All was quiet on the Alameda Theater front for a while, but according to the Alameda Journal, the decision lies squarely on the shoulders of the courts about this project. All the while, construction plugs on, some excerpts:
…The hearing held Thursday was an appeal of a June decision by an Alameda County Superior Court judge siding with the city after a lawsuit filed by the Megaplex group.
An environmental impact report needed to be drafted for the parking garage portion of the development, the group had argued, but Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw disagreed, saying the suit was filed too late and had missed a window of opportunity for challenging the project.
“That is well-established case law and so I do not expect anything different to happen at the court of appeal that happened at superior court level,” Alameda City Attorney Terry Highsmith said. “If you challenge a project within CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) you have to do so within 30 days, and they did not do it.”
The Megaplex group later filed a injunction in an effort to stop the construction of the project, but in November, that too was denied by the California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District.
If the appellate panel again sides with the city on the recent appeal, the Megaplex group could petition for reconsideration but would likely have few other legal remedies at their disposal, Highsmith added…
One thing you have to say about the CMFA is that they are nothing if not persistent. Did you know you can sign up for email notifications through the Court of Appeals website about the disposition of the case if you are so inclined? Check it out here. Neat!
I wonder if the costs of responding to all these legal maneuverings gets calculated in the total cost of the project itself on the city’s side. Because if it does, it’s sort of a “win” for CMFA because then they can point out that how much the additional money the city spent on constructing the project. It’s quite brilliant.
Perhaps the CMFA can learn when to throw in the hat. That battle has already been lost.
Comment by Ben Kruger — February 20, 2007 @ 8:05 am
“I wonder if the costs of responding to all these legal maneuverings gets calculated in the total cost of the project itself on the city’s side. Because if it does, it’s sort of a “win” for CMFA because then they can point out that how much the additional money the city spent on constructing the project. It’s quite brilliant.”
——————————-
So now you are concerned about the project’s finances, Lauren? You believe that they would be sound but for this citizen action?
I invite you, and your shill Mr. Kruger, to justify the financial scheme behind the project, with or without the CFMA action. Include in your essay the total cost of the project, credible estimates of its payback time, and sources of debt service. Extra credit will be given for a cogent justification of taxapyer funding of non-essential, privately owned entertainment business.
Comment by dave — February 20, 2007 @ 10:20 am
dave – your being unfair! You are intentionally trying to fail the flunky essayists with an impossible assignment. There is no way to justify $32MM+ for this project which does not even adequately provide the parking we need along Park St, yet on ‘cathedral scale’ builds the tallest structure in the city for the benefit of the auto in this ‘green-minded’ city.
Comment by D.Kirwin — February 20, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
I am just happy that by the end of the year we will have the garage and early next year the Theatres. I think the building fits fine with the area and will be a great asset to the City of Alameda. Obviously a lot of voters did too.
Comment by Joel — February 20, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Joel, no voter who A) read the plan and B) passed 6th grade arithmetic approved of the project.
Comment by dave — February 20, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Joel – it wasn’t on the ballot – why not?
Comment by D.Kirwin — February 20, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Then tell me why the people, who got reelected, were reelected. Obviously there were a lot more people in Alameda who voted, and liked what is going on in Alameda as opposed to those who don’t. It is a no brainer…the slate…action Alameda they were all slammed in this last election.
Comment by Joel — February 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
People make stupid choices at the polls sometimes, Joel. Exhibit A is the current President. Or do you feel that his re-election validates the wisdom of Iraq?
Comment by dave — February 20, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Hmmm … the grapes are still sour for some folks (Dave, DK, NIMBY et al).
The same voters would have made a “brilliant” choice had they elected the Slate, eh?
To refresh your memory, Slate got a 2:1 beating at the polls … a margin of defeat that generations of Slate supporters will never forget
If it helps to keep your mind off reality, keep talking about the elections — perhaps it is cathartic.
Comment by Apuntes — February 20, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Apuntes,
I put to you the same question as I put to Lauren in post #2: tell me why it is a sound project, extra points for legitimacy.
Comment by dave — February 20, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Or be a mench and admit you can’t — that will score you more blog points than any “sour grapes” posts ever will.
Comment by dave — February 20, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
So after a night to sleep on it, nobody has a rationalization for the theater?
