25th Anniversary of the "Rockaway Beach Specific Plan"
Quarry development? How about in our lifetime. This year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary that the quarry economic benefit and potential has been available to the City of Pacifica. After so many years, and the severe recession, the redevelopment advantage from the State of California may be dashed, but the local plan remains solid with the economic potential to provide substantial income to this city.
From the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan, "adopted by the Pacifica city council 2/24/86, includes 1992 amendments":
3.1 Land use, Central area. "The primary land use designations called for in this area include visitor commercial, mixed use, business commercial, open space/recreation and parking. The visitor commercial and mixed use activities are clearly intended to be the ultimate predominant uses, but the plan does call for the encouragement of new office employment on portions of the quarry site. The encouragement of use mixes, include either offices or residences over shops, is intended to create a diversity of activities in the area. Centralized parking is called for to reduce or eliminate many small and separate parking lots in the future." (page 12, 3/1986)
Posted by Kathy Meeh
98 comments:
The dream never dies.
How bout a giant F for failure.
The failure is that no developer has proposed a project that responds to that land use designation. They always propose a few hundred houses instead of what the land use designation calls for: "visitor commercial, mixed use, business commercial, open space/recreation and parking. The visitor commercial and mixed use activities are clearly intended to be the ultimate predominant uses.... The encouragement of use mixes, include either offices or residences over shops... "
It's apparent that the intent was never to have housing be a significant portion of the development.
You people are never satisfied. It's a dog park. The biggest in the county, so stop your whining.
Anon@1:51 why'd you have to go and say that? Yeah yeah I know that's what the document says but so what.
I like it a lot. Visitors, they visit they spend money and then they go away. Limited burden on our services.
Maybe some apts uptop for the big numbers of folks who don't want or can't buy and seniors.
Please God make Barry Swenson a smart man who works well with idiots. Please please please.
If housing has to be voted on, does that include mixed use. Retail with apts above? If so,very cleverly written. I would imagine that apts would fall under housing.
Yes they do. Any residential unit requires public approval, even a single studio apartment would require a public vote.
Hopefully Swenson has enough capital reserves not to worry about the residential phase funding his project. Wouldn't that be something?? Just retail and a Hotel/Convention Center. Sounds like a lot of new jobs to me.
Anon@419. Yes, very cleverly written. really screwed this town.
Author! Author! Anyone know?
It's called a poison pill.
No it's not Steve. Once the SMGB restoration is done a none residential project can be proposed without a public vote. Shops, offices, hotel/convention center you name it. But you already know that as does Jim, Kathy, Mark and any number of Anonymous' out there.
Or is the plural Anonymoui?
Maybe what we need is another segway store!!!
Ask any expert in the field and they will tell you the same thing they have been telling Pacific for 25 years, "by far the biggest bang for the buck (aka revenue return on a redevelopment district) is property tax on housing. This clever little 25 year old ditty was either written by bunch of fools or masters of poison pill-ology.
Ask any expert in the field and they will tell you the same thing that cities have known for 25 years. Housing does not pay for itself. It costs more in services than it returns in property tax revenue.
Mike Bell: please show citation for experts who say that property tax on housing is a bigger bang than property tax on commercial development in a redevelopment district. Add in sales taxes/occupancy taxes on commercial development and housing is a distant loser.
Anon 844, think you're going to get an argument from Mike on that one, funny. But, isn't the choice in Pacifica usually between "nothing" and "nothing"?
From the civic planning info I've read (just a hobbyist's interest at this point) property taxes raised via new residential housing barely covers the cost of providing services to the structure and its occupants. Constructing residential housing is not a viable method to build your way out of a deficit.
I'd be interested to know if my understanding is wrong though.
generally speaking, residential housing is a wash or a loss if you only look at property taxes and infrastructure needs as a whole. If you ignore the necessity of housing as a home base for consumers with expendable income, or what the declining return is by systematically removing housing from the equation (i.e it seems patently ridiculous and counter intuitive to think, by your logic, that NO housing is the ultimate right answer as a viable method out of a deficit).
However in redevelopment districts, the property tax revenue return is significantly higher and is generally the first wave of influx of cash to a city once those homes sell. They also drive the sales taxes by providing mixed use developments where people can live, work, and shop without polluting the environment with their cars. Which is why mixed use developments are the encouraged method of capitalizing on redevelopment districts.
The reason the poison pill works so well is "new" housing is so easy for the enviros to rally around and oppose (355 houses!!) with all sorts of scare tactics. However, the other big winners of housing units are the developers. and no developer is going to invest in a project that large without housing units to push up their profit margin.
and around and around pacifica goes. always the bridesmaid, and never the bride . . . because the solutions are always what can be done BESIDES development. All due respect Fogel, but you also cannot NOT BUILD your way out of a structural deficit. Pacifica has tried this and failed for 20 years.
Seems like it would depend on the value of housing and amount of services in a town. After doing a quick web search, I found that Sandy, Utah says property taxes alone don't provide enough for services, but in Sammamish, Washington, they do.
