we are running out of time. Give them your input!!!
This year’s sixth edition of Breakthroughs has just been posted on the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (RBC) website. In this issue, you’ll read about shared equity housing mechanisms, a sustainable community rapid assessment tool, and Arlington County, Virginia’s green building incentive program.
· Arlington County, Virginia is encouraging green building practices.
Again, you can read or download the current issue at http://www.huduser.org/portal/rbc/newsletter/vol9iss6_1.html. If you have similar stories that you think would help others, we’d like to know about them. Call us at 1-800-245-2691, option 4, or send us an email at rbcsubmit@huduser.org. Who knows, we may even highlight your community’s efforts in a future issue of Breakthroughs!
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) has posted very important Tenant Demographic data on our website on November 23, 2010, noting new requirements for all tax credit properties. Please check out the website at: www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/compliance.asp. You will notice there are revisions to our current Tenant Income Certification (TIC) form along with a new Supplemental Information form for existing households. Please be sure to read all instructions along with a helpful Questions and Answers Handout prior to completing the forms. If you have any questions please contact Elizabeth Gutierrez, Associate Program Analyst or Ammer Singh, Program Manager at 916-654-6340.
Still not have your MCLE hours for 2010? Will you be in or near Plano, Texas on December 2 and 3, 2010? Want to attend a conference at which the top minds in planning, zoning and eminent domain law are speaking?
Well, you're in luck. There's still time to register for Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain, sponsored by the Center for American and International Law.
It wasn't overstatement when we said that this one has the big names: among those speaking are Dwight Merriam, Gideon Kanner, Robert Freilich, Bruce Kramer, Mike Berger, and Dan Mandelker. And that's only a partial list of the luminaries. Dwight will also be announcing the 2010 ZiPLer Awards. We've been holding our breath on that one, since we nominated a case for one of the prizes.
More information on the upcoming conference here.
Please click on the link below for the California Health Facilities Financing Authority's December 2, 2010 Meeting Agenda.
As consumers flock to the shopping malls this holiday season, have you thought about shopping for...data?
I’m a numbers guy. To me, data can tell a story about what’s happening in the real world and that, in turn, can drive our decisions on a whole host of issues. Obviously, this holiday season finds a lot of folks worried about the economy and the housing market. Never before has there been a greater demand for economic and housing data among state and local leaders, businesses, researchers and even students. But now, this kind of data is only a click away!
Today, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unveiled a new website that consolidates a wide variety of economic and housing market data at the regional, state, metropolitan area and county levels. Using information from the Census Bureau, Labor Department, State and Local governments, housing industry sources, as well as HUD’s own field economists, the new website employs interactive maps that allow visitors easy access a variety of reports – from a region-wide look at employment and housing activity to individual county-level figures on population trends, rental activity and vacancy rates.
This is a powerful new tool that’s easy to use and offers the public a remarkable look at their local economic and housing markets. This is precisely why this site will be so helpful to state and local leaders, developers, the real estate industry, and the general public who need the latest available data on their markets.
or bribery, the development, reporting, result, or review of a real estate appraisal sought in connection with a mortgage loan. Prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Withholding or threatening to withhold timely payment for an appraisal. (2) Withholding or threatening to withhold future business for an independent appraiser, including removal from approved panels of appraisers. (3) Expressly or impliedly promising future business, promotions, or increased compensation for an independent appraiser. (4) Conditioning the request for an appraisal service or the payment of an appraisal fee or salary or bonus on the opinion, conclusion, or valuation in an appraisal report, or on a preliminary estimate or opinion requested from an independent appraiser. (5) Requesting the payment of compensation to achieve higher priority in the assignment of appraisal business. (6) Requesting that an appraiser provide an estimated, predetermined, or desired valuation in an appraisal report, providing to an appraiser an anticipated, estimated, encouraged, or desired valuation in an appraisal report, or requesting that an appraiser provide estimated values of comparable sales at any time before the appraiser completes an appraisal report. (b) Subdivision (a) does not prohibit a person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking an appraiser to do any of the following: (1) Consider additional, appropriate property information. (2) Provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value conclusion. (3) Correct errors in the appraisal report. (c) If a person who violates this section is licensed or registered under any state licensing or registration law and the violation occurs within the course and scope of the person's duties as a licensee or registrant, the violation shall be deemed a violation of that law. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize communications that are otherwise prohibited under existing law.