The sudden concern for prudence was short-lived indeed….
Comment by dave — February 21, 2007 @ 8:33 am
ahhh… I see the whole theater thing is still going on and on and on. If every city in America beat dead horses over something as insignificant as this, we would not have a real economy. The theater is going to be restored and when it brings money and vitality to the city, everyone will hopefully be happy for a change.
Comment by edvard_sloan — February 21, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Ah, willy, always ready with empty posts. Nice to see you’ve kept the same handle 2 days in a row.
No one has yet tried to justify the finances, because they know they cannot. To advocate for a project they KNOW is folly is the height of irresponsible citizenship. It tales more than a glittering generality or one poster’s simple liking of the idea to make a project float. It also requires those most unpleasant dashes of reality like feasability, debt service, etc.
I’m a bit dissappointed in Lauren for posting a worry over the finances when she knows damn well they were upside down to begin with.
Enjoy the movies, willy. I’ll gladly buy you dinner & a stack of movie tickets if you can ever provide a scintilla of defensible reasoning for the taxpayers funding it.
Comment by dave — February 21, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Dave,
Many people fret over the costs associated with the theater. Indeed, I will not argue with you that 32 million is a lot of money. Some wonder why a project like this could cost that much.
One of the many reasons it costs such an astronomical amount is the level of red tape organizations, governments, and companies that head up projects like this run into. Anytime a project meets opposition, there’s lawyers to pay, meetings to be held, and so on.
I was reading a report ( surprise) regarding new developments in the BA. As much as 1/3rd of current costs are brought on as a result of local opposition and longstanding regulations that make building more expensive.
In essence, builders can be hampered and slowed down and gummed up, but given the controlled nature of this area, they will eventually build as a result of higher prices that cover the costs red tape and even yield a handsome profit. The mechanisms to create this profit cycle works flawlessly as one bubble after another inflates and deflates in 12-15 year cycles.
So the irony is that protective policies tend to backfire in the form of incurred expense quiet often not realized by the opposing party.In reality, you,I, and everyone else pay more for these things, handing the money to those developers and organizations who are so vehemently opposed.
So the mystery as to why this project cost as much as it did should come as no mystery or surprise to anyone- especially those who fought it tooth and nail.
Comment by edvard_sloan — February 21, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I believe the DDA spelled out that any legal fees would be covered by the developer. Once a lawsuit was filed, the city council decided to pick up the tab instead. I’m not sure why.
I see nothing wrong with utilizing our legal system. Thank goodness the city used it with the beltline property. One can argue that there are far more frivolous defenses than frivolous lawsuits.
Comment by Irene Dieter — February 21, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Well there exists an element in this area where anything- anything at all that is proposed, such as buildings, houses, streets, etc etc is vehemently opposed by people, graciously choosing to as you say- utilize the legal system to no end.
My point was that this sort of excessive legal activity is what increases expense in one form or another- whether it is from you, me, a developer, or what have you. It all comes back around eventually as the natural law of physics comes into play.
Comment by edvard_sloan — February 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Wlly,
Where is your evidence that 1/3 of the theater cost was due to legal opposition?
Is your point that it would be feasible if it cost 1/3 less?
Comment by dave — February 21, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The (white) elephant in the room here is the historic Alameda Theater itself. If this had been left entirely up to market forces, with no government or neighborhood intervention of any kind, there would have been only one possible outcome: sooner or later — perhaps after a long period of slow deterioration — the building would have been torn down and replaced with something profitable. It might have been a new box housing a cineplex, or it might have been a car wash, a gas station, or a parking lot. Remember, this scenario assumes no government or neighborhood intervention to block either the building’s destruction or to prohibit the new use.
The resulting project is a mixture of government intervention and free-market economics. The government intervention and hefty infusion of funds is what saved the historic Alameda Theater and ensured it would be restored. This cleared the way for the private developer to build the cineplex addition and operate the complex for a profit.
Most of the high price tag here was what it took to save a buidling that almost all people in Alameda say they want to save. Part of the price tag was an investment in the Park St. district, betting on a return in the form of a catalyst effect: in other words, hoping that the theater will be good for business and will bring further economic benefits to the whole district.
