Outsider Should Hear Mall Suit, Judge Indicates

A Ventura County Superior Court judge on Thursday indicated that Oxnard’s lawsuit against Ventura over the proposed Buenaventura Mall expansion should be heard by an outside judge.

Although Judge John J. Hunter has not issued his formal ruling on Oxnard’s request to move the trial to a neutral location, he said Thursday that he is inclined to agree with that city’s attorneys.

That means the courtroom battle over the $50-million mall expansion plans will either be heard in Ventura by a visiting judge or moved to another county. A formal ruling is expected Monday.

On Thursday, Hunter gave lawyers for Ventura and Oxnard their choice between Kern and Santa Barbara counties. Both sides expressed a preference for Santa Barbara County.

“The city of Oxnard is delighted,” City Atty. Gary Gillig said outside the courtroom. “There’s the elimination of any appearance of prejudice. This [tentative decision] will ensure a fair and unbiased review of our case.”

The Oxnard City Council turned to the courts last month to fight the proposed expansion of the Buenaventura Mall.

Council members claim in court papers that the deal struck between Ventura and the mall developers amounts to an illegal giveaway of $32 million in sales tax revenues.

The lawsuit also alleges that Ventura officials violated state laws when they approved the tax-sharing development agreement. None of the claims in the lawsuit will be addressed until the case is assigned to a suitable judge and court.

Both of the anchor department stores at Oxnard’s rival shopping center--The Esplanade--already have agreed to leave that city in favor of a revamped Buenaventura Mall when the expansion is completed.

Attorneys for the city of Ventura downplayed Hunter’s ruling, saying that once a venue is selected, they will prevail in court.

“It might not be so bad,” said Katherine E. Stone, who was brought in as special counsel for the mall lawsuit. “Judge Hunter indicated he might try to expedite the case.”

*

Stone argued against the change-of-venue motion on the grounds that it would unnecessarily delay the planned expansion, and could kill the mall project altogether.

“It appears to me that Oxnard’s goal is to use every possible means to delay the Buenaventura Mall renovation and expansion project,” she wrote in court papers.

“If Oxnard is able to manipulate the court system to do this, it may be able to kill the project without addressing the merits of its cases,” she added.

Timing is a critical component of the proposed expansion. When the tax-sharing deal was announced last summer, city officials and mall developers hoped to complete the expansion for the 1997 holiday shopping season.

But attorneys hired by Oxnard to fight the proposed expansion successfully argued that no significant delay would result from moving the trial to a neutral location.

Ventura is “hoping to keep the case in Ventura County to take advantage of what it presumes would be a favorable local sentiment,” attorney R. Bruce Tepper argued in court papers on Oxnard’s behalf.

Tepper said Ventura has exaggerated the need for speed in resolving the case and urged Hunter to do away with any perceived bias.

At stake in the litigation are millions of dollars in sales taxes. Oxnard stands to lose more than $600,000 a year if both Robinsons-May and Sears leave The Esplanade for the expanded Buenaventura Mall.

“The proposed expansion of the Buenaventura Mall accomplished by the illegal actions of the defendants will result in substantial loss of sales-tax revenue to the city of Oxnard,” according to court papers.

*

Under the agreement approved by the Ventura City Council, the mall owners would pay for the $50-million renovation, but would receive sales-tax rebates of up to $32 million over the next 20 years.

Ventura officials say it is the only way to breathe economic life into the 30-year-old Buenaventura Mall, which perennially ranks as one of the highest sales-tax generators in the city.

The change-of-venue motion was scheduled to be heard Wednesday by Judge William L. Peck. But Peck recused himself because he lives and owns property in Ventura.

Before he withdrew from the case, however, Peck criticized Oxnard’s legal position, calling the arguments “balderdash.”

“I hope you didn’t charge the city [taxpayers] of Oxnard for that paperwork,” Peck said. “A lot of that stuff is really reaching.”

Oxnard City Atty. Gillig defended the motions. “I don’t file frivolous motions,” he said.