In response to Judge Jacobson’s commentary “Timing of courthouse objections is odd” (Oct. 1, Opinions): There is nothing odd about the discovery of previously unknown “material facts,” which, after uncovered, produce new facts needing serious investigation.
There is no question about the need for a new courthouse for Stanislaus County in Modesto. And the location of the new courthouse is not an issue for much of the public, either.
What the judge fails to understand, or take into consideration, is that recent material facts have been discovered by the public which strongly suggest that certain persons in the courthouse land deal may have been breaking California real estate law. There is also a very poorly written “confidentiality agreement,” which was written to hide the real nature of the services to be provided to the city. The real nature of services are not those of consulting, but those of real estate activities requiring a real estate license. A formal complaint has been filed with the Bureau of Real Estate for investigation.
I would suggest that the judge analyze the information and facts that have been featured in the several articles published over the last couple of weeks in The Bee. When he does this, public opposition will not seem so odd.
D. M. MINIGHINI
Use common sense for courthouse