Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coliseum Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes 60-day stay in Goolsbee et al. litigation; asks AASCG for detailed offer
Summary
After public comment urging a pause, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors authorized counsel to agree to a 60-day stay in Esther Goolsbee et al. v. County of Alameda and requested that the African American Sports and Entertainment Group provide a detailed purchase offer to enable public negotiations.
Get email alerts on the Coliseum Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17 agreed by consensus to a 60-day stay in the lawsuit Esther Goolsbee et al. v. County of Alameda and asked the African American Sports and Entertainment Group (AASCG/AASEG) to submit a written, detailed offer to purchase the Coliseum interest. County Counsel announced the action on returning from closed session.
“By consensus, the board authorized counsel to agree to a 60 day stay in the case,” County Counsel said during the meeting’s report-out. County Counsel also repeated the board’s request that AASCG “provide the board with a detailed offer to purchase” so officials could consider directing staff to negotiate in open session.
The stay followed extensive public comment earlier in the meeting from community members, labor representatives and organizational leaders who urged the board to support a temporary pause in litigation while parties attempt to negotiate. Speakers who identified themselves as AASCG members and allied groups argued a stay would permit the parties to exchange information and pursue settlement before a scheduled court date.
County Counsel told the board that what was submitted to staff so far was a letter summarizing interest but did not include the terms and conditions the board requested; the board reiterated that a reasonable, detailed proposal would permit an open-session item directing county officials to negotiate. The board did not adopt or approve any sale or assignment on the public record; the action was strictly authorization for counsel to agree to the litigation stay.
