Lindsay Marks 6 p.m., Dec. 5
Palomar Community College District sues City of Escondido and former Redevelopment Agency for breach of contract
District alleges city officials did not pay tax increment promised in 1984 agreement.
The Palomar Community College District wants their share of redevelopment tax increment promised to them by the City of Escondido in a 1984 agreement. The problem; district officials say the City doesn't want to pay up.
On January 24 lawyers for the community college district filed a lawsuit against the City of Escondido for "breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing."
In the lawsuit, district officials allege the City failed to pay for any lost tax revenue that occurred as a result of the Redevelopment Plan.
In 1984, the Escondido Redevelopment Agency and City entered into agreements with the Palomar Community College District and several other local agencies located within the redevelopment area. In exchange for their share of redevelopment tax dollars, district officials promised not to challenge the Redevelopment Plan or quibble over project area boundaries.
Now that redevelopment agencies have been dismantled and the City has been named the Sucessor Agency, Palomar Community College District officials want that lost tax revenue.
"District is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have received excess tax revenues since the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Escondido Redevelopment Project, but Defendants have failed to provide the District with any tax revenues, and/or failed to deposit any tax revenues in the Palomar Community College District Redevelopment Fund."
A hearing is scheduled for June 28 in North County.
More like this:
- San Diegans for Open Government challenges legality of assessment districts in a June 12 lawsuit — June 13, 2013
- The Supreme Court Hears Redevelopment Case — Nov. 10, 2011
- Linda Vista Landmark Skateworld Faces the Wrecking Ball of Redevelopment — Sept. 1, 2010
- The Mad Hatter’s Council Meeting — Jan. 27, 2010
- Public? Private? — June 28, 2007