I don’t pretend to share Dave’s financial knowledge, but I did read the plan (and I did pass sixth grade arithmetic) and it seemed like a good balance between what the community wants (and is willing to use taxpayer dollars to save) and what the private sector is willing to provide at its own risk. I can understand that people might object to this use of taxpayer funds, but that is a difference of opinion about the common good and the viability of this particular scheme, not evidence of a lack of sixth-grade educational attainment.
Comment by Michael Krueger — February 21, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
The former owner ot the theater offered it to the city free of charge for a municipal auditorium (would have been great) but at that time, the preservationists and Alameda High School Building enthusiasts were interested in retaining the auditorium (to eventually become the Koffman auditorium) and turned the offer down.
Comment by Barbara Kahn — February 21, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Dave,
You notice Lauren doesn’t respond to comments unless it’s about taking one down. I didn’t get that she made the assumption you saddle her with, i.e. that the project will now be financially unsound because of the legal costs. All I read was that she said that CFMA would be able to boost those costs and then crow about it. It’s like you put words in her mouth so you could disagree with them.
For those of you who are industrious enough to search, I’m sure those costs can be verified, though no matter what they are I assume the City doesn’t really want to talk about it.
Comment by Mark — February 21, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
In no particular order:
re 21:
When a booster of a bloated boondoggle shifts course and complains about its funding, it is a fair question to ask said booster, and minions, to clarify and explain the objection to the funding issue she now laments. It’s called “accountability,” a quality desirable in both bloggers and blogmasters.
Lauren runs a first class blog; I have told her so in open postings as well as private emails. But in this item her position was unimpressive — if she cared enough about the finances to post such today, then dammit she ought to at the very least admit that the finances were indefensible from the outset.
A political blog such as this is all about persuasion and credibility. It’s the root of why we discuss local issues, to learn through challenge and examination, both from within and without.
——————
re 20
Please give more color Ms. Kahn. I am flummoxed as to why the owner would offer it for free — his eminent domain fight is evidence enough the property had value. It seems there is much more to that story, which I confess I had not heard before. Please clarify.
———————–
Re 19
Mr. Krueger:
Yes, there is much opinion involved in this. For example, it is a matter of opinion if the building was worth saving (most opine it is).
My opinions on the project are mostly concerned with public funding of the project and the terms of the deal. They are opinions, to be sure, but I submit they are strongly defensible, and with an extra glass of wine in me I’ll go so far as to call them incontrovertible.
To wit:
A) The city’s best-case investment return is 1.5%.
My opinion: this is a lousy deal.
One can disagree with this, it’s an opinion. But I humbly suggest that those who disagree check section C of the Wall Street Journal to see what the city could earn in riskless Treasury securities. Hint: it’s about 3x that number.
B) The city is underwriting a privately owned business that sells a non-essential entertainment prodcut into a vibrant market that offers many entertainment options.
My opinion: this is deeply inappropriate and far outside the purview of good governance.
Again, just an opinion, but I challenge those who differ to quote the line in the city charter that allows, to say nothing of promotes, this activity. I also then fairly ask when my privately owned business receives the same bounteous public windfall. My cohorts in the private sector echo my plea.
C) The money in question, ~30MM, is an obscene waste of tax dollars when AUSD, a true public asset deserving of public funds, begs for less than a tenth of that sum.
Again, an opinion. Dare you challenge it?
D) The project allegedly pays for itself in increased tax revenues to the city. My opinion, given the scale of the area and the fact that most turnover resulting from the project is non-taxable, is that’s hogwash. Dispute the opinion with facts & numbers.
And that last item, facts & numbers, is what has always lacked from the pro-cineplex argument, while conversely the CMFA side has always been pregnant with documentation. It takes more than “I want my MTV” for this deal to make any bloody sense and thus far, none on the pro-plex side has offered any substance.
Opinions? Sure.
Prove them wrong. Prove my detractors right.
Do so credibly and I will admit defeat and pick up the bar tab while doing so.
Comment by dave — February 21, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Dave,
I should take NIMBY advise and not talk about certain individuals, but you just push all the wrong buttons.
As far as I see you are just not happy about anything…your glass is always not only empty…but bone dry…just from what I have read and I certainly haven’t had time to read everything you have wrote…do you really have a life…you seem to be on here all the time. Have you ever thought you might be over thinking things.
