As has been touched on, the City Council last Tuesday voted to place the property transfer tax raise on the November ballot to help raise more revenue for the City of Alameda. Instead of the larger amount that was kicked around ($14.50 per $1000), the Council settled on $12 per $1000. Did I mention that the vote was unanimous? Both the Journal and Sun covered the story.
Highlights from the Sun:
…Council members quickly agreed that they were only reluctantly pursuing a tax increase. After making across-the-board cuts, freezing unfilled positions and some fiscal sleight-of-hand such as refinancing the city’s debts earlier this year, officials said there are no more easy solutions.
“Everybody likes our level of public safety but nobody is coming forward with ideas on how to pay for them,” said councilwoman Marie Gilmore…
Highlights from the Journal:
…Councilwoman Marie Gilmore said the results underscore the difficulty in bridging budget shortfalls since police and firefighters enjoy public support, while their funding accounts for more than half the city budget.
Trimming other city programs and services is not “where we would get the most bang for our buck,” Gilmore said.
“We have to make the public understand, we can’t make some cuts in our library hours and balance our budget,” Mayor Beverly Johnson said. “That’s not going to help us.”…
To compare with other Alameda County cities, and as a poster mentioned previously, only Charter cities are allowed to raise rates in transfer taxes in this way. All Charter cities in Alameda County have raised their transfer taxes above that of General Law cities and those are:
- Albany: $11.50 per $1000, they’ll be trying to raise their rate to $14.50 per $1000 this November
- Berkeley: $15 per $1000
- Hayward: $4.50 per $1000
- Oakland: $15 per $1000
- Piedmont: $13 per $1000
- San Leandro: $6 per $1000
I’m torn on the idea of raising the transfer tax. On one hand, the polling clearly shows that people are loathe to cut important services like public safety, on the other hand if people really felt as though public services were THAT important then they would have been behind a parcel tax for public safety services or have been open to some sort of municipal assessment district. While it’s pretty easy for a simply majorty of folks to get behind the idea of the raise in the transfer tax, after all, it would only affect folks that are looking to buy and sell homes and in this current market, that is probably precious little people, I don’t know if this is the best direction to head in for the City.
50% or more of our budget is spent on public safety services, if we are that serious about funding it, without cuts, then try for a parcel tax. If the parcel tax doesn’t fly, then when there is a need to have rolling fire station closures, the voting public was given the option of directly funding something that 70% or more of a sample of Alameda said not to cut. If we don’t curb the percentage of our general fund that is spent on public safety services, including retirement benefits, then we are heading precariously toward Vallejo-land. It won’t be because there is so much that is the same about Vallejo and Alameda such as we both have closed down military land, or we both have redevelopment agencies, or we both have ferry services, or we both have the letters “a”, “e” and “l” in our names…it will be because of ballooning costs of pensions, health benefits, and retirement packages in general.
And before I get accused of not supporting our public safety services, I do, I’m highly supportive. I like knowing that Alameda has reliable public safety services. Go team go! But I also understand the reality that the City cannot keep up with these amazing retirement benefits for our public safety personnel and still remain solvent in 10 years, 20 years, etc… from now. When I retire, and I probably won’t be able to until I am well into my mid 60s or 70s, I won’t be able to rely on a cushy pension that I began receiving at the minimum retirement age. I’ll need to rely on our family savings that we have acculmulated over the years for that purpose as probably most people will have to.
And again, while I am supportive of the very dangerous jobs performed by our public safety folks, there should always be the understanding when negotiating out these contracts what impact it will have on the public agency that will be funding it, because if Alameda goes the way of Vallejo, there will be no money left even with a sweet retirement package negotiated out.
So, I don’t know the details of the contracts, but for example I know some jurisidictions pay for a spouse’s health benefits in perpetutity, is that necessary? Or, I understand that some folks either get cars or car stipends to go to and from their jobs, is that something that folks can’t do without? Instead we should be strongly encouraging our public safety personnel to live in Alameda by offering low-interest home loans, etc… There is a two fold reason for this, one would cut out the car thing and two would have the personnel invested in the City in more ways that it just being a job.
To answer a question that was asked by David Kirwin on another thread about why money was used to fund Public Works improvements like bike lanes, etc… that money comes from a separate fund than the general fund. That money would only be able to be used for that particular project and therefore would not have been available to pay for, say, police services. Which is why you see projects like that going forward even when, logically, one would think that the money would be better off somewhere else.
So in the end, the transfer tax is something I don’t think I can be supportive of. Not when it comes at the expense of a certain population of folks to fund things that those who would not be affected by it would benefit from. If the Council was that interested in sending a message to the City denizens about the reality of the budget and the need for cuts, tie the revenue generator directly to the services that were voted the most important or that is the most substantial part of the budget.
Seems like a surefire way to further sink the local real estate market.
Comment by Jack B — July 21, 2008 @ 8:27 am
The reason people should be opposed to a parcel tax for public safety is that the salary and benefits for police and fire are overly generous and are the driving force behind the City’s budget problems. This is especially true for the police. Does anyone realize that the police have received a five percent salary increase each year for the last 8 years? Four years ago the City Council had the option to re-open negotiations on the salary provision in the labor contract for police but they declined to exercise the option. The police also have a retirement benefit called 3% at 50, which means they can retire at age 50 and receive 3% of their annual salary for each year of service (e.g., if you have 20 years of service at age 50 you get 60% of your annual salary as pension).
Comment by Michael Rich — July 21, 2008 @ 9:25 am
LD — I think one item you missed is many cities in the county do not charge a transfer tax
Comment by Sideline — July 21, 2008 @ 9:26 am
But, doesn’t this beg the question of what the CC’s priorities have been? And who has been served by those priorities?
And here is an article on the front page of today’s Chron about the ongoing Perata investigation:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/21/MNFA11RNMU.DTL&hw=don+perata&sn=001&sc=1000
This hits right at home, doesn’t it? Hits on the redevelopment issue and if you connect the dots, it all lands where? City Hall.
