2005-09-02 TMALASEKO2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA:I just want to make a comment. I think its important to note that the claims adjusters report is a recommendation; and, you know, to me thats a big difference from it being a mandate. Its a recommendationfor us to consider. Thats all. Thank you. SALAVEA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Alameda that its a recommendation and I still, I feel that our responsibility is to establish whether or not theres any adverse impact to the business itself, because thats what is applicable in this instance. Not adverse impact to the individual which caused the person to sell the property because he couldnt live in that area but adverse impact. Thats the way Im reading into this, is that adverse impact to the business. And I dont think through testimony adverse impact to the business has been established.Iftherewasdocumentationsayingpriortothe91blowoutsalesoffruitswereata certain level and after the event the sales dropped or the production of fruit by these trees were lessened because of the impact I would feel comfortable compensating Mr. Malasek for that. But in my mind that hasnt been established in any shape or form. The fact that he submitted documentation to the asset or the claims person kind of showed that the business continued to produce at a certain level. So thats why I asked for clarification from counsel, is if its to establish adverse impact on the business; and thats where Im going with my discussion. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Are there any other first-time speakers? Otherwise, I will call upon Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I view this claim not as the business or economic loss, not necessarily that, but as the any other claim of adverse impact which is able to be substantiated by evidence. And as I understand the claim, Commissioner Salavea is correct in saying that there is no evidence that the actual, theres a decrease in his production and all of that. And my understanding is that that is not the claim. And so the claim is not that his, he was making $10,000 a year before the blowout and then now hes making $3,000 so he should be compensated. The claim is that because of the geothermal conditions he essentially was forced to sell his property. If, you know, if it was a perfect world he would not have sold the property, he would still be there today, you know, selling his fruit and other things for $3,000 to $4,000 a year net. But because of the conditions he had to sell the property. And the claim is that when he got paid for that, that 130 percent of the taxed assessed value, part of what was not included in that payment was any consideration for his income. And the record is clear in what Wood & Tait has submitted that the Tax Office made it expressly clear that the 130 percent that Mr. Malasek received from the separate relocation program did not include any compensation for that, none at all. It was not even considered as part of the compensation. Thats what our record is clear. So that this claim is for, Mr. Malaseks claim as I understand it is that because that was not considered that constitutes any other claim of adverse impact for which he should be 20