.
.
.
.
.

- Special Half-a-Million Edición!

The Associated Press is reporting that Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, according to court documents that have surfaced, could potentially receive half a million dollars in a “finder’s fee” if a controversial sale of state buildings through private investors goes through! As the AP has it:
The arrangement with Pulido was uncovered during a deposition of State Treasurer Bill Lockyer last week by attorneys for opponents of the building sale. Two former building authority commissioners who were ousted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after they raised questions about the sale are suing to stop the transaction to a group of private investors. A hearing is scheduled for Friday in San Francisco Superior Court.
Lockyer said he was told by an attorney that Pulido would receive a “finder’s fee” if the deal goes through, but he did not know who would pay the fee. Pulido told the Los Angeles Times on Monday that it was a “success fee” for introducing several of the companies to each other. He said the companies approached him for his assistance because “I just know a lot of folks.” “Our bid was $230 million above the next-highest bid,” Pulido said.
Orange Juice readers would be well to recall Vern Nelson’s great write-up last month “Lame Duck Arnold’s Newest Taxpayer Swindle: SLEASING Public Buildings.” Vern offers the new term “to slease” for the increasingly common, stupid and wasteful practice of selling off government properties while committing taxpayers to LEASE the properties back for decades at an overall loss. It’s no wonder this corrupt scheme was strenuously opposed by both Treasurer Lockyer and Controller John Chiang, and the Santa Ana Mayor’s involvement in this at any price is, how shall I say, no bueno!
Pulido spoke to the Los Angeles Times this afternoon in an effort to do damage control. As they have it, “In a strange twist, Pulido later contacted The Times to say that the partnership was reorganizing, some of the companies he had helped introduce had pulled out, and that he would not be paid the $500,000.” Well, how much would the Mayor stand to be paid then for this supposed “reorganization?” Any way you slice and dice it, Pulido is helping his people get their “slease” on! The LAT reported, “Pulido defended the potential payment, arguing that it was not a “finder’s fee” but rather a “success fee” payable only if the deal goes through. His part of the transaction, he said in a telephone interview Monday, was simply to introduce several of the companies involved in the successful bid to one another.”
In the same article, an attorney representing the sale’s opponents, “said in an interview Monday that the proposed payment “raises very serious questions,” before adding, “It’s all public money involved. How do you give finder’s fees?” Cotchett said. “It should be an arms-length economic transaction that is beneficial to the state of California and taxpayers. If there’s money that finder’s fees can be paid, that’s not an economically viable transaction” for the state.
Pulido allegedly playing the $500,000 pyramid game apparently made him blush once it was made public. The latest news at the time of this post notes that, “after revelations about the proposed fee appeared on The Times’ website, Pulido said he had “no written agreement” with the consortium that placed the winning bid for the 11 state properties. Late Monday, he said “I now believe there’s no hope that I will receive any money for this transaction under any circumstances.”
Poor, poor Pulido…It’s not about the money anyway. It’s about the principle. Collaborating in sleasing – even if in a “reorganized” post-revelation volunteer effort – is pathetic!
One number that is for sure is the one reported by the AP at the end of its write-up:
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the plan to sell state office buildings will cost taxpayers $1.4 billion over 35 years.
Way to go Pulido! You have truly been transformed as a Progressive! Maybe someone told you Harvey Milk was a politician known for milking the taxpayer dry by bringing together folks in sleasing schemes and that’s why you voted for that resolution supporting the day in his honor!
Here’s a funny detail from the Times story:
During questioning, Lockyer said he had received a phone call from an Orange County attorney who is a friend of his and Pulido’s. The attorney, Frank Barbaro, told Lockyer that he had been approached by Pulido; the mayor told Barbaro that he was worried about the controversy surrounding the sale of the state buildings. According to Lockyer, Barbaro said he would ask the treasurer about the sale. Lockyer voted against the transaction, but Barbaro did not know that at the time.
Frank Barbaro and even Pulido himself didn’t know that Lockyer (and Chiang) opposed the transaction? They should read the pinche Orange Juice Blog. We reported all of that on Nov. 19.
HAHA! Word/Palabra!
Isn’t that Barbaro guy chairman of the OCDP, or something? What an amateur!
Haha! Yeah! Funny the LAT didn’t note that political position of his. Amateur indeed! Pringle knows how to keep the curtains closed… newbies!
Lockyear’s YOUNG bride Nadia Davis was opposed by Pulido when she ran for school board and she and her anciano esposo have long memories.
Funny, I read this very same line in the NSA “apolitical” civic blog.
The points over there are invalid:
1) this blog post did not mention issues of legality
2) this blog post was not written by an Amezcua supporter
And Lockyer had extremely good and serious reasons to be against this swindle from the beginning, most probably before he knew Pulido had anything to do with it.
and then there is the likelihood of that too…
More confirmation that Miguel “Hugo Chavez” Pulido is a thief and little mafioso!!
Ay Caramba, no bueno!
Pulido needs to be a lot more circumspect. He could have a great mentor in Anaheim’s Kurt Pringle who really knows how to milk the plantation cow.
In OC the repuglicans are the experts; the Democants really need professional help.
In creating the counter-narrative, Pulido’s consortium “peeps” are the REAL “Usual Suspects” and as this controversy has brought to light, he hasn’t broken off ties with them at all. Progressive? Yeah, right!!! Once a corporate Democrat, always a corporate Democrat!
“Bad Blood’s” comment makes for nice apologies, but the principle of what Pulido has involved himself in here trumps all!
Pringle may be the current master of turning a part-time Mayors post into a Lottery win (how do you go from hanging drapes & mini-blinds in your family business & losing Garden Grove City Council races to being the Kaiser of Cash in Anaheim?) but Santa Ana has had a long history of this kind of political get rich schemes.