And someone said it before, yeah, elections are coming up and someone else said our city council was supposed to be providing oversight on city government activities.
Can we really continued to delude ourselves; can we afford to keep beating that drum?
Comment by E T — July 21, 2008 @ 10:40 am
ET, could you please actually connect the dots. I didn’t see how the article leads directly to city hall.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — July 21, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Why would the council want to contain costs when they can just pass those increased costs onto the public? Why upset the staff they depend upon? Why upset the unions whose support they need to be elected? What is the council’s incentive to limit government expenditures?
The more we pay the police the less safe we are. The force is down officers and we can’t afford to fill those vacancies. It wasn’t that long ago that Alameda had a reputation that you were going to be ticketed if you violated the speed limit. Speeding is now commonplace. Officers used to walk beats in the business districts. I can’t remember the last time I saw an officer who was not behind a windshield.
There has been tax increase after tax increase over the past ten years. Each time we approve a new one it just provides incentive for the next one. It is like donating to a charity and then being flooded with phone calls and letters from that charity asking you for more money. We need to learn to say no and we need to stop responding to ultimatums that are the equivalent of, “Do as we say or this kitten will die and you will be the one to blame.”
We need more competition for council, but I don’t know who would want to run for a job that is stressful, time consuming and unpaid.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 21, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Realtors condemn transfer tax increase
http://www.mercurynews.com/alamedacounty/ci_9949568
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 21, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
What ANT said.
Comment by Jack B — July 21, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Hey ANT, you ain’t seen anything yet.
Look at the federal level. If/when the taxpayers backstop Fannie and Freddie, it will increase our debt load by 50%!!!
Think about that for a second. You thought it was already bad…. these clowns are going to stick it to us and be gone in January. Meanwhile, Americans are sleeping through it, more concerned about Batman and dead jokers. It’s these living jokers we should be watching out for.
Privatize the gains,,, socialize the losses…..
Comment by Jack B — July 21, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Jack – I heard that we (USA) will have to back Fannie’s & Fred’s bonds, but I think the stock will fully collapse after we nationalize them …Like you said privatize the gains…socialize the losses.
Lauren – In many cases the city can move funds from one budget to another… It wasn’t my complaint that our city was building a bike lane – it was that the job wasn’t done right two years ago, and we have to do it again.
Never enough time or money to do the job right, but always enough time and $ to do it twice?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 21, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
I agree with #7 and #11.
I thought the Alameda Journal editorial in Friday’s paper was interesting. Boil it down, and the message, loud and clear, is “bend over and take what’s coming”.
I am sure I am not the only person who feels as though the tax-payer base here is being “played” and “extorted.”
When it was “laissez les bon temps rouler,” things could slide past public radar, but now that times are economically tough, City Hall is at a loss as to how it will be able to maintain “business as usual.” Staff throws the responsibility on the city council, who are in and out depending on terms, and get played by the agenda of special interests.
The question is, as David K. mentions, how much has been squandored on the needless, while the needful goes begging? Park St. was indeed torn up twice. Why? Now Fernside. What other places have gone through this upheaval?
Maybe solutions outside the “business as usual” box should be considered.
Comment by E T — July 21, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
The ability to set the real estate transfer tax and use it for municipal services is uniquely available to charter cities like Alameda. Along with my colleagues on the City Council, I voted to place a measure that would increase the transfer tax on the November ballot after adopting a balanced budget for next year that closed a $5 M deficit through cost cuts and fee increases on current services. We examined a comprehensive array of options to raise revenues — sales tax, utility user tax (UUT), ambulance fees, 911 call fees, assessment districts, parcel taxes, transfer taxes, etc. Most of the options could not generate sufficient funds. For example, increasing the utility users tax in Alameda would have generated $800 K and made Alameda’s UUT the highest in the County. Since Alameda’s real estate transfer tax was among the lowest in the County, and it acted like a transactional “fee” and did not raise property taxes, we tested the proposal to increase it to the County’s average in a polling of the electorate.
I believe the City Council acted diligently and responsibly in placing a measure that was “most likely to succeed” in protecting against cuts to City services.
From the polling results, a public safety parcel tax at $120/year would have generated $4 M (similar to Measure H) but only garnered 41% support and 43% opposed with 16% undecided.
Comment by Lena Tam, Vice-Mayor — July 21, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I don’t quite understand Brian what you mean. I do know first time homeowners and renters trying to buy a home are not well heeled buyers or for that matter many trying to sell their home prior to foreclosure. I may have misunderstood what you where saying?
Comment by Joel — July 21, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
#13
The current council proposal would make Alameda’s home transfer tax the fourth highest in the state. It will hurt potential home buyers and seniors seeking to downsize or sell their homes. Rather than cutting costs, the council decided to raise taxes. The council should not be making important decisions by polling, and besides, the poll showed weak support for any tax increase. Council’s group think on this matter is very disturbing. We need independent thinkers on the council, not poll watchers.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 21, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
ET re: Fernside.
If you take a look at the financing of the two projects, which barely overlap on Fernside, you’ll see that they are distinct and they have to be spent within a certain funding timeline. The first project was begun at the time that the competitive bid for the current project was put in. Had the city waited to do the entire project, the first funding would have likely become unusable making the project undoable.
The way that public projects, especially ones for bikes and pedestrians are funded, is disjointed and chaotic at best and it drives the timing of them. Many of the funding pots are competitive, meaning that there’s no guarantee that the city will get the funding. You can’t sit around holding up one phase of a project while waiting for funding to appear for another.
In a perfect world of public financing, you’d be right, do the whole street all at once, but it’s not possible a lot of the time.
Comment by John Knox White — July 21, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
JKW, thanks for that clarification. As you indicate, public works and public funding provide sticky wickets in the best of situations.
Comment by E T — July 21, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
#16 – Help me wrap my mind around this concept – Now that the “ME FIRST” generation is in power we must expect public funds to be repeatedly wasted. Because by the new standards waste is OK as long as much of it is from the pockets of others as well as our own? We can even use the excuse of being “green” to let all of the new city turf die even though we continue to re-sod our parks? Wasting the precious resource of tax dollars is respectable city management as long as it can be dismissed as a “timing” thing?
