“Louise” reposts from the Island the ballot argument against the Alameda Point Revtalization Initiative and then asks that folks “substantiate” their opinions and that “blanket assertions” are not adequate. Except for the fact that the arguments against the Initiative aren’t substantiated either, but rather blanket assertions themselves.
Before I get into the whole pissing match that will probably be the standard between now and February when the votes are finally tallied, I just want to first say that there are a lot of people that I respect who disagree with my position on the Initiative. And hopefully folks on either side or on neither side can agree to disagree without assuming nefarious motivations of one another.
And with that here are the points that were specifically addressed in the arguments against the Initiative:
- Loses $51 milion in fees for our City that would ordinarily be collected from the Developer for basic infrastructure.
- Diverts nearly $12 million in yearly lease revenue from our City to the Developer.
- Locks in a short fall for public improvements and benefits by $175 million.
- Guarantees SunCal can sell Alameda Point to any developer – immediately – with no say from voters or the City.
- Leaves the door open for neglect and blight with no actual development required.
- Freezes the Developer’s already insuffcient funding at today’s dollar value for the next twenty- five years.
- Approves this development without crucial information on environmental mitigation costs until after this election.
- Risks raising other taxes and fees when Alameda Point’s costs exceed the 2% cap.
- Exposes the City of Alameda to potential costly lawsuits.
First:
Loses $51 milion in fees for our City that would ordinarily be collected from the Developer for basic infrastructure.
This number of $51 million is completely arbitrary based on assumptions and calculations from the analysis by City Staff which even says that there is insufficient information to determine which impact fees the development would be exempted from the fees “ordinarily” collected for basic infrastructure. Additionally, as stated in the point-by-point rebuttal by SunCal the point of impact fees are to ensure that the project itself does not put the City in a negative position, if the cost of the improvements funded by the developer is more than or equal to the cost of the total “impact fee” generally required then it is “customary to waive the fee in lieu of improvements.” Otherwise, the City would be anticipating — for example — the developer to build a library, but also pay for the impact to the City for library services.
Next:
Diverts nearly $12 million in yearly lease revenue from our City to the Developer.
This statement is made as though the $12 million is some magical profit number that is added to the general fund when in fact it is used to keep Alameda Point marginally operable so that it doesn’t fall apart from the duct tape and super glue that is currently used to keep the place together. If the land is conveyed from the Navy to the City to the Developer, the lease revenues no longer belong to the City. It would be akin to someone selling their business to another owner but expecting to collect profits every month.
Then:
Locks in a short fall for public improvements and benefits by $175 million.
The amount that is predicted to be required for the public benefits is highly speculative. According to SunCal, it’s one amount ($200 million), the City is predicting it to be another amount ($375 million +). The shortfall is, clearly, based on the guesstimate by the City. Which has not, by the way, produced any information or data to substantiate that their number is valid either. SunCal claims, in that point by point rebuttal, that their number is based on analysis by independent consultants using numbers generated by some of the City’s own independent consultants. Additionally, these numbers (the confidential budgets) were reviewed by the City and used in negotiations with the Navy as well. I guess we can all wait to see the documents eventually, but this will be an ideological point that I don’t think either side will agree on.
So rather, it would be better to focus on the point of having SunCal agree to lift the cap in order to build in some padding for contingency purposes.
And:
Guarantees SunCal can sell Alameda Point to any developer – immediately – with no say from voters or the City.
I guess the same could be said about the Navy… But I’m not sure why this is a new thing. This was the base of SunCal’s model that they presented during the RFP process that all the notCatellus people were falling all over themselves to support. SunCal is strictly a master developer, they land plan, they put in the infrastructure, then they sell off plots to other developers to do the vertical development. Historically they have never been in the vertical development business which separated them from the Catelluses and Lennars who specialized in business and residential respectively and therefore would be more likely to push one type of development over the other in order to increase their profit margin by being able to develop what they do best rather than out sourcing it.
Further:
Leaves the door open for neglect and blight with no actual development required.