And while I am at it one thing I find offensive is you use of words on this site…can you leave out the swear words and leave it G or PG13. Furthermore, why do you care what someone calls themselves whatever they want to…you only go by dave…there are a ton of them on this website…leave Willy alone…don’t be such a jerk…because he doesn’t agree with you or chooses to call himself something different (if this is really the case). You give your opinions let him give his. I have no idea who you are, but I picture you as a lonely old man who has nothing better to do then spend all your time on the net.
Why is it so important for you to be right all the time. I have a lot to learn…maybe you can open yourself up to learn also. And the older I get the more I realize I have a lot more to learn. Not everyone want to prove you wrong and go hang out in a bar (wow! sounds like so much fun)
Comment by Joel — February 21, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Dave, I’ll admit that I think the theater is a very risky gamble, but that I don’t feel strongly one way or another about it. I’ll give my opinion without trying to defend the project. I’m not even interested in proving your opinions wrong, but a couple of corrections.
a) the city didn’t do the theater as solely a revenue generator, the return rate is one aspect, as is renovating an historic building and revitalizing the downtown. I’m sure we can all agree that there are safer, higher return investments. There are intangibles that should at least be included in the discussion of it’s worth. For me, one of the positive intangibles is having a place where my kids can walk and see a movie.
Further, if the theater succeeds, the rent paid by the developer skyrockets in year 3 (or is it 5) and he has the option to buy everything but the parking structure at either the price paid to build it or at it’s appraised fair-market value. If either of the scenarios happen, the overall cost will reduced dramatically.
b) This is an argument based solely on your political opinion (that public funding should never build projects that a private entity is involved in). Using the opinion that allowed for the theater to be built, show that your business is one that wouldn’t get done without public financing and will help to reinvigorate downtown and I’m sure you’d have been able to make a case. Given that you’re thriving and have competition, it would seem there’s no basis for the comparison.
c)Bad argument. The money is paid for out of tax increment. Of that 4% would have gone to the schools had there been no redevelopment area. Out of the $32 million, $1.28 million over 30 years, would go to the schools, not enough to cover the deficit for one year, yet alone over the course of the 30 year repayment.
D) The tax increment that is covering the bonds for the theater is the existing tax increment level from 2 years ago (meaning no increase in tax increment is needed to cover the bonds), any increase in tax increment is on top of that, which is available for other projects until the redevelopment district sunsets or disappears (which it needs to at some point IMHO).
If it fails, obviously (and I don’t think this is opinion), the folks who put this together will look pretty silly and it will be easy for everyone to say it shouldn’t have been done.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 21, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
JKW – Where you last month when the CC voted to eliminate the deadline for creating debt in the re-development area? CIC eliminated the sunset – there had been a 2011 deadline for debt creation meaning re-development with public city dollars after 2011 would have required a voter approval – what would be wrong with that? Now they will continue to issue city tax-backed bonds without voter consent!
If the megaplex fails (like every other multiscreen in this city has) we will have civic center blight, and if anyone is foolish enough to finance the Conner project, the default will net the lender a liability, not an asset. They are NOT restoring the historic theater just sprucing up the lobby. They are leaving the historic movie house with the level floor of the roller rink, but putting raked floors in the multi-plex so when it fails it cannot be converted to retail – no hedging this bet by the Conner Crew! He has a history of failed theater projects – and he hedges his own bets – his other business is home theaters. Ask yourself “Why?”
Most Alamedans want the historic theater restored, but from my counts most public meetings after the public was informed had speakers 10:1 against THIS theater project. This project does not restore the historic theater – don’t you understand that yet?
Comment by D.Kirwin — February 22, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Sorry Dave, about my earlier post…it really isn’t my business how you spend your time and I wasn’t very nice…you have a right to your opinions (views) just like everyone else. I don’t know you and shouldn’t make judgements. I shouldn’t post things after a long day & when I am tired.
Comment by Joel — February 22, 2007 @ 7:47 am
Forgiven & forgotten, Joel.
Comment by dave — February 22, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Mr. White,
If you admit the theater is a risky gamble, do you then see the folly of throwing public funds at it? Risky gambles are for entrepreneurs, not for local governments. And if there was a sufficient demand, and sufficient risk-reward for a 12 screen ‘plex, we’d already have one.