Sorry JKW, I can’t buy into your new style of excuses for waste.
Never enough time or money to do the job right, but always enough time and $ to do it twice, especially when it is not our own money we waste – just our own State’s money? (Kinda sounds like our ‘redeveloped’ city management thinking – doesn’t it? – the thinking that supports abusing CA’s redevelopment laws.)
What will it take for take for all of us to pull together rather than pulling our economy apart at the seams?
What is the budget of our City’s re-dev dept this next year? What are the total City payments for re-dev debt this year? When do we stop using public funds for private development projects?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 21, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Lena – While I respect the bind the city is in financially, it is clear that good fiscal management did not put us there – I’ll bet dollars to donuts those responsible for those poor actions received raises, not demotions.
In these ‘tough times’ city safety services will have to share the pain – after all, they take half the resources that are now too thin for covering our needs. Alameda fire and police should have to sit out a few rounds before we consider anything other than pay or benefit reductions. When the pay is so high that we have to reduce #’s of cops on the street it really can be viewed as a compound problem – Alameda does NOT have to be ‘price competitive’ with Oakland. Working in Alameda has strong ‘Quality of Life’ benefits – like much less risk of trauma or death. When police and fire have a hard time recruiting – talk to me then, as far as I see it, those are some of the best opportunities available these days. How long is the window open for applicants competing for open positions for AFD?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 21, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
#20
The tax is for 20 years. (The Council is planning for a long crisis.) Anyone who buys or sells a home in that time period would be paying thousands of dollars extra to the city. Seniors who downsize or sell will have thousands taken from them. For many, their home is the only real asset that they have. Those who worked hard, played by the rules, got a conservative mortgage and paid their monthly payments on time will now find themselves shortchanged.
Young families struggling to make it in today’s tightening mortgage market will have yet another hurdle placed before them.
Contractors, who are already feeling the pinch of reduced home sales, will also likely be affected as buyers will have less cash available to make repairs or improvements.
The Council made a premature decision based upon limited information. How were the options presented to those surveyed decided upon and who made that decision? Of the few options surveyed, only one made it to the council agenda. How was it decided that only one option would be considered and who made that decision?
It is easy to manipulate poll results depending upon how the question is phrased. For example, do you call it a, “real estate transfer tax” or a “home sales tax.”
In any case, I would not expect hundreds of lawn signs to sprout in Alameda proclaiming, “Yes on increased home taxes.” This is a serious miscalculation on the part of the council. Opposition to the increased tax is likely to be fierce. (Where do I mail my check?) I wouldn’t be surprised to see at least one council challenger who will make the tax the focus of the campaign.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 22, 2008 @ 9:05 am
#18 and #19 – excellent points! We have a water crisis, so let’s put in new sod! Doh!!
As to redev, I am not completely sure, but it seems to me that it is State AND Fed pots of money, but those are not the only pots, as those grants cannot cover the entire cost with overruns, rising materials prices and such–the truth is a lot of this is done on the public’s dime by writing debt. Did we know that? The biggest pot is derived from John and Jeanette Q. Public.
What is objectionable with regard to redev is that the CC can write paper without voter approval, and the public is not privy to the redev budget and its relationship to the city budget.
And, yes, there IS a relationship, hence the “pass throughs”.
What should be questioned is not the fact that we have to pay for public services (we want these, and are prepared to pay for them, and for hospital and schools–we expect this in our municipal budget), but that our city budget is constantly stretched beyond what it can handle in order to finance, as David K. points out, “private projects” (that are touted to “benefit the community”) on CREDIT, the burden and HIDDEN COST of which is then placed on the tax payers. (One project of that type figured into the front page article of the SF Chron yesterday. The article on Don Perata. Hope you all caught it.)
The hidden cost of non-voter approved credit would be called “a scam” in some circumstances.
So, who in the community most benefits from this? Political profiles are built on flashy things like “historic theater rennovation” (if you look up and down the state, you will see that every city that had an old decrepit theater now has a flashy new one. What a surprise!), touted to bring people in from off island, and “new main library” with lovely conference rooms that contain more audio visual equipment than is necessary and is so inordinantly complex that no one knows how to properly use it.
Who in the community benefits? Certainly the developers, contractors and fancy equipment vendors, who are possibly the only people working during this economic downturn. Continuing to churn out condos and lofts and McMansions and shopping centers and business parks that will sit empty, while the average person scratches to hang on to what they have… or be driven out because the high cost of credit has been appended to their tax bills.
It seems to me that City Hall needs to be held accountable for over-promising in credit without our permission. The so-called future returns never make up for the loses that are put on backs of the tax payers.
How many cars and years will it take, at $0.50/hr during 8 hour/day metering, will it take to pay for the parking garage?
Comment by E T — July 22, 2008 @ 9:31 am
“It seems to me that City Hall needs to be held accountable…”
You are not holding City Hall accountable by venting off here. Call some friends. Go out. Make a sign. Sit on the city hall steps. Get on a box and say it loud. Or write an initiative and put it on the ballot. Political revolts are not made of electronic outrage, politicians’ dreams are made of it.
Comment by AD — July 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I won’t vote for an increase in the transfer tax or the parcel tax. Cut services as far as I am concerned. I voted for the School parcel tax but that is it. Increase the sales tax by .001 or more cents in Alameda county or something were everyone pays.
Comment by Joel — July 22, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Trust me Joel – we all pay. – You live in Bay Port which was subsidized by redevelopment debt which we all pay for.