Earlier this month, U.S. voters ushered in a clear sea change that is certain to impact the political and policy making landscapes governing the real estate finance industry. This change, which brought a Republican majority to the U.S. House of Representatives and increased that party's minority share of the Senate, is a direct result of individual activism. Political hopefuls and their supporters engaged in enthusiastic grassroots campaigns across the country to make these changes happen.
The Mortgage Action Alliance, Inc. (MAA) is the Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) voluntary, non-partisan, nationwide grassroots lobbying network of real estate finance industry professionals. It is free, simple and you don't have to be an employee of an MBA member firm to participate. There are more than 10,000 mortgage professionals involved in MAA, but we need more.
Register for MAA: Once you have registered for MAA and have received your membership log-in and password, you will periodically receive "Call to Action" emails and newsletters.
Receive "Call to Action" emails: These emails describe legislation that is at a critical point in the legislative process on Capitol Hill and explains the industry's position.
Take Action: All you have to do is follow the link provided in the email to the MAA homepage, log in so that your elected officials are correctly identified and then review the draft letter/email prepared for you by MAA staff. The letter will urge your elected officials to support the industry's position on the issue and identify you as a constituent who works in the real estate finance industry. You can choose to edit or further personalize the letter or send it as written. Click a button to send the letter, and you are done. It is that simple. And, of course, if you disagree with the industry's position, you don't have to send it at all.
A federal judge has ruled that an expert witness has the right to sue the lawyer who hired him and allegedly altered the expert's report -- leading to ethics charges against the expert.
The Justice Department (DOJ) has made available online the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. These standards were adopted as part of the revised regulations for Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. When the standards go into effect on March 15, 2012, they will set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical – for new construction and alterations of the facilities of more than 80,000 state and local governments and over seven million businesses. DOJ has also posted on the website important guidance about the standards compiled from material in the Title II and Title III regulations.
11/02/10 In California eminent domain cases, government agencies must take care in formulating the final offer of compensation they make before trial. If the court concludes after trial that the agency’s offer was unreasonable – and that the property/business owner’s final demand was reasonable – the property/business owner is entitled to an award of litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1250.410.) How one analyzes "reasonableness" once the jury issues its verdict has been the subject of myriad court opinions. An October 29 decision from the California Court of Appeal, Tracy Joint Unified School Distract v. Pombo, adds to that body of law. Pombo makes clear if the final offer misses the mark, the agency is subject to an award of litigation expenses unless it can show that exceptional circumstances led to the disparity between the final offer and the verdict. Mere good faith belief in the agency’s appraiser’s conclusion will not suffice. Background In Pombo, the school district filed an eminent domain action to acquire 61.6 acres in the middle of a 231-acre parcel of raw land. The agency’s appraiser valued the taking at about $3 million. The property owner’s appraiser valued it at more than $12 million. The discrepancy arose largely from different opinions as to the property’s development potential.
A county was entitled to a preliminary injunction against a church operating a school without a required conditional user permit.
LTA No. 2010/060 - Pipeline Rights-of-Way - Extension of Sunset Date, dated November 9, 2010, has been posted to our website.
Revenue Procedure 2010-44 provides two safe harbor methods of accounting for certain motor vehicle dealerships to (1) treat certain sales facilities as retail sales facilities for purposes of § 263A, and (2) be treated as resellers without production activities for purposes of § 263A.
Revenue Procedure 2010-44 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2010-49 on December 6, 2010.
Tattoos: First amendment protected speech. A city ordinance effectively banning tattoo parlors oversteps constitutional limits protecting freedom of expression.