Former Santa Ana Mayor Gordon Bricken got busted buying T.V.’s on the city council credit card on a political junket to Hong Kong, Ex Santa Ana Councilman John Acosta used to get his piece of the action through the King of Concrete Ralph Allen, and Former SAUSD Boardmember Sal “She hit me first” Mendoza may top them all with a $1,000,000 “Fee” to connect an Insurance buddy with the school district for a big juicy contract.
I was never a big fan of Cecil Hicks as D.A. but at least he used to go after one or two of these political guys now and then. The current D.A. could care less.
Kaiser of Cash.
Sehr gut!
Lest we forget December 7th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1N4VKipGhk
This doesn’t pass the smell test…….OC Dems often wonder where in the hell is the OC Dem Party? The answer is becoming increasingly clear……..Santa Ana. They need to change the name to the Democratic Party of Santa Ana because they sure aren’t anywhere else. Obviously that’s where the money is…….Oh, and Irvine,…..but that’s another “& Co.”
Gericault, I would protest loudly against that comment in a David Byrne voice, “THIS is not my Democrat Party!”
OK everybody, here’s Pedroza’s response:
newsantaana.com/2010/12/06/did-pulido-earn-a-fee-by-helping-to-seal-a-2-3-billion-dollar-real-estate-deal/
Art needs to add a “Politics” tab to the top menu bar on his non-political blog.
Ya know, when Art announced his “conversion”, I think a lot of people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. But now it all looks like some weird ruse to create a blog devoted to defending the Santa Ana Mayor and a select group of Councilmembers.
Interesting that the Times did not identify Barbaro’s relationship with the OC Democrats, but the Register (which looks to have missed this story completely, even though it was in their backyard) did.
Crooks are crooks, not matter their party affiliation, and Pulido’s had other issues as the OC Weekly has pointed out (http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-01-28/news/miguel-pulido-vending-truck/). I’d love to see Moxley do a number on this.
Barbaro’s a frequent guest on Rick Reiff’s Inside OC show and he should be asking some pointed questions as well.
Anyone taking any bets on T. Rack investigating this? I didn’t think so.
Sure, the “As-Good-As-No-DA?” Don’t be facetious.
The Mayor gets a good salary and retirement plan from the City of Santa Ana as its full-time Mayor. He then gets more and more money for all the agencies he works for. He gets more benefits, stipends and free cars for sitting on this agengies. He even gets to hire his family members at the AQMD, who from working in muffler shops know alot about environmental issues. As if he had any more time left in the day to be brokering deals for the sale of government owned buildings/land. Why can’t the good people of Santa Ana see through this guy for what he really is. Its shameful. $500,000.00 in one transaction! How many other back door deals are there out there that we don’t know about? This one though makes Bell Councilors look like amateurs! Todd, oh Todd, why didn’t you run for DA?
Todd, oh Todd, why didn’t you run for DA?
2014. Seat’s not open till then. 2012, Supervisor (Campbell’s termed-out seat) then 2014 Spitzer against T-Rack (or S-Kang)
This is politics, U.S. Style. Just relax and enjoy the ride because you ain’t gonna change the outcome. (But I have to admit if feels good venting on blogs like this) Thank you O.J.
“Jumble sales are organised
And pamphlets have been posted
Even after closing time there’s still parties to be hosted
You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you’re waiting for the great leap forwards
One leap forward, two leaps back
Will politics get me the sack?
Here comes the future and you can’t run from it
If you’ve got a blacklist I want to be on it”
and now for a little music…
RUH-ROH… the Plot Sickens.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/12/santa_ana_mayor_miguel_pulido.php
“The plot sickens” haha. I knew Gus would come in with a different focus. Bravo!
Pulido’s supporters, predictably, are focusing on the notion that Pulido didn’t do anything illegal. Assuming for a moment that is true, don’t these people realize that what gets most objective observers isn’t the legality of this…it’s the constant spectacle of politicians enriching themselves merely because they are politicians with lots of connections. Legal or not, it leaves a stench in the nostrils.
Hey, like most of our politicians, at least he’s not as bad as Saddam Hussein!
Is the question, Should SA’s mayor work for free at his day job?
cook, influence peddling is as American as apple pie. Just ask John Lewis and Kurt Pringle. Pulido’s a piker. Amateur hour.
UPDATE from today’s SF Chronicle:
Hot sell: Burlingame attorney Joe Cotchett has come up with a hot deposition that could prove embarrassing to the state’s efforts to sell off 11 of its buildings – including the state Supreme Court building in San Francisco – to help raise money.
In a sworn deposition, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said he had received a phone call from a longtime ally of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido urging that the deal be consummated – saying Pulido stood to make a $500,000 “finder’s fee.”
“I asked, what did he do?” Lockyer said in discussing his phone exchange with Orange County Democratic Party boss Frank Barbaro.
“Well,” Lockyer quoted Barbaro as saying. “He … helped put the deal together.”
Pulido did not return our call seeking comment. But he did tell the Orange County Register that the team of bidders for the state buildings had changed since he first got involved, and consequently, “I have no expectation of receiving anything.”
Cotchett, who has filed suit in San Francisco to halt the lease-back sales, said a number of other politically connected people could have “their finger in this pie” as well.
One of them identified in Cotchett’s suit: former President Bill Clinton’s housing secretary, Henry Cisneros.
The Cisneros part makes sense, if you read my original “Sleasing” article: These buildings are getting “sleased” to a Texas consortium.
Good ol’ HC …another HI-spanic…
Pulido is another example of why educated latinos will not vote for a latino candidate.
That is the reason why we should VOTE for Karina Onofre for Santa Ana City council
We need a CHANGE
http://www.KARINAONOFRE.com