None of the City Council members have raised a challenge to my statement that our City’s present operating budget shortfall would not exist if the CC had not decided to subsidize private development with our public funds. I was shocked that one of our council members seemed to not realize that a significant portion of tax increment would not be passed thru to the State if it wasn’t siphoned off to repay re-dev debt – that a healthy portion would stay in Alameda where it is obviously needed. The State loses about $.87 /$1.00 of tax increment (would be useful for schools, healthcare etc…) and the City of Alameda loses the other $.13 / $1.00 of tax increment. Had the City Council (acting as CIC) let the developer pay his own way, we would not need to raise more taxes. If the developer chose not to build without the subsidy, either someone else would have, or we would not need to support the extra fire, police, parks, schools etc….
Since you chose to buy several Bay Port homes, getting in as an early buyer as a Catellus employee, I understand your more anxious than most about additional taxes on the sale of real estate.
Which services would you cut first? I would chose to significantly reduce the development dept.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 22, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Homeowners at Bayport also pay a hefty Municipal Services District assessment as well, so if the implication is that we don’t pay for fire, police, etc… We do. And that is in addition to our hefty property taxes as well.
There would be little to no property taxes to collect on the land (and improvements) on which Bayport is built had Bayport not been built in the first place.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 22, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
DK,
I am committed to the long term reform of elections through Ranked Choice Voting methods. Because it is the best method to achieve democratic election process I will continue to bring it up given a relevant opportunity, even though the issue gets little attention and doesn’t seem to excite most people.
I can respect your concern about redevelopment in principle, even though few people seem to get as excited as you do. I am sure we could benefit from reform though I’m uncertain what path one might take toward that end. But your constant yammering about it and making it’s abolition a panacea for all development woes and city problems is tedious.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 22, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
The development department/redevelopment department process is sooooo verrrry confusing and detailed that the average Joe/Josephine Doe doesn’t have the stamina or finanacial background to figure it out.
If more people totally understood it, they would be “as excited” as DK.
I applaud DK for staying on the case.
Comment by R M — July 22, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
#26 Lauren, I really do appreciate that Bay Porters do pay property tax, and that you pay it at the same rate as everyone else in Alameda. I believe however all Alamedans, and other Californians too, will lose any added tax due to the increased value of Bay Port land because of the great debt the CIC created to help private developers build it. You don’t pay a ‘Mello-Rouse” do you? Who paid for the streets, sewers, other utilities, parks etc? Who paid for the loss of all the pre-existing low-income housing that was torn down to make way for your Bay Port re-development project? I hope you took the time to read the article on the closing of the 40 year redevelopment of the Fillmore district in SF. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/21/BA6511Q4G0.DTL )) This was the brainchild of Helen Souse’s boss and mentor, Justin Herman. Thousands of businesses and thousands more families lost all to the empty promises of developers and city development offices. After 40 years the loans will be repaid, the projects never done as promised – but the end of an era of Fillmore re-dev is closed, the developers are gone, and the system was milked till dry.
Lauren and other Bayporters and those newer to Alameda;
I also appreciate that your house is tax-valued higher than mine, partially because over time home prices climb, and our house’s tax value only climbs 2% per year. This is the same for your house and mine. Because we bought our house here in ‘97 we are valued lower because we bought prior to the last unscrupulous faux bubble. Of course the ‘bubble or ‘over inflated prices’ seem real, but the cause of them we all know was not at all reality based.
Will the banks’ decision-makers be held responsible for jeopardizing their companies and the loan industry, and perhaps, our whole financial system? How about the scruple-less loan agents and their ‘pet’ appraisers – will they be held accountable for over valuing property so that loans were not backed by real collateral?? Of course not, only dick and jane taxpayer pays again. Looks like many levels of gov’t now even want taxpayers to rescue those homeowners who could not afford their homes yet continued to borrow against their fictitious values to enjoy new cars, trucks large format home entertainment systems, and every other expensive toy that marketers dangled in front of them.
What kind of basic underlying message are we educating our population with?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 22, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
#22 –
“As to redev, I am not completely sure, but it seems to me that it is State AND Fed pots of money, but those are not the only pots, as those grants cannot cover the entire cost with overruns, rising materials prices and such–the truth is a lot of this is done on the public’s dime by writing debt. Did we know that? The biggest pot is derived from John and Jeanette Q. Public.”
It is LOCAL and STATE money that make up the pots for repaying re-dev debt, and all of it is $$ that would other wise go into local and state Gen Funds. On both local and state levels our current budget shorts are less than current re-dev payments.
(#27) Mark, fixing the re-dev abuse problems may not be the panacea for all society’s ills, but you do the math. Taking the public money away from the pockets of private developers who pay to put “their” candidates in office to give away re-dev projects and future tax revenue would be a better way to correct budget problems than raising taxes or cutting education funding again. Or do you think taxpayers should continue to help pay for the shopping malls that destroy downtowns, and housing projects that destroy communities? If you think the latter is the better choice, shouldn’t the taxpayers at least get to vote on each major project?
I don’t yet know much about RCV, but as I understand it, It would not be my choice for electing reps. I am not against runoff elections. Perhaps if you feel strongly, you should explain it in your own words.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 23, 2008 @ 6:41 am
[...] ago, my neighbors asked me about what’s happening on Fernside Blvd. right now. Then poster ET brought it up as an example of municpal financial waste. As I posted here, the financing of public projects is [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll » Where the red grows in Fernside? — July 23, 2008 @ 7:03 am
DK – Prior to becoming Bayport, that land belong to the Navy, and was not the site of low-income housing – it was the site of enlisted men’s housing. I believe the low-income site you are talking about is across the street at Summer House Apartments.
Your “argument” that the CC doesn’t see fit to respond to is all predicated on the assumption (faulty in my opinion) that development would take place without access to the redevelopment funds. Even if some level of development could take place, and I challenge you to prove that it could, undertaking the process as a redevelopment district allows the city to control other aspects – provisions for low-income housing, local hiring agreements, etc.