They're exceptional cases, but Atherton, Portola Valley and Hillsborough have little or no commercial activity, and are primarily supported by property taxes.
"...you also cannot NOT BUILD your way out of a structural deficit. Pacifica has tried this and failed for 20 years."
Pacifica's built almost nothing for 20 years. I think the only new commercial structure built in the last 10 years was the Kragen auto parts store. What other city of almost 40,000 can say that? And our population is down by about 2000 people over the last 10 years, so I don't know how anyone can honestly suggest we've tried to develop and grow.
The big money solution: "...property tax on commercial development in a redevelopment district. Add in sales taxes/occupancy taxes on commercial development and housing is a distant loser." Some considerations follow...
Anon 844, is redevelopment still an available option in California? Or did this city blow-away that advantage?
Sure the big 12% hotel occupancy tax brings in revenue if the hotels are filled and not "failed". The city should invest some of that revenue to promote additional tourist business. And, there has to be a reason to visit Pacifica other than "we've got a beach".
A balance city economy would be preferred for the benefit of all of us. And, to fulfill regional requirements this city is obliged to add housing, at least 311 units.
After decades of dithering by the various groups we can sure say the chickens. or are those plovers, have come home to roost. let's hope a little desperation makes people more practical.
@Anonymous, 10:09 PM
Excellent points -- thank you for the well-thought out post.
I was addressing the idea specifically put forth by Mike Bell that it was the property tax generated by new residential housing that represents "the biggest bang for the buck." As I understand it, property tax generated this way doesn't provide any bang. It is through -- as you rightly point out -- the subsequent stimulative effect an additional... say 1000 or so residents (just to throw a number out) will have upon the surrounding community via their spending that the growth would occur.
Mister Fogel,
Specifically, the property tax revenue from residential housing IN A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT provides the biggest bang for the buck. Instead of getting the 11% outside an RDA, the city receives something like 85% of the property tax revenue for residential housing in an RDA.
That does not include the additional benefit of disposable income on sales tax revenue.
Anon, 85% for how long?
anon 1059 - for the duration of the Redevelopment District. Normally 30-40 years, but the Quarry has already burned through 25 years of its designation.
Thanks anon, another question please. What effect would Brown's proposed changes to Redevelopment Districts have on the return of property tax from a city's redevelopment district? Have we completely missed the boat on this? If it happened in the future would it be retro on past development?
"What effect would Brown's proposed changes to Redevelopment Districts have on the return of property tax from a city's redevelopment district? Have we completely missed the boat on this?"
the effect would be the end of the RDA and Pacifica blew its opportunity. And the city goes bankrupt. But how we tried to sit on our hands and do nothing for 25 years!
Thanks anon. Missed the boat. We'll be bankrupt or down to bucket brigades and vigilantes before they can get anything going.
Re redevelopment agency = quarry and property tax benefit to Pacifica.
Was a time maybe 8 years ago when all property tax generated by the quarry development would be held by the city for 26 years. The city had a wide latitude on where to spend that revenue--schools, affordable housing, services, etc.
If the quarry was approved and if the development proceeded (yes the economy has cycles and there is never the perfect time to do anything in this town), the city would have locked in on the order of $15M a year..for 26 years.
Since that time period the property tax upside to the city has deteriorated as the legislature reduced the rebate. And now the governor wants to abolish it altogether. So, yes, Pacifica has missed the boat.
The remaining redevelopment area is the existing Rockaway retail/visitor servicing area. The "visitor serving" went out the window as various Councils approved all manner of real estate, financial, counseling and work-out uses.
The RDA in Rockaway actually loses revenue and is in debt by several millions.
As Pacifica debates what to do about a Main Street on Palmetto, RDA generated property tax to the City will not be a benefit.
For more detail, I would suggest an inquiry to the city's finance director.
Anon @ 10:56,
Specifically, the property tax revenue from residential housing IN A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT provides the biggest bang for the buck. Instead of getting the 11% outside an RDA, the city receives something like 85% of the property tax revenue for residential housing in an RDA.
Thank you for the clarification and correcting me on my misunderstanding.
Any idea on the ability to get a redesignation once a district's assignment has expired?
"the city would have locked in on the order of $15M a year..for 26 years."
744, then the environmental leadership in this city (aka: 8 year city council, and friends) only cost this city $390 million dollars, plus the spin-off to other business, economy, jobs, services in this city.
What a different city this would be. No more begging for everything needed. No more big contest and dispute about each potential benefit to this city.
Really think developing the quarry would be your end-of-the-world, and highest and best use land use is a "dog park" managed by GGNRA. Wonder why some of us are upset with you in ripping-off the rest of us in civilization, specifically our city of Pacifica?
Caution: there are word games being played in these posts.
It's true that residential housing built in a redevelopment district provides more property tax revenue than housing NOT built in a redevelopment district. That's a big DUH. Any type development in a redevelopment district provides more property tax revenue than any type of development that is not in a redevelopment district.
But it is not true that residential development in a redevelopment district provides a bigger bang for the buck (more property tax revenue) than commercial development in a redevelopment district.