In response to your points A-D:
A) Intangibles. I riposte again with “purview.” The city’s job is to provide what the market will not. This includes such intangibles as parks, which the market doesn’t generally provide. Such intangibles as entertainment are amply provided by the market.
B)
I think I understand your post, it’s a bit choppy. Based on what I think you said, if the project was only the garage, I could well be in favor of it. Properly done, that could be a way to invigorate Park St that would be postive and appropriate, and one that would not necessarily be done by the free market. The Park & Webster streetscapes are good examples of this.
But an outright cash subsidy to a private, non-essential business? Nada pasa.
C)
Yes my specifics are weak; the principal still holds. Spending on a movie house when the schools are begging is misplaced. I’d also add that the redevelopment distyrict is essentially permanent, meaning that some of the most valuable property in the city is forever off the general tax rolls, crimping future flexibility. The overlapping debt burden of the redev bonds similarly constrains the future. The price tag of the project is roughly comparable for a full year of the total city budget. That is a BIG fiscal pill to swallow.
D) Same riposte as C
And do you really feel that BevJo & company looking silly if it fails is sufficient backstop? Splain that.
Comment by dave — February 22, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Well,
regardless of what has happened in the past, perhaps more could be done for the future in determining what the theater could do for the local community.
I realize I might be rephrasing a comparison I mentioned months ago, but for a refresher I’ll mention it again.
I’m originally from a smaller southern city of around 200,000. Like Alameda, it looks as if it hasn’t changed that much in 50+ years… quaint old houses, a neat downtown, old buildings, and small mom-N-pop businesses. It also features an enormous old theater built in 1925. It has a Wurlitzer organ, a balcony, and seating for 2500 people. It had been deteriorating for decades.
Just like the City of Alameda, a joint government/private corporation formed a joint venture to restore the theater at a cost of over 25 million dollars. These costs went all the way down to things like using correct period fixtures, draperies, bathroom plumbing, energy efficient heating and cooling, and the disassembly and restoration of the organ.
In the meantime, the city worked with local groups and citizens to determine what sort of programming they would want to see. The result was a mixed-use program of concerts, movies, the Appalachian ballet, the local Symphony, and incoming performers from an international roster. They even planned free movie nights.
In the end, the theater was finished in 2003. The theater is located in a central location in the city. Parking had been also upgraded to accommodate the extra people and cars.
The effect was one that the city had hoped for- an outgrowth of renovation, new businesses, cultural installments like art galleries, and even a new urban development for planned housing of the kind that is sensitive to historic neighborhoods. This growth was touched off by the crowning jewel of downtown- the theater. There has been a wide degree of success in the city ever since.
As of this year, the city made the list as one of the best cities to live and work for the first time, a distinction that wouldn’t have been possible without the support of the local citizens and careful planning of the city council.This also being given to a city that just a short 10 years ago was in a period of economic stagnation.
So the point of that long, drawn-out story is that an historic landmark like the Alameda theater can make a difference not only for a community, but for the cultural enhancement of the area as well.I understand that the dynamics here are different. There doesn’t exist the flexibility for change or a fresh clean slate to work from either.
But I would overlook these shortcomings and see how local Alamedans could benefit from taking part in the planning of their future theater’s life. A lot of energy has been spent opposing the theater. Let’s put some of that same energy into making the theater a great place to go.
Comment by edvard_sloan — February 22, 2007 @ 8:45 am
{If you admit the theater is a risky gamble, do you then see the folly of throwing public funds at it?}
I wouldn’t call it folly. But I would say that there better be a serious vetting process of the risks before the decision is made.
{if there was a sufficient demand, and sufficient risk-reward for a 12 screen ‘plex, we’d already have one.}
I don’t agree. We obviously have different opinions on the role of government. I agree that government should be careful about entering into non-vital markets, but there are certainly cases where a case can be made that they have a role in stepping up and becoming a catalyst for things to happen. If we did have a market-created Cineplex (and where did 12 screens come from?), it certainly wouldn’t include the historic theater. The costs for retrofitting and infrastructure of the theater are over 1/3 the total cost of the project. You could build a whole new Cineplex for the renovation cost. There are plenty of places that the free-market doesn’t serve a community in ways that the community would like to be served. There may be plenty of demand for movies in Alameda that the market feels is better served in Oakland because the potential financial rewards are greater there. This doesn’t mean that there’s no room for a Cineplex on Park Street.