Comment by notadave — July 23, 2008 @ 7:57 am
The State has low income housing requirements that the city must abide by, and the city does not exceed those requirements except to fulfill the legal settlement for the lawsuit that resulted from the city tearing down the low-income housing that was the former Navy housing where Bay Port now stands.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 23, 2008 @ 8:54 am
What lawsuit are you talking about? If you are referring to the Guyton Agreement, that was settled because of the sale of the property now known as Summerhouse (previously Buena Vista) not the Navy housing.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 23, 2008 @ 9:53 am
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.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 23, 2008 @ 10:43 am
In 1999, Renewed Hope and Arc Ecology advocated that the Navy’s 590 East Housing units be rehabilitated as affordable homes. Plans to demolish East Housing and construct Bayport moved forward, and in 2000, Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates and ARC Ecology filed suit in Alameda Superior Court challenging the base reuse EIR and requesting that it be set aside.
Details from Renewed Hope’s site here:
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2000/msg00182.html
The law suit resulted in plans for affordable housing within the Bayport development.
From the Oakland Tribune, April 2003:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030416/ai_n14545955
“…The affordable housing is a result of a 2001 settlement agreement between the city and affordable-housing advocates that calls for affordable housing within the Catellus development and at the former U.S. Navy base.
Three years ago, a lawsuit filed against the city by Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc Ecology challenged the adequacy of the environmental impact report for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, just outside the base gates and where Catellus is building.”
Comment by Susan — July 23, 2008 @ 10:47 am
#6 From the SF Chron front page article “DONOR’S PET ROAD AT CENTER OF PROBE”:
“The park’s developer, Ron Cowan, has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perata and other politicians…”
There are your dots. And here, we have another election coming up! Heads up, candidates!!
Developers grease the political wheels with money, in exchange for…
Comment by E T — July 23, 2008 @ 11:11 am
ET you wrote:
I still don’t see where your dot connection connects the dots to City Hall. Is it Cowan political contributions to someone who was on the council in the ’90’s when this was planned? Who at Alameda City hall is responsible for this Perata/GA Politician inquiry.
HB wasn’t a redevelopment area. The City couldn’t have spent redevelopment funds on the roadway. So there’s neither a redevelopment connection nor a City Hall/political contribution connection that’s mentioned in the article. So I still don’t see how it “all lands [at] City Hall.” But I’m trying. Can you explain it more directly?
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — July 23, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
#38
Does this help?
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/ferryboats_and_mcmansions/Content?oid=526289
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 23, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
ANT, First off, these projects are almost a decade apart. So I don’t see the connections between the article and how it shows things directly to city hall.
Second, given that the Doric project was pulled and had no connection to redevelopment, I’m still unclear of the actual connnections. I see lots of attempts at connecting dots that don’t seem to be lining up to draw much of a picture.
It sure seems that if there allegation is Ron Cowan gave $25,000 to a PAC (one of 50 companies) that did mailings for Beverly Johnson in 2002 in order to grease the wheels for a housing plan at HBVI. Then the fact that Ron Cowan’s plan fell apart and aren’t moving forward doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the allegation. I’ve said in the past, I’m not thrilled with outside, statewide PACs financing local races, anymore than I think it’s appropriate for people to spend $110-130,000 on a local council race. You want to get that money out of politics, I’ll help.
But I’ll go back to the fact that the article talks about an issue that was dealt with in the 80’s, 90’s and again in 2000 (not HBVI) when the council was Appezato, Dewitt, Kerr, Daysog and Johnson….I’d like to understand the dots that the article lays out connecting the Oakland Airport’s environmental approvals for a road to HB through Oakland to any of the sitting Alameda City Council people of that time.
It’s a really big accusation to make. One ought be able to back it up. ET appears very confident in his/her statements so I’m eager to understand them.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — July 23, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Here’s the connection…according to the article in the Chron, Alameda city contributed $45,000 to hire a lobbyist to “grease the wheels” between Congress/FAA to expedite the construction of the “road to nowhere”. This issue is at the heart of the FBI investigation of Perata. It has to do with the idea of money given to a politician to gain favors or decisions that financially enrich the donor. In this case Alameda (city and their reps) approved in the participation of this transaction and also kicked in money. Does this make Alameda
guilty of association? Or an accessory or someother legal term? Someone will decide this and I’m glad it’s not me.
Comment by Gretchen Lipow — July 23, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Yes, so the question remains, where are the donations given to someone at Alameda city hall (elected or otherwise) in order “to gain favors or decisions that financially enrich the donor?”
That would be the key dot-connection, which I don’t see anywhere in the article.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — July 23, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Obviously the city appears to more in favor of gentrifaction than providing for low income families, though the montra of high density is to provide for low-income. Despite the statements of the city personal, both staff and Obviously from the different lawsuits cited, and the links in other posts, the city appears to be more in favor of gentrification than providing for low income families, despite that the mantra of high density housing is to provide for low-income affordibility. Despite the rhetoric of the city personal, both staff and elected or appointed, our City’s actions don’t match their words. If the city was truly concerned about housing for our low income workers, we would have been rehabilitating the low income areas, not tearing them down.
Teachers, police, and firefighters like most unionized public employees, (I am pro-union, but recognize that unions are a double edged sword) seem to earn more than me, or those that meet the standards of “low income”, so perhaps the city wants to add other strata to income levels eligible for subsidized housing which would also meet the desires of H.O.M.E.S. Something like; very low, low and maybe “moderately low”?
My Mistake – I did think that the Guyton suit was a result of the tear down of Navy homes, not the 1990 transfer of the Buena Vista Apts, which was prior to that demolition. When I heard the Guyton suit as related to Bay Port, I made the mistaken assumption. Many Alamedans still referred to the Bridgeport Apts as the BV Apts, and I did not remember the history clearly. I wonder how much $ the city made on the transfer tax of BV to Bridgeport, and if that was why the low income tenants of Bridgeport were left unprotected when the city wanted the additional revenue of the re-sale a few years ago to “upscale” the BV again.
BTW How is that working out? Are all the Summer House units rented? Are tenants happy, or are the rents dropping to draw renters? (Will it ultimately be ‘low-rent’ again?)
