Anonymous - 1-28-2005 at 11:07 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050127-9999-1b...
Land doesn't belong to Sempra, lawsuit claims
By Diane Lindquist
January 27, 2005
ENSENADA ? A lawsuit filed in Baja California state court claims Sempra Energy LNG does not own the property on which it plans to build a liquefied
natural gas receiving terminal.
Ensenada lawyer Carlos Gonz?lez Castro filed the action on behalf of a Mexico City businessman who says he owns the land. Gonz?lez says the property
Sempra owns is really about three miles south of the parcel where the company is preparing to build its $670 million LNG complex.
"All the studies and research and environmental analyses have been made on the wrong lots," Gonz?lez said. "All the (government) authorizations are
for the wrong point. The permits are not valid."
The suit was filed in Baja California state court in mid-November. A judge has ordered a legal notice to be included in Ensenada land records noting
that the parcel's ownership is in dispute.
Sempra contends in a filing that the lawsuit's claims are fraudulent.
"We believe this lawsuit has no merit, that it's factually defective," Sempra spokeswoman Jennifer Andrews said yesterday. She said the company "is
confident it will prevail."
Action on the matter is not expected until all parties involved have responded to the suit.
Opponents of the project on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border argue that Sempra should not be allowed to build the massive LNG complex on Costa
Azul. The plateau, about 14 miles north of Ensenada adjacent to the Bajamar golf and residential resort, is one of the few undeveloped coastal areas
between Tijuana and Ensenada.
Sempra is building a road to the site and has awarded $670 million in contracts to companies to erect the onshore LNG receiving terminal and an
adjacent breakwater in the Pacific Ocean.
Construction is scheduled to begin during the first half of this year. The project is expected to be completed in 2008 and supply natural gas to Baja
California and Southern California.
According to a Mexico City news report, Mexico's Senate recently weighed in on the project, urging Baja California state and Tijuana, Rosarito and
Ensenada municipal officials to respect a regional master plan that bans industrial development along the coastal corridor.
Sempra has not heard of or reviewed any action by the Mexican Senate, spokeswoman Andrews said. "But we're confident that all entities that granted
permits for the project complied with the (master plan) guidelines," she said.
Attorney Gonz?lez has been at the forefront of other efforts to halt construction of the Costa Azul project.
In 2003, he asked a federal court to void the environmental permit that the Mexican government granted Sempra. The court dismissed the request, saying
the attorney did not have legal standing to challenge the permit.
Last summer, Gonz?lez sent Baja California Gov. Eugenio Elorduy Walther, members of his cabinet, Ensenada's mayor and the city's fire chief copies of
a federal court's preliminary injunction nullifying the project's permits. The injunction was among several sought on behalf of Bajamar developer
Roberto Valdes.
While Valdes says the injunction still stands, Sempra insists that all legal issues in that matter have been resolved.
Gonz?lez's most recent case takes issue with the company's property title.
"We think Sempra did buy the lots, but they're not where they think they are. They're five kilometers south," he said. "This is the property of my
client."
The attorney believes the confusion stems from the numbering of land parcels when the Departamento de Asuntos Agrarios y Colonizaci?n created Colonia
Costa Azul in 1957.
In the intervening years, he said, numbers identifying the parcels were somehow reversed from south to north in property records. But in the titles,
he claims, the parcel numbers remain as originally designated.
"I don't think Sempra did a title search when they bought the property," Gonz?lez said.
Bolstering his claim, he said, is that the longitude and latitude coordinates by which Sempra's property is identified in federal government
developmental and environmental permits refer not to the property where the company plans to develop the LNG project but to a location three miles
south.
Last March, the issue of title irregularities forced Marathon Oil Corp. to abandon plans to build an energy complex, including an LNG receiving
terminal, near Tijuana. State officials said then that they seized the company's land to clear up confusion over ownership due to overlapping property
titles.
A Baja California spokesman did not respond yesterday to a query asking whether the government planned to intervene in the Sempra land title matter.
Such disputes are common in Mexico, said Alberto Sz?kely, a former Mexican U.N. ambassador and Mexico City lawyer who specializes in environmental and
property law.
"It's one of the most worrisome issues in Mexico," Sz?kely said. "The law is so cumbersome and subject to influence that people work around the law."
The suit, he said, "could delay the project if Sempra is trying to develop it on land that isn't theirs."
woody with a view - 1-28-2005 at 11:34 PM
you mean after they come out in the union-tribune and surf magazines about the "SECRET" surf spot out behind bajamar, in an effort to save the area
from progress, it turns out they shoulda kept ther collective mouths shut after all? hmmm.
The Sculpin - 1-29-2005 at 04:49 PM
This is absolutely classic!!!!
At least they're dealing with it now. Could you imagine what would have happened had this claim gone to court after they had built the damn thing!!
All that's needed now is a few families of sqautters saying they've been there since 1988 living a simple and self sustaining life!
This is hilarious......
surfer jim - 1-29-2005 at 08:53 PM
....somebody should pay some mordida and get this straightened out...before it is too late.....