A) Intangibles. If you define intangibles as solely “entertainment” you’d probably be right. However others would argue that there are other intangibles like preserving (though not perfectly restoring DK) the theater and creating more entertainment options in Alameda as some of them. Again. It’s opinion, people can disagree on it and I certainly respect your POV on the use of funds, but those who disagree with you aren’t idiots. (actually some of us might be, but the two are not connected)
B) Use of public funds: see above.
C) Schools deficit is connected to the redevelopment. In this case, the only one that had “facts” in it, your principle doesn’t hold. You attempted to tie the funding for the theater directly to the budget deficit faced by the schools (as have others). There is a small effect of about $50,000 a year lost to the schools by the redevelopment area being created and tax increment used for the theater. But your point was that the $2 million deficit was directly linked to the $30 million dollar theater, and therefore no one could argue with you on the stupidity of the project because schools are important.
You wrote: “The money in question, ~30MM, is an obscene waste of tax dollars when AUSD, a true public asset deserving of public funds, begs for less than a tenth of that sum. Again, an opinion. Dare you challenge it?”
D) Bonds will never be repaid. Huh? You wrote that “the project allegedly pays for itself in increased tax revenues to the city.” Going on to say you don’t believe the financial projections for the increases and therefore the bonds won’t be covered. Your challenge: “Dispute the opinion with facts & numbers.” I pointed out that they bonds are paid by existing tax increment collection and are not tied to any increases. The repayments will happen in either scenario (increased tax collection or no increased tax collection) Your opinion (that there may not be a huge tax collection increase because of the project) is valid and might even be correct, but doesn’t connect with how you claim the project is being paid for.
All that said, we share the same concerns about redevelopment district being permanent and keeping much of a city’s tax revenue out of city coffers. The Redevelopment area will sunset unless the council votes to continue it, the time horizon is a long way out there. Future city councils will need to look at when the proper time to sunset the area is, so that increases in tax increment can again flow to where they were originally intended.
Comment by John Knox White — February 22, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
[...] of redevelopment on the current AUSD School Budget. While hints of this non-controversy started on Lauren Do’s site, I was approached by a city councilmember at the first Alamedans for Better Schools meeting in [...]
Pingback by Redeveloping our schools « Stop, Drop and Roll — March 14, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
All is still quiet on the megaplex. Conner still has not been able to acquire funding for his plan, and what now will make it more difficult for him than I posted on #25, is that he now claims to be an expert developer/builder and will serve as his own general contactor for the project. The bids he claims were too high (his budgeted costs were too low) No one should be comforted that he plans to do this project himself even if he is a licensed contractor. His business is installing home theaters for private owners. Remember the DDA puts millions of City Tax dollars into this largely unwanted project. For the scale of the project Conner is capable of consider the liability bond his company holds – $12,500. I believe this is the one and only Kyle Conner of Santa Rosa with the company Theater Equipment Construction and Service. See for yourself at http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=00689896
Comment by D. Kirwin — March 14, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Funny to bring up tax increments and school funding here, but with, or without redevelopment – property values go up, Has everyone noticed this?
With all the redevelopment zones in Alameda, I believe the schools may be getting less money as most of the tax increment funds go to paying the redevelopment bonds. It is unclear as to what % if “tax increment” is due to redevelopment, and what % is due to climbing real-estate values.
Chuck Corica did get “an account” started so a small percentage of one redevelopment zone’s tax increment would be placed in an escrow type account for the schools to use for low cost homes. Mayor Corica had the foresight to know housing costs would exceed the affordability level of our school workers. After all these years it really hasn’t added up to much. At least not enough to build homes for the school’s workers but the financial arrangement has come to term and the school district must use the funds for building low cost homes or forfeit it back to the city.
I do not see how this is an argument validating the benefit of redevelopment for our schools. Most people, (other than developers) claim, and can demonstrate, that redevelopment is more commonly a financial hardship than a financial asset for communities. Don’t believe me go explore the facts at: http://www.redevelopment.com/
Comment by D. Kirwin — March 15, 2007 @ 12:08 am
I’d like to expand on some points made in post #25.