[edited for clarity]
Comment by David Kirwin — July 23, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
#42 JKW – redux – go back and check the vast number of posts around the last election, or go re-check the campaign contribution lists. Also remember the “whoops!, I don’t know why or who mailed the glossies to all the Alameda homes to support my candidacy.” If you don’t have access to these public records, ask David Howard for them.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 23, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Sigh, Beverly Johnson’s 2002 campaign contributions have been outlined here.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 23, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
[duplicate post deleted]
Comment by Lauren Do — July 23, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
It is called, “You-do-for-me-I -do-for-you.” Everyone benefits except the public, whose only role is to act as the meal ticket. Is someone(s) going to jail over this? It isn’t easy to prove a direct connection. I don’t know if there are any dots involved, but there are politicians and businessmen. The public has every right to be suspicious when large amounts of both public and private money changes hands. It isn’t about the dots; it is about the dollars.
“Johnson, meanwhile, is one of Perata’s closest political allies, and campaign finance records show that he and political campaigns associated with him spent at least $37,552 on her behalf in 2002 and 2006. Cowan, in turn, is one of the senator’s top donors, giving at least $210,300 to Perata campaigns and those associated with him from 2000 through 2006.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/ferryboats_and_mcmansions/Content?oid=526289
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 23, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
While I still read this blog almost everyday, I don’t often post, however there have been a few comments being made that I can’t pass up commenting on.
There have been posts portraying “the development department” as the bad guys in black hats. This seems to be part of a larger theme among some regular posters, that “if you don’t agree with me then you must have ulterior motives and are probably a pawn of “the developers”. There also seems to be an ongoing underlying theme that the Development Department is intentionally wasting money on community development projects.
Over my 20 years of working for community development nonprofits (primarily focused on job training, youth development and housing) I have worked with a number of different community development departments in big cities (San Francisco) and small.
I have to say that I thin Alameda is very fortunate to have the staff we have working in the Development Department. Their dedication, integrity, and professionalism are extraordinary. Some of the “arbitrary” (to quote one poster) actions they have taken the lead on over the last few years include:
Helping many safety net nonprofits in Alameda (APC, the Food Bank, Midway Shelter) access funds to make critical improvements to their facilities;
Shepherding complex projects such as the Breakers and Shinsei gardens from plan to reality;
Finding ways to stretch already strained funding for critical needs for low income residents, piecing;
If that’s not enough, many of the staff live in Alameda, and volunteer their spare time at a number of local agencies;
Each year the Development Department has taken a larger percentage cut in their budget than most other Departments. I find it an interesting contradiction in some posters who want to slash the Development Department’s budget even more, while wanting more oversight of development. To me that is like slashing the USDA’s inspection budget, while calling for more food safety.
You may not agree with the policies that this community is pursuing, and that is ok, you can express your disagreement at the ballot box, but thats a policy discussion, not a personal discussion that needs to impugn anyone’s motives. I think city staff, just like many on this blog, care greatly about the community, and are just trying to do the right thing.
Doug Biggs
Comment by Doug Biggs — July 23, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
See the article link in #47 and then also check this out, from our own city of Alameda website:
“March 2008; Senate President pro Tem Don Perata announced that the Senate Rules Committee has appointed Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson to a six year term on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Board of Directors. Established in 2007, the agency replaces it predecessor, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (BAWTA), of which Mayor Johnson was a member since 2002.”
Looks like back scatching… Could just be me–but I don’t think I am the only one who might feel that way.
Comment by E T — July 23, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Dave K,
You know that the City also gets a % of the profit that Warmington makes on the houses. Did you do the research to find out how much they made on it so far…since the houses sold for quite significantly more then what was forecasted…which met money for Warmington, Catellus and Alameda?
Do you really understand redevelopment bonds and how the City will benefit from them in the future from redevelopment…why do you think it happens…I think you haven’t a clue, not only listening from your comments about Alameda Landing at the City Counsel meeting, talking to you before the meeting and on the Blog…do some research, really come to understand them and you will see why Municipalities undertake them…take a class or two.
I don’t own more than one house at Bayport…and we will be here for years…maybe the rest of our lives, may never sell…so that is not why I am against the tax…it is unfair…to those who do when everyone benefits from the services.
I am working on a big property tax settlement at work now…just started in a few month I might be will be able to share more.
Also, you bought your house in the 90′ and so pay a lot less taxes for the same services we receive …what is fair about that…especially when you have kids (we don’t yet) which uses more of the services. Why should we as new (first time) homeowners have to take the brunt of the deal?
Comment by Joel — July 23, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
49.
I think you are clueless about what the alleged back scratching actually amounts to.
I was maybe the only member of the public to write a local LTE complaining about the state ferry system seizing local assets and usurping our authority. The Journal printed it but the Chronicle did not. There was another letter writer who responded who started his letter by stating his general dislike for all things Don Perata but he then went on to make an argument for the benefits of the new system. I regret I did not save the text of his letter. But my impression was that he was on the level about being a Perata detractor.
Anyway, after taking our ferry assets they pretty much had to appoint an Alameda official to pay lip service to us. But it’s not like being on WETA gives our mayor any great clout and power than she will now use to her personal advantage. We should in fact have more representation on WETA. If you know how our mayor is receiving personal gain from her appointment you should explain and spell it out in specifics.
But I think you can’t locate the dots because you can’t even locate them. I disagree with ANT that the dots don’t matter. All the specifics matter, or you are just blowing hot air.
The M.O. of politicians like Mr. Perata are no mystery when it comes to grooming their acolytes. A politician in a town like ours goes along with what they are told to do or they don’t get help at election time. Even then, when some of them step up to run for higher office they can be told it’s not their turn and not to expect the money to be there.
The F.B.I. has been at this a long time. I think it is fairly obvious to all of us what the pattern of grease is all about and it sucks, but only time will tell if there are technical illegalities which will stick.
