Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's alleged by the plaintiffs they did — keyword: alleged. They didn't have to buy a thing. They want to seize more land because they think they can.
There's proof of price fixing right in the complaint, if you can bother to read it.
If the intent was to "seize more land", why didn't they sue every single seller instead of just the handful named in the lawsuit? There have been a couple hundred real estate transactions in this multi-year process. The difference between the purchases that are part of the case and the others is clearly defined in that suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiffuseGlow
That would be your own fault for not researching the market. Hardly a good analogy, by the way.
It wasn't actually my analogy. Someone else brought up dealerships engaging in price gouging as a hypothetical. And you're wrong that it's simply a matter of not "researching a market". From that link I posted about antitrust laws in California:
It is illegal for business competitors to have any agreement to raise, stabilize or otherwise affect prices. The agreement need not be in writing or otherwise formalized. Even an informal understanding between competitors concerning prices is illegal. The agreement need not set specific prices; any agreement affecting price levels is illegal. Even a practice of exchanging price information with competitors, where this practice affects prices, violates the antitrust laws. Even an attempt at price fixing can be illegal.
Example: The owners of three major appliance stores meet informally and agree that the retail prices of refrigerators are too low. They promise to notify one another before deviating from their established prices. From then on, they offer consumers fewer price reductions on refrigerators. The store owners have engaged in horizontal price-fixing.
There's proof of price fixing right in the complaint, if you can bother to read it.
If the intent was to "seize more land", why didn't they sue every single seller instead of just the handful named in the lawsuit? There have been a couple hundred real estate transactions in this multi-year process. The difference between the purchases that are part of the case and the others is clearly defined in that suit.
It wasn't actually my analogy. Someone else brought up dealerships engaging in price gouging as a hypothetical. And you're wrong that it's simply a matter of not "researching a market". From that link I posted about antitrust laws in California:
It is illegal for business competitors to have any agreement to raise, stabilize or otherwise affect prices. The agreement need not be in writing or otherwise formalized. Even an informal understanding between competitors concerning prices is illegal. The agreement need not set specific prices; any agreement affecting price levels is illegal. Even a practice of exchanging price information with competitors, where this practice affects prices, violates the antitrust laws. Even an attempt at price fixing can be illegal.
Example: The owners of three major appliance stores meet informally and agree that the retail prices of refrigerators are too low. They promise to notify one another before deviating from their established prices. From then on, they offer consumers fewer price reductions on refrigerators. The store owners have engaged in horizontal price-fixing.
Those farmers didn't want to sell, what those silicon valley shysters did was throw so much money at them they felt like they coudln't pass it up. The developers knew all along what they were doing and IMO did it to set a trap for the property owners, with the intent to move in and sue them and get that property for next to nothing.
If it turns out that they win they had better keep their distance because they most definitely won't be welcome and I'm pretty sure the City will be really busy and unable to keep up with zoning requests and permits. Suisun is a small town where most people are protective of their land and their people.
Those farmers didn't want to sell, what those silicon valley shysters did was throw so much money at them they felt like they coudln't pass it up. The developers knew all along what they were doing and IMO did it to set a trap for the property owners, with the intent to move in and sue them and get that property for next to nothing.
If it turns out that they win they had better keep their distance because they most definitely won't be welcome and I'm pretty sure the City will be really busy and unable to keep up with zoning requests and permits. Suisun is a small town where most people are protective of their land and their people.
The Flannery Group is going to be facing some pretty big obstacles before they can break ground on anything around there. They were notified of this in 2018 when they were buying that land. Still, they are are hoping they can convince voters to to reverse their decision. In 2008, voters passed the Orderly Growth Measure that limits what can and cannot be built in the defined area.
. . . a ballot measure approved by voters would be the only way to change the ag land designation to proper zoning of urban development.
He also pointed out land use policy has centered around the protection of Travis Air Force Base.
"For decades, Solano County residents have consistently decided at the ballot box that preservation of agricultural land is priority," the release said. "In addition, a cornerstone of County land use policy has centered around protection of Travis Air Force Base from any encroachment that may impact its viability.
I don't think this is going to be as easy for the Group as they first thought ... but we'll see.
Those farmers didn't want to sell, what those silicon valley shysters did was throw so much money at them they felt like they coudln't pass it up. The developers knew all along what they were doing and IMO did it to set a trap for the property owners, with the intent to move in and sue them and get that property for next to nothing.
There's a couple things wrong here. For one, "farmers"... the defendants are all small land owner LLCs/corps themselves. According to state data, the individuals named in the suit live hundreds of miles away from these properties. The way the press has framed this is silly. For instance, the Beebe family isn't a bunch of sodbusters growing alfalfa in the middle of nowhere. To call them "farmers" is absurd. Wind ranchers maybe? More aptly though, they are themselves just rich property owners.
