So my latest project has been reading through the 2001 Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study. Essentially this document was created so that the City could charge developers for the impact of their project on the City. According to the state level legislation that controls, this type of Nexus Study has to be performed in order for a City to actually implement these fees.
I’ll go into some more detail some other time, but thought this would be interesting fodder for thought during this holiday weekend. Remember how one of the big concerns was the fact that in the Development Agreement in the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative there is the waiver of certain impact fees? The contention made by opponents is that if the City was allowed to negotiate the Development Agreement, they would never, ever, ever allow such a thing to happen.
Except for the fact that they did.
Not only is the Harbor Bay Isle Development exempt from all future impact fees, which could be argued as being negotiated so long ago that City officials could never have imagined that they would need additional fees, but as recently as the Catellus/FISC (Alameda Landing) project (big file!):
The City of Alameda has also entered into a development agreement with Catellus related to the FISC reuse properties. The agreement states that Catellus will not be subject to future development impact fees imposed by the City. Consequently, the City will fund the Catellus Project’s share of CDF fees calculated in ths analysis. These fee obligations are estimated to be approximately $6.8 million. To fund the project’ s share of capital improvements, the City will need to generate an equivalent amount of funding and appropriate it to the subject infrastructure improvements.
I know a lot of fuss has been made over the Development Agreement portion of the Initiative, but in comparing it to the most recent large scale project in Alameda, it appears that the terms aren’t a whole lot different.
Lauren,
It is not a surprise to us that the City Development Dept was enabled by the pro-developer City Council majority to allow the developers to, rip off the citizens of our city. The recent 10% cut in the staff of workers supporting our city should provide you enough evidence that the city NEEDS the required fees the developers were supposed to pay us. The continuing of cuts in services which our taxes had provided our citizens can be linked to the millions of lost city revenue, such as what was given to the developers despite our city’s needs.
Your argument being that two wrongs make a right shows exactly your perspective for any who had the wrong impression that you were neutral in community discussions. The citizens in this community should be more important to our city’s Development Directors and our representatives on CC than providing generous gifts to private developers regardless of what season it is. The City Council vote on the agreement with Catullus you speak of was ‘snuck’ into the CC agenda between Thanksgiving and Christmas when the populace has the least opportunity to participate in activities outside their families.
We are paying the price for those type of decisions with the loss of city workers and services, let’s be clear on that reality.
Comment by Dave K — November 27, 2009 @ 9:35 am
Geez, thanks DK. All this time I thought it was the economic downturn coupled with unfunded give-aways to city workrs that was causing our ciy’s finanial plight. Istead it’s the dastardly CC sneaking around wrapping and delivering gifts to developers while the rest of are carving turkey and and thinking about plums bathed in sugar.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 27, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Yes on B!
Comment by E — November 27, 2009 @ 11:42 am
The rebuttals are out (from Alameda Daily News) — no guaranteed funding for schools.
Rebuttal to Arguments for Measure B and Rebuttal to Arguments Against Measure B
The following rebuttal to the arguments for Measure B was signed by Alameda City Councilmember Frank Matarrese, City of Alameda Auditor Kevin Kearney, Alameda Unified School District Boardmember Tray Jensen, Alameda Unified School District Boardmember Trish Spencer, and Past Teacher/Coach Ashley Jones:
Promises and pretty pictures will not develop Alameda Point. SunCal has more than 27 bankruptcies throughout the Southwest, plus numerous projects that remain undeveloped. Oakland residents sued SunCal because Oak Knoll became a public safety hazard. We cannot let this happen to Alameda.
Measure B was written by SunCal and benefits the developer. Once passed, it’ s LAW! Measure B creates traffic from a potential 11,000 new residents without sufficient funding for managing traffic.
This is NOT our last chance to redevelop Alameda Point.
Defeat Measure B and our community will move forward to develop Alameda Point in a manner that includes funded infrastructure, sports facilities, open space schools, libraries and a full range of housing opportunities for every segment of our community. We can do this without giving millions of public dollars in a deal which only benefits the developer, not our community.
Ignore the false promises of SunCal:
There’s no guarantee that any additional agreements will be legally enforceable or protect our city should this Initiative pass.
This is a one-sided Initiative that gives the developer 100% control of the project development with NO requirement to fulfill their financial commitments.
The Initiative doesn’t guarantee funding for or construction of a single public school at Alameda Point.
Developer’s shortfall of nearly $500 million in funding for public benefits will result in a failure to deliver promised benefits.