First, the roller rink floor is gone. The original sloped floor is all that remains (see picture at “shopparkstreet.com”. Second, if you go to “shopparkstreet.com” and click the “Alameda Theatre” page on the nav bar, you can see pictures of the work being done to the inside of the theatre. I wouldn’t call it “just sprucing up the lobby”. I don’t know anything about the “raked” floors in the new cineplex but when I get back from a little spring training trip I’m leaving for today, I’ll talk with Kyle and report back on this blog.
Last, but not least, someone’s counts are way off. At what meeting(s) did the speakers against the project out number the speakers for the project ten to one. The only two meetings I attended, and I attended them all, where the speakers against the project had a demonstrable majority was the one council meeting (I can’t tell you which one, I think it was in early 2006 or late 2005) where a “petition” was handed out
at the meeting, by the City, allowing people to sign in favor or against the project and not speak. I know for a fact that many of the proponents of the project signed the “petition” instead of speaking (we were hoping to get out of the meeting by midnight). The opponents chose to speak. The names of the people who signed and didn’t speak were never read into the record. My memory of the news coverage of the meeting is both local papers reported around 70 speakers against (could have been as many as 90) and about 20 speakers for the project. A ratio of 3 1/2 to 1 or at best 4 1/2 to 1 for those of us who did pass sixth grade math. The second meeting was the January 2006 HAB meeting. I believe twenty to twenty-five speakers spoke against the project but did not address the actual agenda item before the board. Unfortunately for the opponents of the project, the HAB was suppose to review and comment on Section 106 findings regarding the designs for the parking structure and cineplex. I was the only speaker to support the Section 106 findings. But I was also the only speaker that actually spoke to the agenda item. If you check the agenda of that meeting, you’ll find this item under reports not action items. When the HAB voted against the project that night, they voted on something they hadn’t been asked to address and that wasn’t on the agenda as an action item. In fact they never did comment on the section 106 findings as far as I can remember. At all other meetings(and there were a lot of them); sometimes the opponents had a few more speakers and sometimes the proponents had a few more speakers.
I’m sorry for the great length of this comment. These are complicated issues and they can’t just be explained or dismissed in a paragraph or two. I’ll be back in town next Tuesday. If anyone would like to see more pictures of the inside of the theatre, discuss the facts of the project over a cup of coffee (I’m buying) or ask any questions about the project please give me a call at the PSBA office. I’ve always got the time to sit down with anyone and talk about the facts of the project.
Comment by Robb Ratto — March 15, 2007 @ 8:02 am
Kirwin,
Please go to “Stop, Drop and Roll” for accurate info on schools and redevelopment and stop being a “shill” for Howard and Lipow’s propaganda on that one.
Comment by mark — March 15, 2007 @ 8:26 am
I read what SD&R had to say. It’s different, and less innaccurate, but I’m not so sure I’d call it accurate becasue it leaves aside many other concerns.
First, it fails to state that the city loses taxing control over the property in the redevelopment district, and effectively removes the property from city tax rolls. The city cannot benefit from increased tax base resulting from a sale, for example.
Second, it ignores the problem of overlapping debt. Redevelopment is pitched as “costless” to cities, but such pitches fail to account for other taxes and debts levied on the same property: it’s not just property tax, it’s also parcel taxes, healthcare levies, etc. Only so much blood can be squeezed from one stone, and redevelopment limits that amount.
Third, it ignores the perpetual lifespan of the RD district. Cities are told that once the bonds are paid off, the district reverts to the tax rolls. That is laughably false. As taxes rise over time, in particular in CA from Prop 13 readjustments on transfers, the tax dollars produced by the district increase. This invariably results in new bonds be issued for new projects. I’m in the bond business and can tell you this is standard.
Redevelopment law is very complex. I’ve traded and helped to underwrite a few RD bond deals, and there is much of it that I don’t fully grasp. But I get enough of it to know these are true: Its benefits to developers and bond hawkers are clear and guaranteed. Its benefits to cities are at best unclear and very often it is detrimental.