LTA No. 2010/061 - Guidelines for Appraiser Certification and Training, dated November 8, 2010, has been posted to our website.
In preparing an urban water management plan, the agency may rely upon reasonable assumptions, supported by substantial evidence. A reviewing court should apply deference to the agency's decision.
Professor Gideon Kanner has a recurring feature on his eminent domain law blog Gideon's Trumpet called "Lowball Watch" in which he points out cases in which the condemnor's offer is below -- way below-- the eventual compensation awarded to a property owner.
Thus, we're looking forward to his thoughts on the latest case from the California Court of Appeal (3d District) which held that for purposes of California's statute awarding attorneys fees to property owners when the condemnor's offer is "unreasonable," an offer which is 38.8% of the eventual compensation fixed by the jury is unreasonable as a matter of law. Tracy Joint Unified School Dist. v. Pombo, No. C061239 (Oct. 29, 2010).
California's eminent domain statutes provide that a property owner is entitled to litigation expenses in defending an eminent domain action if the condemnor's final pretrial offer of compensation is "unreasonable." Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1250.410. The statute also requires the property owner's pretrial demand be "reasonable." The pretrial offer and demand are viewed by the court "in the light of the evidence admitted and the compensation awarded in the proceeding."
The school district's pretrial offer was $3,181,500 as compensation for land totalling 61.6 acres adjacent to Tracy, California to construct a high school. The property owners pretrial demand was $7,995,000. At trial, the district's expert valued the taking at about $3 million, with no severance damages, while the property owner's appraiser fixed total compensation at around $12.4 million, including almost $3.1 million in severance damages.
The jury, according to the court, "split the difference" by awarding the owners $7,085,150, plus severance damages of $900,000, for a total compensation award of $7,985,150. The court noted '[t]he verdict virtually matched defendants' pretrial settlement demand of $7,995,000, but was a far cry from the District's final offer of $3,181,500." Slip op. at 2.
The trial court denied the property owner's request for litigation expenses, ruling that the district's pretrial offer was reasonable under the circumstances.
§ The nearly $5 million difference between the district's offer and the jury's verdict. "The difference looms especially large considering that the District offered only a token amount above the appraisal figure of its expert." Slip op. at 8.
§ The district's offer was only 40% of the jury's award. "Viewed from another perspective, the jury's award was more than two and one-half times the size of the District's offer, while bearing a virtual one-to-one ratio to the property owners' demand." Slip op. at 9.
§ The opinion spent the most time on the third factor, the "good faith, care and accuracy" in how the pretrial offer was calculated. The court distinguished other cases which denied litigation expenses, holding that unlike those case, here "[t]here was no tricky legal issue or unusual circumstance that made the offer difficult to formulate. The jury was confronted with a straightforward conflict between two appraisers who advocated vastly different approaches to the appraisal process." Slip op. at 12.
While the court detailed each party's appraiser's methodology and concluded that "both experts had serious problems with their appraisals and those weaknesses were apparent before the trial began," it concluded it did not need to pick which was more persuasive. The property owner was willing to compromise, and its pretrial demand was below its appraiser's valuation. The district's pretrial offer, by contrast, "barely exceeded" its appraiser's valuation, and it's offer "audaciously assumed" the jury would believe its appriaser over the property owner's. "This type of conduct was not indicative of 'good faith, care and accuracy.' On the contrary, it evinced an arrogant and unyielding approach to settlement negotiations." Slip op. at 16-17.
A good faith settlement offer carries with it the implicit recognition that proceeding to trial always carries an element of risk. In a case such as this, which came down to a credibility contest between two respected experts, an eight million dollar difference between the two appraisals should have prompted a reasonable condemner to submit an offer that, at a minimum, took into account the cost of litigation as well as the risk that the jury will not accept its own expert‟s testimony as gospel.The District's take-it-or-leave-it offer did neither.
Slip op. at 19 (emphasis original).
The entire opinion is worth reading for anyone interested in condemnation law.

References: § 1250
 v. 
 § 263
 § 263
 v. 
 § 1250