Redevelopment has been the leading funder of low to moderate income housing throughout California. But these funds are highly constrained in their use (only capital and not operating expenses for schools) and cannot simply revert back to the City because the school district is not able to use it as fast as Kirwin/Howard would like.

If Lipow and Howard said the sky was blue or water is wet you would refuse to believe it. Why do you prefer a state of denial?

“Contempt prior to investigation is the surest path to everlasting ignorance”

If the mayor was the “queen of redevelopment” she would not have run on the platform of “Protect Measure A”

It was pointed out to me that I was being foolish in the ‘My Word’ in last week’s Alameda Journal where I was describing the financial problems created Statewide by our flawed Re-D laws, because I minimized the impact of the Alameda Re-D project’s relationship to AUSD budget problems. The Alameda Re-Dev projects are just as much a part of the problem as all the 1,000’s of other Re-Dev projects contributing to the total debt.

Looking at it from that perspective I have to agree that I was wrong.

How would you know who’s intelligent or not? Anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks clearly loses the argument. The sycophant stinking pile refuse of the the ignorant is your typical output.

Neither S M nor I are ignoring what redevelopment entails in it’s entirety. If it’s the freaking silver bullet you claim, take it to the BOE which includes people who certainly have the depth of understanding a lay person like myself lacks. I guess the reason they haven’t heeded you so far is that they have all been bought off by Beverly the Redevelopment Queen?

Art Lipow and David Howard have decided to grind their redevelopment ax because of the theater deal and to link it to schools just in time to muddy the waters on the parcel tax as if there was significant impact LOCALLY, which of course there is not.

What’s with you DK? You are obviously intelligent in some vein but it’s as if you never had an original thought of your own. You are a sycophant who jumps on everything Howard and Lipow come up with like a fly on a “stinking pile”.

1. CA is the birthplace of these “creative” redevelopment laws. We are the 1st to legalize the Re-D machine, and it is now obvious we did not plan well enough to avoid over-use and abuse, we failed to define when Re-dev is appropriate, and we failed to set limits of public debt or ratios of public debt to revenue. The birth of the Frankenstein was in the 50’s – decades prior to Prop 13.

2. No funds are “retained” under Ca Re-dev laws. In fact debt is REQUIRED. Those in control of Re-Dev, (In Alameda it is the Community Improvement Commission, aka City Council, when they are meeting for other purposes), must 1st create the debt for Re-D projects before they can issue bonds without voter approval. This debt is repaid with property tax increases that would otherwise go to the general funds of the city (about 17% of the tax increment) and to the general funds of the State (the other 83%)

3. Most of the development projects being approved in Alameda request, and are granted, Re-D funds whether the projects are necessary or not. We will all be paying special assessments for social amenities like Police, Fire, park programs, pools, street repair etc, as the city further loses the ability to cover these escalating costs because the property tax increases for so much of the island has already been signed away. So although Re-D bonds may help to repay the cost of the housing you mention, it is really the future tax money of all of us in the city that must repay the bonds. That money doesn’t grow on trees you know. If we are going to pay for something, it should be our choice to fund it. (Tea party anyone?)

4. The former Island High site is property owned by AUSD. In 1991 it was decided to set aside a small % of tax increments from a West End Re- D zone to help toward financing some MA exempt affordable housing for the school district.(The plan was that it would be used for teachers and staff, but almost all AUSD teachers earn too much to now qualify. We also know now that the $1 or 2 million or so which has accumulated is not near enough to actually do the construction, so now those funds may revert to the city if AUSD cannot use them within a time limit. Obviously AUSD has neither the funds not the inclination to be a housing entity.

Maybe the parties who created the 1991 agreement could re-negotiate the deal, let the money revert to the City if the City would reimburse AUSD, relieving the need for immediate parcel tax relief. (In the long run a new tax may be need to go to the voters anyway). AUSD could perhaps also ‘surplus’ the old Island High site and sell that to the city (If the City wasn’t already broke). With both the land and the Re-Dev money from AUSD, the city could perhaps develop the site thru the Housing Authority.

–Is that what you meant?

For all of the self-informing you do, I am shocked that you ignore such a huge impact as Re-D. I think it has a greater impact on Alameda than MA. The recent housing bubble re-confirms the need for Prop 13.

Since you state Re-D has little impact on school funding you cetainly have not been paying attention to Re-D’s financial effect on the State, or you think that even if the State had billions more tax revenue each year that schools would not be better funded. Maybe that part is true.

Personally I think even for the size of CA, $81 Billion is a sizeable chunk ‘o change that affects more than just schools, but undeniably DOES affect our State budget, including education, in a big way.

It does seem that the only way to gaurentee funding for AUSD is local taxation. No matter how much money the State raises for education, or what they promise, it always seems to result in empty words. Remember how the Lottery was going to fund education?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Without using our own money we really have no real control of our schools, do we?