As opposed to what is there now? Next…
Freezes the Developer’s already insuffcient funding at today’s dollar value for the next twenty- five years.
This is of course based on two assumptions that (1) the funding level for the public benefits is indeed insufficient and, in that case, see above under the “public improvement shortfall” argument and (2) that the Developer is going to wait until the very last second before doing anything. Both which are “blanket assertions” that assumes the worst case scenario in the development of Alameda Point.
And then:
Approves this development without crucial information on environmental mitigation costs until after this election.
This was, of course, signed without any hint of irony by both Beverly Johnson and Doug deHaan who could have voted to place the Initiative on the ballot after a preliminary EIR was done (projected to be completed before November 2010 which the Chinatown folks had requested). Also, since we’re on the subject of what the Council could have opted to do, they could have opted to place the Initiative on the ballot themselves which would have required that an EIR be completed prior to being on the ballot as it would have been a Council directed Initiative. Instead we get accusations that the development would be approved without understanding what the mitigation costs would have been even though the Council knew that a citizen driven Initiative does not require that an EIR be done prior to the vote AND the Council insisted that the developer take on this task.
Moving on:
Risks raising other taxes and fees when Alameda Point’s costs exceed the 2% cap.
Again we’re dealing with a whole lot of other conjecture and assumptions here. First, the statement is unclear and confusing to folks not following along closely. The 2% cap is on property taxes, right now, Alameda’s ad valorem tax hovers around 1.14%. Whether or not a 2% cap is sufficient is up to interpretation much like the public benefits numbers. I would argue that if the City can’t make a viable City budget work under the 2% then we are in a whole lot more trouble. Much like the public benefits numbers, a better exercise rather than “is not, is too” would be to have SunCal agree, in good faith, to lift this cap so that the City can have the flexibility if they need to tax future residents above and beyond that 2%.
And finally:
Exposes the City of Alameda to potential costly lawsuits.
Yeah? So does the perception that the City is negotiating in bad faith with SunCal. So does the abandoned and deteriorating infrastructure out at Alameda Point. So does the City’s decision to place the Initiative on the ballot in February instead of June or November. A lot of things the City does exposes Alameda to potential costly lawsuits. The City operating sports programs or having a boat ramp without a gate exposes Alameda to potential costly lawsuits. This was by far the weakest of all the anti-arguments, they should have tucked it farther up the list to end with something with a bit more substance.
“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Jack B. — November 18, 2009 @ 7:51 am
“Lather, rinse, repeat” – Back of my shampoo bottle.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2009 @ 8:03 am
Lauren, I’m confused by the suggestion that I’ve seen several times now in your blog and elsewhere that SunCal can somehow lift a voter-approved cap on property taxes. Could you clarify how this is possible? Certainly it could be true if SunCal had negotiated it in the DDA, but its inclusion in the initiative changes that. Doesn’t it? Just comparing it to Prop 13, if the voters approve this limitation, how can anything change it other than another initiative approved by 2/3rds of the voters? Thanks for providing your insight on this.
Comment by Lorre — November 18, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Hi Lorre: The 2% cap is codified in the Development Agreement, which, according to the language in the Development Agreement can be amended per the main Initiative language. This of course depends on the Initiative passing.
While the Initiative itself cannot be modified prior to the vote, there is nothing that precludes the Development Agreement from being amended if the Initiative is adopted.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Just doing my patriotic duty.
Comment by Jack B. — November 18, 2009 @ 8:29 am
The people that are really interested in this matter have pretty much made up their minds which way they’re going to vote. But, those aren’t the people who are going to decide the outcome. What it’ll come down to is this; do people in this city like what they see out at the Point now, or do they prefer that something be done to make it look what they envision it could be. Whether or not that vision will eventually become reality is beside the point.
Remember, the people who decide elections are those that could care less about the minutia of the fine print or prognostications of dire outcome, they care about what is and want change.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 18, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Lauren,
Your comment that problems can be dealt with later by following the procedures for amending the Development Agreement are not reassuring. You say, “there is nothing that precludes the Development Agreement from being amended.”
