Printer-friendly version
By Miriam Raftery
December 8, 2015 (Alpine) – A lawsuit over a high school for Alpine is slated to be back in Superior Court downtown on December 17at 9:30 a.m.
Alpine taxpayers and the Alpine Union School District have filed a reconsideration request asking Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman to grant Alpine’s motion for summary adjudication and deny Grossmont’s motion for summary judgment, in light of a Court of Appeals decision that found Propositions H and U contain a promise to build an Alpine High School.
Grossmont filed a response asking just the opposite – urging Judge Pressman to deny Alpine’s motion for reconsideration.
The case is convoluted. Alpine residents, fed up after years of broken promises by Grossmont, are seeking to leave Grossmont and get the state to approve unification of the Alpine Union School District so that it can expand from elementary and middle school students to include high school. A Grand Jury report sided with Alpine parents and the County Board of Education recommended approval of unification to the state.
Alpine taxpayers and the AUSD filed suit asking the court to force Grossmont to set aside bond money to pay for a high school, at least until the unification issue is decided. Pressman initially sided with Alpine by ordering $42 million in bond funds set aside, but later reversed his own decision and threw the whole case out of court.
Just hours later, an Appellate Court entered the fray, finding that Pressman’s initial ruling to order funds set aside was correct. The Appellate Court also found that Propositions H and U constituted promises to voters to build the Alpine High School, though the appeals court indicated its ruling did not decide the issue on its merits and indicated that issue would be subject to evidence and arguments presented at trial.
In light of the Appellate Court ruling, Judge Pressman vacated his dismissal of the case and set a hearing for December 17.
Alpine’s motion argues that the Appeals Court finding that the bonds obligate Grossmont to build the school is a matter of law now in the case and requires the Superior Court to reconsider its prior rulings.
Grossmont takes the opposite view, insisting that the Appellate justices ruling does not amount to new law in the case, nor does it impact the court’s finding that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.
Comments
This is exactly what is read
Alpine v. GUHSD, read full and excerpt from CA Court of Appeals
Find complete 18 page document here http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/sites/eastcountymagazine.org/files/201...
Excerpt Portion Tells the reason Alpine has merit more than GUHSD, IMO, per the Court of Appeals: Grossmont has purchased the land for the building of the [Alpine] high school, which belies allegations that Grossmont never intended to construct the school. Further, Grossmont has set forth reasons for delaying the construction of the Alpine school. Further, there may be valid enrollment concerns and other economic reasons to justify delaying construction from the perspective [of] Grossmont. "However, a high school has been promised to voters at some point and there is an expectation that funds from [Prop.] U would be used to finance construction. This would be true regardless of what entity —Alpine or Grossmont—ultimately is responsible for the completion of the [high school]. Contrary to Grossmont's argument on December 5th, voters did not appear to vote for 'board discretion.' Voters voted for a bond (twice) that would include a new high school. What is clear to the Court is that Grossmont represented to voters that a high school would be constructed at some point from proceeds from [Prop.] U ... The voters approved the bond with this understanding ... There was an expectation and understanding that a portion of the bond funds would be used for the purpose of high school construction. Thus, whether or not unification [of Alpine] is successful, funds from this bond are supposed to be used in part to build a high school ... The community [Alpine] expected, based upon the representations of Grossmont ... that bond funds would be used for construction. Funds should be preserved for this purpose.