Next, the contention that the named defendants "didn't want to sell": There's literally no evidence of that, in fact, the opposite exists in the complaint. Not only did they want to jump on the selling bandwagon, they thought they'd be smart and rally others in the area to illegally fix prices to get well beyond the already inflated market prices offered and accepted by the other hundred or so sellers. Nobody got "next to nothing" for the land. These are all multimillion dollar deals.
"During the five years that Flannery has been investing in this area, not a single other buyer has emerged who would offer even a fraction of the prices and terms that Flannery was offering. The lack of any other buyers at those prices and terms demonstrated that Flannery was paying multiples of fair market value. As a result, the vast majority of the landowners in the area understandably took advantage of Flannery’s above market offers and sold their properties. Such landowners included some of the most sophisticated investors and institutions in the region. For example, Thomas McCormack, a director of the Bank of Rio Vista (which his family founded and ran for over a century), sold his approximately 2,500 acres to Flannery on December 18, 2019 for $20,876,500 or about $8,400/acre.
But a group of landowners –the above referenced Conspirators– repeatedly engaged with Flannery to di scuss possible sales, only to defer further negotiations under various pretenses. The conduct of these four Conspirator groups made no sense, for several reasons. First, the Conspirators want –and have wanted–to sell their properties. This reality is confirmed by the Conspirators’ conduct, including selling certain properties to Flannery, offering to sell other properties to Flannery, and their subsequently disclosed communications discussed below. Second, m any of the Conspirators recently paid between $ 470/acre and $2,800/acre to buy their properties. Moreover, many of the Conspirators r ecently[/font][font=sans-serif] represented to state and federal tax authorities (including the United States Internal Revenue Service) that their properties were worth between $1,100/acre and $4,000/acre. Yet even when Flannery increased its offers to over $15,000/acre, which would have given these Conspirators a profit of up to approximately 32,000% (32 times) on their investment in only a few years, they countered Flannery’s offers by demanding even higher payments.
At the last Flannery offer, the BLK Defendants (defined below) would have made approximately $45 million, the Mahoney Defendants (defined below) would have made approximately $100 million, and the Anderson Defendants (defined below) would have made approximately $60 million. These amounts are 2-3 times more than what these properties are worth in the open market, and what anyone other than Flannery would pay for any comparable property in this area.
On top of all that, Flannery *didn't* sue the other 140 property owners they've dealt with over the last few years as they bought up dormant land. Why is that? That along with all the facts above (and more) from the original complaint, certainly isn't consistent with the work of "shysters".
In 2008, voters passed the Orderly Growth Measure that limits what can and cannot be built in the defined area.
With respect to Travis AFB, from Flannery's own literature:
Travis Air Force Base is critical to both our national security and to Solano County. We fully support its mission and always will. For example, when California Water Service and Travis were building a new water pipeline to Travis in 2021 and asked us to sell them a right of way for the pipeline, we immediately offered to donate the right of way for free instead. We are just beginning our dialogue with Travis about the right safeguards, but we are committed to respecting its boundaries both on the ground and in the air. We also hope to work with the Air Force in other ways, including by helping provide homes to base personnel, and training and career options for veterans.
It cracks me up when someone returns to a thread with both arms swinging after not posting in it for ten days.
It's really about mind over matter. I don't mind, because they don't matter.
P.S. Business competitors ≠land/homeowners.If the buyer thinks a price is too high, shove off. Don't come back after finalizing the transaction and scream bloody murder.
With respect to Travis AFB, from Flannery's own literature:
They sound really evil.
Not sure how the Ordinance or even what Flannery has in their literature infers they're evil. There's been a question as to what they can build in that area and I merely posted the Ordinance that voters approved in 2008. If you're itching for a fight here, joosoon, you picked the wrong person. If the Flannery Group and the landowners affected by this can come to a mutual agreement ... and everything is very transparent as to what they intend to build, I'm happy for everyone involved.
Not sure how the Ordinance or even what Flannery has in their literature infers they're evil. There's been a question as to what they can build in that area and I merely posted the Ordinance that voters approved in 2008. If you're itching for a fight here, joosoon, you picked the wrong person. If the Flannery Group and the landowners affected by this can come to a mutual agreement ... and everything is very transparent as to what they intend to build, I'm happy for everyone involved.
Fight? Umm, no. Just sharing information.
Part of what you posted mentioned land use concerns and potential encroachment issues with respect to Travis AFB. Flannery has been pretty open about that, and there isn't an adversarial relationship between them and the military. The fact that they've been accommodating back as far as when they first started purchasing the properties makes that evident. It also kicks the legs out of the media's portrayal that they're a rogue element.
The general consensus in this thread that Flannery is bad and all these so-called "farmers" are hurt by this doesn't really stand up in light of facts outside the distortions in the press. Besides that, maybe their plans for the land development aren't terrible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