There are only two ways the Development Agreement can subsequently be deliberately amended by the two parties: 1) a new ballot measure placed before the voters by either the city council or the required number of voters signing a petition; or 2) the developer submitting a request to the city council which would need three votes to approve.
There is no provision for the city council, on the other hand, submitting an application to the developer for an amendment. An even if there was such a provision, if worded the same as option #2 there would be no imperative for the developer to approve of the amendment. Nor, I might add, would there be much support from homeowners who will have taken up residence at Alameda Point to raise their own taxes if the amendment was targeting the 2% cap.
Comment by Richard Bangert — November 18, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Richard – the key words in your argument are “a developer” nothing in the initiative gives Suncal the outright rights to the development. That still has to occur in the DDA, thus Suncal has a lot of incentive to continue negotiations and come to an agreement on the DDA that is mutually acceptable to them and the City, as evidenced by a majority vote of the council (or I believe the CIC in this case) to approve any DDA.
Suncal would also likely agree with you that the marketability of the housing would suffer if the cap is exceeded by 2%, but that is an issue the City, and not Suncal is pushing.
Comment by Doug Biggs — November 18, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Hi Richard:
What I am saying that the perception that there are problems (aka the 2% cap on property taxes is too restrictive and the $200 million is too little) are assumptions and opinions that no one has necessarily backed up. Of course, the counter argument is that SunCal hasn’t backed up their claim that $200 million is enough or that a 2% cap is sufficient as well.
Leaving the assumptions behind, the question asked was how can the Initiative be amended if the voters have voted for a set of expectations without going to the voters again. My point is that the Initiative language does not preclude amending the Development Agreement language after the fact. We can argue up and down whether or not the “developer” would actually move forward with any promises made prior to the vote, but there is the ability — without needing to go to the voters — for the developer to ask for amendments to the Development Agreement for the City Council to vote on.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Doug,
Are you saying that a DDA contract trumps a voter-approved initiative? And, if so, do you have case law to support that argument?
Comment by Richard Bangert — November 18, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Picture this, Lauren:
You & your family are househunting in Bayport. Inexplicably, you like the neighborhood and want to buy there. Before you can, though, there’s a ballot initiative on the table. If it passes, there’s no guarantee that your house gets built, or if it does you don’t get to decide the kitchen fixtures. The builder gets to keep your deposit and gets significant power over your future paychecks to use as he sees fit for undefined “benefits.”
You’d vote this down, or more likely you’d just walk for a better deal. Why do you expect the city to enter into a deal like this? No sane person, nor you either, would enter into a major transaction under such terms.
Comment by David Hart — November 18, 2009 @ 10:59 am
David H.: I know you are a smart financially dude, but that was a terrible analogy.
Maybe we should all go back to the spinster marrying the town drunk analogy.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Either is apt.
Comment by David Hart — November 18, 2009 @ 11:12 am
better to marry the town drunk than have a toxic waste dump mole on your face.
Comment by E — November 18, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Louise clearly doesn’t understand the California Elections Code.
Nobody has to substantiate anything in a ballot argument for or against.
There is a code section saying that Superior Courts can strike provisions of ballot arguments which are false and misleading, but the party who has to bear the burden of proof that the statements are false and misleading is the party griping and filing a lawsuit over the content of the ballot argument. The reason the person “griping” has to bear that burden of proof is because of the First Amendment.
Most Superior Court judges who hear these sorts of nutball gripes every election day turn down approximately 90% of the “false and misleading” lawsuit claims, because the gripers cannot bear the burden of PROVING what is being said is wrong or misleading. Those same judges are very reticent about interfering with expressions of opinion, because opinion as well as statments which look like they are factual are governed by the First Amendment.
Comment by Vania — November 18, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
“And finally:
Exposes the City of Alameda to potential costly lawsuits.
Yeah? So does the perception that the City is negotiating in bad faith with SunCal. ”
The Council should have declared the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to be broken the minute that SunCal unilaterally started collecting signatures for their ballot initiative. That was a bad faith move on SunCal’s part.