Comment by dave — March 15, 2007 @ 9:22 am
I was actually at the school board meeting (held at Pedan school 11-14-06)where this issue of the RD $ held for AUSD low-cost housing was discussed. Perhaps Mike Mcmahon’s site can explain it better:
4. Update on Island High School Facility Project
Background: The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) and the Alameda Unified School District (the District) entered into an agreement on November 12, 1991 pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the state of California (Health and Safety Code, Section 33401). The purpose of the agreement is to provide a certain portion of the tax increment from the Business and Waterfront Improvement (BWIP) to be transferred to the District (District Housing Fund). The funds will pay for the cost of low and moderate-income housing projects or programs carried out by the District. In addition to the provisions of this agreement, monies are also subject to the applicable Community Redevelopment Law, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan and the agreement resulting from the Clayton Guyton and Modesa Henderson v. City of Alameda action.
After reviewing options, the District’s staff direction was to develop existing school property. In doing so, the District will have ownership of an asset that will appreciate in value over time.
In October, 2005, the city of Alameda granted Alameda Unified School District access to those funds to begin predevelopment work.
Staff provided an update on the status of the proposed project at the old Island High school site. Architects made three proposals: Scheme A : Number of Units: 16 with 32 parking spaces Scheme B: 20 units with 29 parking spaces and Scheme C: 20 units with parking spaces. Scheme A is compliant with Measure A . In order to adopt Scheme B or Scheme C, the District would have to partner with Alameda Housing Authority to get exemptions for required parking spaces.
The District has until June, 2007 to select a project or the funds (approximately $2 million) will revert to the City. In the next few months, a study of employee who would qualify under income requirements associated with agreement to determine the feasibility of moving forward will be done. An update is scheduled for April, 2007.
Task Begin By Complete By
Market . .
Identify AUSD employees that qualify Jan 07 March 07
Perform community outreach Jan 07 March 07
Determine suitable amenities, unit types, and sizes April 07 June 07
Develop initial marketing plan June 07 Sept 07
. . .
Site . .
Complete Phase II environment and investigation Oct 06 Dec 06
Consult with City Engineering/Planning Department Nov 06 ongoing
Site feasavilty study Sept 06 Nov 06
Selection of project architect June 07 July 07
Schematice designs Aug 07 Oct 07
Design Review Process Aug 07 Oct 07
Hire geotechnical consultant Sept 07 Sept 07
Geotechnical investigation Sept 07 Oct 07
. . .
Financing . .
Investaige financing availability April 07 June 07
Acquire additional predevelopment funds Oct 06 Nov 06
Prepare initial cost estimates April 07 June 07
Prepare initial pro forma April 07 June 07
Refince cost estimates April 07 Aug 07
33401. The agency (the District) may in any year during which it owns property in a redevelopment project that is tax exempt pay directly to any city, county, city and county, district, including, but not limited to, a school district, or other public corporation for whose benefit a tax would have been levied upon the property had it not been exempt, an amount of money in lieu of taxes that may not exceed the amount of money the public entity would have received if the property had not been tax exempt.
Measure A Exception: The City Council agreed in the Settlement Agreement on the Guyton vs. City of Alameda case that Section 26-2 of the City Charter allows the Alameda Housing Authority to replace, with multi family housing, 325 low cost housing units. Three hundred and twenty five represents the number of low cost units lost when the former Buena Vista Apartments were converted to Bridgeport Apartments. The City agreed that the 325 units of multi family housing can be built at densities allowed as of January 1, 1990, even if Zoning and General Plan changes are subsequently adopted which reduce allowable densities.
Fiscal Implications: No more than #145,000 spent from the funds on deposit with the City
Strategic Significance: Goals 1-12
I may have been inaccurate with some details due to faulty memory and late hour of post, but I do not see how this is an argument validating the benefit of redevelopment for our schools. Most people, (other than developers) claim, and can demonstrate, that redevelopment is more commonly a financial hardship than a financial asset for communities. Don’t believe me go explore the facts at: http://www.redevelopment.com/
Comment by David Kirwin — March 15, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
The connection between local property taxes and funding of schools ended in the late 1970s. Public schools receive their funding from the State, not local property taxes. The inclusion or exclusion of tax dollars for property taxes that to city or a redevelopment agency will not impact funding for schools.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 15, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
please send all updated information relating to guyton vs city of alameda settlement..thank you
Comment by clayton guyton — May 31, 2007 @ 10:55 am
325 – ? = ?
Comment by clayton guyton — May 31, 2007 @ 10:57 am