Meanwhile, I don’t see any dots, connected or otherwise which point to any Alameda politicians doing more than the normal water carrying for the normal quid pro quo and if anything illegal is unearthed I am all ears and eyes, but I’m not pointing fingers based what has been presented here.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 23, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
“But I think you can’t locate the dots because you can’t even locate them”
Should read “..can’t CONNECT the dots because you can’t locate them”
Comment by Mark Irons — July 23, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
In #51 I didn’t mean to imply that every elected official in Alameda is a lackey for some power broker in a higher office, just that as far as “back scratching”, much of it is perhaps more benign than a lot of folks want to believe, and unfortunately a politician who doesn’t engage with the reality of the political landscape may find themselves lonely, regardless of their integrity.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 24, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
#53
I think that you should have quit while you were ahead. Are you now saying that Alameda does not have the best politicians that money can buy?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 24, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
I was at the city council meeting where the Mayor, Marie Gilmore and the rest of the council led the charge to raise this extremely steep tax increase for a small percentage of the city to bridge the budget gap. The Marie Gilmore, the Mayor and the rest of the council could of chosen to spread the pain out to the rest of the city. San Leandro which has no transfer tax has 3 ballot propositions 1 is an utility tax another is a parcel tax for the police and fire and the third is a 911 sircharge. All of these are much more fair but the Mayor and the city council decided to put all of their eggs in one basket with a tax that would add thousands of dollars in cost to the buyers and sellers of real-estate. This strikes me as extremely short-sited
and irresponsible.
Comment by Troy Staten — July 25, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Troy,
In this post and the other you posted tonight you have named Marie Gilmore specifically at least three or four times. Do you see her as more responsible than the other four members of council?
I think being on the council is a pretty thankless job and I’ll be grateful if Marie Gilmore runs for re-election.
I’m not sure what I think of this ballot initiative, but I thought Lena Tam’s post in #13 above was a pretty responsible answer to others questioning the action of council.
This economy has hurt my business too. I have a small problem with real estate brokers complaining about this tax. Realtors work by a percentage commission and when housing prices double in a short period of time and the market is hot I have never noticed them cutting their percentage in half out of sympathy for the cost to buyers or sellers. With respect to that fact, there are limits to my sympathy for realtors complaints about the impact of this tax. Buyers and sellers on the other hand I sympathize with a bit more.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 25, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Troy, and/or other realtors,
To clarify a little, the economy has hurt my business and I realize I’m not likely to help that cause by disparaging realtors as a class of people. I didn’t mean to do that, but when housing prices raced up, so did commissions. With bidding wars the effort by realtors presumably declined while incomes increased.
I don’t know what the average number of hours spent by a realtor in good times or slow times like these. I know Troy had a listing on Broadway which had a couple offers fall through and after several months finally sold unless it is off the market. He even spent 45 minutes showing it to me.
If it takes 200 hours to sell a house for $600,000, a 3% commission comes to $18,000. 200 hours is a guess on my part, but that comes out to $90 which is better than subsistence wages. Four sales a year would exceed the median wage in the bay area by $24,000.
I have a close friend in Santa Cruz who was doing so well as a realtor that she bought a new Audi and now she has listings which get NO calls, she is working part time at Home Depot in kitchen’s for the health benefits, and doing house painting for her contractor boyfriend. The Audi payments are killing her.
Construction has stable niches like repair in lean times, but what is bad for real estate is generally bad for contractors in some way.
I am not resigned to voting for this transfer tax. A parcel tax seems fairer, but it also seems that the council was choosing between putting a parcel tax on the ballot which was likely to fail and putting a transfer tax on the ballot which, fair or not, stands a better chance of passage. No matter which tax they chose, or if they did not act, they would be receiving criticism from some quarter.
Marie stated that the decline of public safety services could negatively impact property values and home sales, which I think is a fair statement. It’s conceivable that those negative impacts could take a toll on real estate equal to the transfer tax and perhaps worse on the over all climate of Alameda being a desirable place to live.
All I’m saying is, don’t shoot the messengers. I would join a movement opposing the tax if it included working toward strategies for other solutions and not simply smacking down the transfer tax.
If we vote this tax down to protect those who it would burden then we must shoulder responsibility for the cuts and not blame council at every turn.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 26, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Fat pensions spell doom for many cities
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/pf/retirement/vallejo.moneymag/index.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 27, 2008 @ 8:22 am
Alameda is going bankrupt and frankly that may be a better option than having the city take a chunk of each property owner’s home equity to pay for employee salaries, pensions and retirement healthcare. This is the option that Vallejo chose and it may not be the worst.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/pf/retirement/vallejo.moneymag/index.htm
The homes sales tax that the council passed is for 20 years. That should be a clue that the city’s troubles are not short term, but deep and intractable. Alameda is losing tax base, not gaining it. A hamburger place and a movie theater do not make up for the loss of northside industry or auto row. Exactly how many years does the city estimate it will take to pay off the parking garage?
If employee pensions and healthcare do not bankrupt Alameda, then the old NAS will. How much do we receive in property tax, parcel tax and real estate sales tax from the old base? Twelve years after closure the base is a decaying ghost town. There are a few bright spots at the base like Rosenblum and Saint George, but those bright spots do not prosperity make. The city does not have the resources to take on the U.S. Navy. It is like a chihuahua taking on a pack of pit bulls. The best outcome would be if the State of California takes possession of the base and perhaps turns it into a state park like Angel Island.
We need someone on the council with a strong financial background. The current council knows that we are in dire straits, but can do no more than appoint a committee in hopes that they can figure it out.