If SunCal wants to sue claiming that it was the City and not SunCal acting in bad faith, let them. They are not going to find a very sympathetic jury.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 18, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Hi ANT:
That would have been a tricky position for the City Council to have taken, since they were well aware of SunCal’s intention and need to go to the voters for some sort of Measure A exemption. If the City Council wanted to either control the Initiative process or felt as though an Initiative process would be contrary to the ENA then they could have chosen at that time to not negotiate a second amendment to the ENA at that time.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Richard, I don’t believe it is about one “trumping” the other. It’s about the next logical step in a process of refining and adding details to the redevelopment plan. The Initiative is one key step and check-off in a long process. Once the Initiative is passed, then Suncal would negotiate the DDA with the City (actually I believe they would be entering into the DDA with the redevelopment agency – which then limits any liability to the City). The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement specifically calls for much of the financial negotiations (including the profit sharing – do people realize there is a profit sharing provision that the city benefits from?)to take place in the DDA negotiations.
Comment by Doug Biggs — November 18, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I still don’t understand why City Council won’t just put some sort of measure on the ballot to exempt Alameda Point from Measure A and leave the development agreement to be negotiated the normal way. That way people who want the plan without SunCal’s sweetheart deals they put in the initiative could vote for that.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 18, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Lauren: This does not substantiate anything. Obviously, Kevin Kennedy’s opinion on the risks posed by the initiative is far better informed than yours (or mine) and if he believes that it’s bad for the city, then I’ll take his word for it.
Jack Richard is right. Most of the folks voting on the initiative won’t be following it that closely, and they’re better off looking at the arguments and endorsements which are strongly tilted against it.
If you want to try and substantiate the arguments in favor of the initiative tho, then by all means, go for it. Let’s have some even-handed treatment.
Comment by louise — November 18, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
From The Island: So Marie Gilmore is against this too?
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2009/11/gilmore-announces-mayoral-candidacy/
Gilmore said Tuesday afternoon that while she supports the land plan the community and SunCal have developed for the Point, “the initiative, as written, is not in the best interests of the city.” Still, Gilmore is hopeful that a deal can be reached before the city’s exclusive negotiating agreement with SunCal expires in July 2010.
Comment by louise — November 18, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Louise, you must have me mistaken for a journalist (see Michele Ellson for that job). “Even handed” is in the eye of the beholder, you asked that someone rebut the statements made in the arguments against the Initiative, both Doug Biggs and I took you up on your challenge.
I think Jack Richard’s point was it doesn’t matter if folks that have already made up their minds bicker about the small details, the vote largely hinges on people who don’t care necessarily about the arguments for and against or even the people endorsing, their vote will be based on whether they want the Point to change or stay the same.
And in that, your statement about trusting Kevin Kennedy’s word above all others is simply a reinforcement of Jack B.’s first quote which can be applied to anyone who feels strongly about any position and will take any evidence that supports that position as gold. Of course, I’ve only ever seen Jack B. post it in response to one of my posts, but even in doing our “patriotic duty” it’s hard to shake our own seeing of objects that support our own theories.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 19, 2009 @ 6:28 am
Lauren, for whatever it’s worth… that’s my email signature… and it swings any which way.
Comment by Jack B. — November 19, 2009 @ 6:56 am
I for one am happy the Mayor, Doug DeHaan and Frank Materesse has come out against the initiative.
This along with the city, the Alameda Chamber and Renewed Hope’s detailed analysis of the plan, they all have clearly highlighted their concerns. Despite what the proponents of the initiative say –these are valid concerns.
And thank goodness for our Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant. We need someone like her to push back against an agreement like this that surely would have bankrupted our city!
SunCal has made a mess, and I see many in our community scrambling trying to clean up their mess by suggesting our leaders are not acting in good faith because they are not willing to negotiate a ballot initiative that is difficult if not impossible to change. Where was the good faith of our master developer when they chose to add the development agreement to the initiative?