Don’t let this slick million dollar campaign buy your vote.
Please join with the Alameda community and us by voting NO on Measure B.
For more FACTS visit http://www.alamedapointinfo.com
The following rebuttal to the arguments against Measure B was signed by the Executive Director of Alameda Point Collaborative Douglas Biggs, Alameda Point Resident Barbara [last name signature unreadable], Alameda Transportation Commissioner Michael J. Krueger, Alameda Resident, Principal Qbits Associates, and the Chair of Alameda Pt. Collaborative Rev. Roger Bauer.
The simple fact is the decaying former Naval Air Station at Alameda Point could cost every Alameda taxpayer hundreds of dollars per year, every year. Each year, the City of Alameda wastes millions of dollars that could be used for police and fire but is instead spent to maintain crumbling roads, deteriorating sewer lines and decaying buildings. This creates a drain on our City budget and wastes taxpayer money. Measure B is a plan to revitalize Alameda Point created by residents of Alameda to rehabilitate the Naval Air Station and to prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars.
Here are the facts:
Alameda Point is contaminated with toxics, lead and asbestos. Measure B will continue the cleanup process to ensure it is safe for residents and businesses.
Measure B guarantees that any developer will have to pay $200 million for public amenities, such as recreation facilities, parks, open space protection, a fire station and a library.
Under the existing agreement, this plan must pay for itself. That means that the project will generate enough revenue to cover the cost of maintaining it. Your taxes will NOT be increased.
Measure B will protect existing businesses, create local jobs and provide needed housing that is consistent with the character of our community.
We can vote NO and continue being taxed to pay for a decaying Naval Air Station OR We can vote YES to make the developer pay to Revitalize Alameda Point.
Comment by littlechicken — November 27, 2009 @ 11:47 am
B is a Bad Deal for Alameda.
In short, B is Bad.
Comment by RM — November 27, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Jeez Jack – Your right – unfunded give a-ways!
So lets make sure we have no funds by letting the developers not pay what they are required to pay? Is that what you are suggesting?
Maybe we can’t afford the give a-ways; not to exorbitant salaries and retirement plans, not to private developers, not to private clubs like the B&G Club while our city parks are suffering for neglect and decreased services.
Jeez – for that matter since the city is saying it is incapable of managing our golf course why are we paying such high dollar salaries to all those layers of management that are incapable of doing the job?
Comment by Dave K — November 27, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Here’s something from The Island a few weeks back on Catellus:
“Of course, the council may also have a few questions about, say, when the rest of the development, which is 2+ years overdue, is coming, or when the city might see a check for the $3 million it has laid out for the Stargell extension that Catellus was supposed to help build or the $2 million we’ll spend to clean up after that huge [fire].”
Let’s suppose that the city waived fees in exchange for other contributions from Catellus. I guess they’re not seeing that money, not so far anyway.
And let’s look at the larger issue in this posting (and many before it): To the extent that you’re not willing to treat this discussion as anything more than a “spin campaign”, then you’ve lost all credibility and rendered your opinion irrelevant.
This isn’t a game, it’s something w/ enormous conseqences for the city. A whole raft of community leaders have come out against the initiative (Measure B), even school board officials, most likely because Measure B doesn’t guarantee funding for schools.
So how do you plan to skate past that issue?
Comment by Louise — November 27, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Jeez, DK. What’s the difference between the city negotiating with a developer in order to improve the city in lieu of a portion of their future tax liabilities on one hand and the other, giving actual collected-from-the-taxpayers 80% of the real dollars yearly collected in order to pay for something that has nothing to do with making the city better? I’d put the ball in the lieu-of-tax-liabilities’ court. But that’s just my personal feeling.
I suppose your position is; we should collect those mythical fees or let the developer walk. Because that’s what the fees would be, mythical…mythical as in, who’d want to spend big bucks on this backwater burg without being guaranteed making a healthy profit?
So all your mythical tax dividends will pay for all the mythical services and mythical workers you say our real citizens want.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 27, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
#1. I don’t necessarily take Lauren’s comments to say two wrongs make a right. I do take them to mean that perhaps many people who are very agitated about pointing fingers over the initiative may not have much a clue about precedent, for what that is worth.
I have never thought Lauren was neutral or claimed to be, so unlike you, I can’t fault her for having an opinion, though I know it is difficult for you that she is so capable of defending hers in the face of rabid finger pointing and boogeyman accusations.