Johnson and company have no plans to stabilize finances. In the meantime, we face tax after tax as the council hopes to forestall disaster until they either achieve higher office or term limit out. It will be interesting to see if the Fiscal Sustainability Committee offers sharp analysis or more business as usual.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 27, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Hi Mark thanks for your reply to my post. I think we probably agree more than we disagree on most issues. To your point of my many mentions of Marie Gilmore, if you watched the City Council meeting I felt she and the mayor where most dogmatic about this issue and the amount. As for real-estate commissions I wish I got 3% for my side of the deal on the listing on Broadway where we met. Most of the time the commission in that price range is 5% that is split between buyers and sellers agent then split again with the agents brokers. Also unlike the transfer tax the seller can do it themselves (I think that is like doing your own root canals) and the city does not work for the sale of the property the transfer tax I actually work for my fee. I do understand that being on the council can be thankless my father in-law was on the city council and was the Mayor in Cupertino a few years ago. To go further on this the city dropped this increase on the Realtor community at the last minute meeting with the board at the Alameda Association of Realtors the Tues before and basically telling us they wanted us to support at least the 12.00 figure. To make matters worse several months ago the Mayor,Planning director and the City manager came to our luncheon and gave us a 75 minute power point presentation about how wonderful a job they were doing and no mention of the transfer tax was made at this time. Again I re-iterate that the city could have put other options on the ballot such as a small increase in the transfer tax as well as a increase in the utility tax all of which would be more equitable and would not have generated the response from Realtors.
Anyway I could go on and on. Thanks again for your response to my post.
Troy
Comment by Troy Staten — July 27, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
#’s 37, 39, 41, 47, 49,
In checking back on this conversation, it appears that there are no dots mentioned in the SF Chronicle article to any Alameda politicians or even a corrupt staffer. The contention that the FBI probe into Perata’s dealings lead directly to Alameda’s City Hall was just hung out there with zero actual facts that show any culpability in the alleged corruption.
#54, ANT, there are concerns about $, where it comes from and how it affects our local government. However, your statement casts a wide net encompassing all sitting council members.
It neglects the fact that in the one race where a truly obscene amount of money was spent on the local races, the candidate who outspent the 2nd highest spender by almost three times, did not win. And in that race, she was beat by candidates who spent substantially less (between 1/6 and 1/5 of her total).
Comment by John Knox White — July 29, 2008 @ 7:27 am
#61
“It neglects the fact that in the one race where a truly obscene amount of money was spent on the local races, the candidate who outspent the 2nd highest spender by almost three times, did not win. And in that race, she was beat by candidates who spent substantially less (between 1/6 and 1/5 of her total).”
The obscene amount of money was the candidate’s own. As for the FBI probe, we’ll see what it turns up. As for large campaign donations that yield financially beneficial votes, it is a matter of interpretation if they are bribes or not.
Certainly, anyone who receives a substantial campaign donation from an individual or corporation should refrain from voting on a matter that would directly benefit that individual or corporation.
(#54 is an old joke)
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 29, 2008 @ 7:56 am
60. Troy,
Thanks for responding. I have been asking questions all over and I am beginning to catch up and get a more rounded picture.
Your description of the scenario leading up to the vote is very helpful for those of us not tapped directly into the realty community in terms of understanding the irritation there.
I can’t linger here this a.m., but I did get to review the study for options to raise revenue and I am beginning to see that many of the smaller options for taxes would also have required ballot initiatives. I always understood that just as with Measure H, practical decisions have to be made about what is humanly possible in terms of passage. A more perfect combination of smaller initiatives would make for a horribly confusing ballot for sure.
Intuitively my first reaction to the tax is that it is going to be voted for by people who won’t pay it and so something ain’t right.
If you consider the existing tax is about 5.5% then what is happening is roughly a doubling to 12%. If $12 on $600,000 is $7200, then about $4000 of that is new. If it is split then it is a $2000 hit on the seller and buyer. That is significant, just like the sales tax on the used car we just bought. But as somebody who could afford and wanted the car, I chalked it up to the cost of purchase and moved on. People who can even think about purchasing a home at market rate are not going to be prohibited by another $2000 in closing costs. A seller in this market is going to be disappointed no matter what if they think about 2006 prices, but ultimately they cash out and move on too.
I’m rationalizing here, but that’s inevitable. What I am getting at is that I have come to see that an individual isn’t likely to get bashed with a new $7200 tax and after a little study I also feel I get how the Council’s options are much more limited than they may seem.
Mine is a crude rendition of some of the circumstances, but consider me a representation of an average citizen with a minimal grasp of the issues trying not to be irresponsible by making a blind decision based only on my gut. I am not prepared to go on the war path against this option.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 29, 2008 @ 8:22 am
correction! I keep stating the tax in percentage. Sorry. It is obviously $5.5 and $12 above. Minimal grasp and all.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 29, 2008 @ 8:24 am
54. Whatever.
It doesn’t matter how altruistic a person running for political office is, it takes money to run a campaign. If we don’t have the best politicians money can buy, maybe we have some good ones money can’t buy? Wouldn’t that be nice.
It’s not about how clever we can be on this blog, it’s about how unrewarding being on Council can be if you want to do it for idealistic reasons.
In #63 I forgot in my rationalization about those who bare the burden of the tax, that with Warmington poised to build and sell a bunch of units, that is another pocket I don’t mind seeing take the hit.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 29, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
I wonder why the Council went to the realtors for support on this issue. Realtors themselves probably won’t be financially affected much by this proposal, but their clients will. If realtors are supposed to be representing their clients, then it would have been pretty irresponsible for them to support a tax that would increase their clients’ burden.
So what was the Council thinking when they asked for the realtors’ support?
Comment by Jill — July 29, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
#66
The council hoped to defuse the matter as they knew that real estate agents would oppose the tax. Real estate agents are already suffering due to declining home values and declining sales. Adding additional costs to buying or selling a home only makes things worse.
I am hoping to see a good candidate emerge who will oppose the tax.
One thing to consider is that as the barriers to home ownership rise, some property owners may choose to rent out their homes rather than sell them. We could end up with an even lower percentage of homeownership in Alameda than we already have.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 30, 2008 @ 6:35 am
I keep jumping in and out of this blog sorry about that, I think it this tax goes back to fairness, the city could of asked everybody to help bridge the budget gap with an increase in the utility tax or they could of put a number of proposals on the ballot like San Leandro is. The other thing about this tax is that not only is it not tax deductible for the buyers the sellers have to pay this even if they owe more on the house than the sale will generate.
Comment by Troy Staten — August 1, 2008 @ 10:55 am