What we’re being asked to do is “sign it anyway” in the hopes that it can be changed after the fact. To date, we don’t have confirmation from either our city attorney, nor SunCal’s attorney that a voter initiative can legally be changed. So why would anyone sign a 25 to 30 year contract with terms that may or may not be negotiable?
And for those who think: I’d rather see something rather than nothing — really? At any cost to the City? We might be facing financial difficulties, but given the state budget crisis, most cities are. I trust that we will make it through this cyle – but lets not give the deed to our house away! We can do better!
Finally I support the plan like many, but I am disappointed that SunCal chose to include the development agreement with the initiative. This is a deal breaker for me and I will not be voting for the initiative!
Comment by Karen Bey — November 19, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
#24: “Where was the good faith of our master developer when they chose to add the development agreement to the initiative?” Exactly. SunCal made that choice as an experienced developer and now they have to live with the consequences. The city did not cause this and it’s not up to the city to fix it.
The Island has a very important post today titled “On Point: War of the Words”, containing “a letter to SunCal from Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, essentially rebutting SunCal’s rebuttal to a city report that lays out the potential impacts of the developer’s ballot initiative for Alameda Point”.
This is at long last a definitive explanation of the initiative from those with an expert understanding of the issues, that settles many of the most crucial issues.
To quote Paragraph #3, Subsequent DDA Approval:
“Further, as is typical and originally expected by the City, a DA granting land use entitlements to develop property at Alameda Point would be negotiated and executed at the same time as a DDA, with complementary and consistent provisions (eg, duration, default, etc)… In this case, a DA was included in the Initiative … without prior negotiation or approval by the City. The DA in the Initiative includes financial terms and conditions that are conventionally negotiated and included in the DDA. …
Absent clear authority in the Initiative to amend these terms, inclusion in the DA limits control and flexibiilty by the CIC and ARRA in negotiating a financial agreement with SunCal in the DDA.”
Comment by louise — November 19, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
It’s great that elected representatives take positions publicly, especially on something as crucial as building out the Point, but I’m still a little edgy about them signing the actual ballot arguments. I would have preferred they had taken clear positions on amending the charter pro or con, and done it right off instead of this tortured process.
This is an extremely complicated and unusual set of circumstances, but the reason SunCal had the opportunity to write an initiative which includes the DA and other elements advantageous to them is that there was no leadership from the City to draft an initiative to deal with Measure A.
I understand Doug deHaan to have been upset that SunCal’s plan was not Measure A compliant but I don’t think Ms. Gallant or the Chamber have made that part of their reasons for opposition. If the majority of these people could support a non compliant development plan they might have thought long and hard about getting the City in the driver’s seat. For starters, an initiative drafted by the City would have required an EIR.
In response to Kevis 19. I don’t think a competing initiative is a viable option either, if that is what you were suggesting.
You can call it bad faith on the part of SunCal, but I don’t know what else one could expect. Lauren’s blog post today focuses on the down side of trying to do business in this City and SunCal saw their opportunity to take care of some of those issues and then some, and they took it.
Comment by M.I. — November 19, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Right! They seen their chance and they took it.
AlamedaPointInfo.com has collected all the election related reports and position papers under the heading of Election Reports, at:
http://alamedapointinfo.com/Election-Reports
Here’s the link to the City Manager’s letter to SunCal, which deserves careful reading:
http://alamedapointinfo.com/documents/letter-city-manager-suncal-regarding-ballot-measure-november-18-2009
Comment by louise — November 19, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
I hope none of the people that want the city to take over development claim to be conservatives, no true conservative would ever want a government takeover of… anything
Comment by E — December 3, 2009 @ 12:07 am
You’re right, E, look how they mucked up the base so far by just standing on the sidelines.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 3, 2009 @ 8:55 am
@ Jack… if the city and navy hadn’t dragged their feet so much over the past 10 years that 1/3 of the island would be up and running (and wouldn’t have a damn bird sanctuary on the shoreline instead of million dollar mansions, as there should be)
Comment by E — December 3, 2009 @ 10:50 pm