#4. I am not heavily persuaded on account of signatures, but I do appreciate some emphasis on schools which have been consistently neglected in the discussion and in the plan, long before the initiative was written. I was concerned about this months ago and sought some informed input and spoke to an anonymous authority, who offered the opinion that the plan appeared to pay lip service to schools with no comprehensive plan for determining how to mitigate specific school impacts over time. The size of the sites was also criticized. We didn’t even get to the fiscal implications.
Superintendent Vital has been in meetings with SunCal fairly recently and I was kind of hoping for a comprehensive statement from the district, but they seem to have their hands full just running what we’ve got.
If any supporters believe this plan to be specifically beneficial to schools, please expound on that.
Comment by M.I. — November 27, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Did the City of Alameda make the Catellus project subject to **any** fees and taxes above the usual, like a Mello Roos District? If so, could fees/taxes generated by a Mello Roos District, if enacted, help pay for road improvements like that new Willie Stargell intersection?
Comment by Alameda 94501 — November 27, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
without B, the navy will be able to sell the land piecemeal rather than having one unified goal for the development. bad times for the island if this doesn’t pass.
Comment by E — November 28, 2009 @ 2:18 am
The Navy can sell the land piecemeal if Measure B doesn’t pass? Are there zoning and permit-processing issues that any would-be buyer would have to deal with? Or must Alameda automatically give the a-okay to a buyer who got the land directly from the Navy? Would a buyer spend hundreds of millions — maybe even billions — on a place where zoning and other permit processing matters might not be squared away?
Comment by Alameda 94501 — November 28, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Jack – you need to see a myth buster.
Yes – if a developer cannot afford the fees they are supposed to pay – send ‘em on down the road.
It is not the tax payer’s duty to insure private corporations make a profit!!!
..And if our City government had not allowed private corporations to be excused from their fees, the recently lost city jobs and services would not now be ‘mythical’.
Tax payers can’t afford a government to give our coffers to private organizations. Pretty simple to understand.
As for these private developers getting our $ to insure profit as they “improve” our city? I think the improvements are the big myth. Seems most people don’t want the traffic, congestion and city debt that SunCal wants to create here for their profit at our expense.
Comment by Dave K — November 28, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
the City’s own survey proved that there would only be a 4-6% traffic increase in the tube during peak hours.
additionally, this plan won’t be complete for another 10-20 years or so, long after most of the xenophobic alamedans are dead and gone.
Comment by E — November 28, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
# 13 DK
Is it just developers you have a hard-on for or is it your belief that city tax money should not go to any private enterprise that provides a service for the city?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 29, 2009 @ 10:49 am
#14 HAHAHAHAHA “the City’s own survey proved that there would only be a 4-6% traffic increase in the tube during peak hours.” hahahaha
The City hasn’t even said how many housing units would /could be built! SunCal has said they may additionally request use of the housing density bonus, so “E” just what would the city base such a fictional study on?
hahaha You R funny! BTW – John Knox White also said the more housing they built, the less traffic there would be…. (Can he sell us a bridge too?)
Thanks for the chuckles.
#15 Jack – maybe I don’t consider SunCal, the the recipient of a land grab, as providing a service to anyone but themselves.
Comment by d kirwin — November 30, 2009 @ 3:13 am
# 16 DK,
Since you have apparently never participated in a free enterprise capitalistic society, you probably don’t understand the basics. First and foremost you should try to understand what supply and demand are all about. Then, perhaps your search for understanding will lead you to the concept of the, “profit motive”. Maybe then you will understand how somebody with a need but without the means to satisfy that need may seek to negotiate with a needs supplier and between the two, come to an agreement which satisfies both parties.
It’s really a rather simple concept and contrary to your belief that: “I don’t consider SunCal, the the recipient of a land grab, as providing a service to anyone but themselves.” you will understand that SunCal, despised though they may be, is merely trying to make a profit. If your “party” comes out for the worse because of the agreement they entered into, don’t blame the other party.
I realize this may be a very difficult assignment for someone who has lived inside the bubble of government provided welfare-called-work, but others in your state of situational ignorance have progressed. Plus, with your sense of curiosity coupled with the obvious sense of humor, i.e.;”HAHAHAHA” you possess, I’m sure you’ll do just fine. Maybe if you spend a little less effort chasing phantoms and put forth the effort you will come to understand the economic system that has brought more wealth to more people than all other systems combined.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 30, 2009 @ 9:20 am