""Mister Fogel,Specifically, the property tax revenue from residential housing IN A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT provides the biggest bang for the buck. Instead of getting the 11% outside an RDA, the city receives something like 85% of the property tax revenue for residential housing in an RDA.That does not include the additional benefit of disposable income on sales tax revenue.""
The above is a dangerous statement by a completely misinformed individual who either is ignorant of RDA or is willfully misleading.
The property tax revenues in a RDA development, commercial or residential, can only be spent in the RDA area and by law are not allowed to be used or transferred to the general fund budget. It also takes tax revenues away from school districts, state and county budgets. RDA is not a good deal for anyone except the private developer who benefits from infrastructure improvements paid for by us the tax payer such as sewer lines, streets and lighting.
RDA requires debt to exist. Without RDA debt the RDA does not exist. RDA's routinely take out large loans to fund infrastructure improvements for private developers using the supposed property tax increases as collateral. So that RDA tax revenue increases are already spent long before a RDA project like say the quarry is ever built or starts generating tax revenues. That's the punch-line of RDA, the money is already spent years if not decades before the "tax revenues start flowing in."
RDA is not a good deal for the public, just the private developer. There is a lot of literature available pro and con but the best source for information is the states office of RDA.
RDA is a sad myth that has left too many communities, like ours, holding the bag while the private developers have reaped fortunes in rewards.
"It is not true that residential development in a redevelopment district provides a bigger bang for the buck (more property tax revenue) than commercial development in a redevelopment district"
How much bang for the buck does leaving it as an empty quarry provide?
"The above is a dangerous statement"
Melodrama much?
Missed the boat or dodged a bullet? Heck of a dog park.
"How much bang for the buck does leaving it as an empty quarry provide?" That was not the point being discussed. Mike Bell's assertion was false.
once again my good friend Todd Bray forgot to qualify his statements as "not intended to be factual." Mister Bray has shown a consistent opposition to any development in the quarry and will use any argument . . . be it claiming ESHAs exist where they don't, misrepresenting Tim Tosta's comments, claiming to have talked to Barry Swenson when he didn't, and misrepresenting the benefits of housing in RDAs.
Other than that he is doing a commendable job!
"RDA is not a good deal for the public, just the private developer."
Todd 10:01am, here we go again...
$15 million x 26 years = $390 million lost revenue thwarting the viability of this city.
The private developer gets to do the analysis, take all the financial and hazard risk, deal with development and regulations. And, hopefully whatever is build will be somewhat a "highest and best use" project suitable for this city.
Remember Measure L? Included in the proposal analysis was a no cost to the city land provision to allow the city to build 1) an updated, efficient, ADA compliant city hall, and 2) a state-of-the-art library (the city is required in San Mateo County to provide the land and building).
Additionally, the developer is require to mitigate traffic, the city's bond rating would also be improved do deal with the highway 1 bottleneck. Rather than a cut-through widening (the least expensive solution some of you object to), an improved design would be an option.
An improved quarry would benefits those who build it, maintenance workers, businesses, those employed, visitors, those of us who live here, and the city.
Anon 1100, but what would Mike Bell know, he's only a highly educated professional architect and Realtor. And, your qualifications, and information comes from???? I prefer the candid comment from Anon 1018 who said "How much bang for the buck does leaving it as an empty quarry provide?"
What is the problem here, why is developing this blighted quarry (or much of anything else for that matter) a problem when the city is destined to remain 50-60% open space?
Pacifica taxpayers have been forced to fund multiple studies over the last 25 years for advise on the highest and best use of our RDA property(s). Yes, there used to be more than one.
These reports are never acted upon and usually thrown into the back of a closet because they don't validate "Pacificans for No Development".
Every report specifically names housing as the largest single source of tax revenue per square foot of development. Read it for yourself, before these expensive paperweights are deemed "old useless files" and purged.
Kathy, as you already know the RDA would take out a multimillion dollar loan to fund basic improvements in the quarry and who knows it may also fund the environmental work for the private developer so any money generated by the quarry would be spoken for years and years in advance. That is how RD works. It is not a cash cow. As for sales tax revenues we get around a million or so now. Most of hat comes from sales generated at our local gas stations. The quarry is a dream and the RDA a night tremor.
Mike being a realtor your opinion is largely self motivated which I understand but babe, no one buys the sales pitch.
bray is back to bashing Reatlors? its 2006 all over!
SENATOR KYL, I'm flattered by the attention. I also understand that being a SENATOR your job requires you to have a lack of the basic reading comprehension skills the rest of us seem to unfairly enjoy at your expense. I also understand that being a SENATOR requires you to have a vast, whole hearted ignorance of the laws of this great nation, especially environmental laws, and applaud your bravery in demonstrating just how blissfully uninformed you are. Keep up the healing SENATOR KYL, only good can come from it.
Calling Mike out on his BS is not REALTOR bashing. However Mike needs to predicate his housing tax theories by identifying himself as a player in the market IMO.
thank you for your non-response Mister Bray. Your intelligence and education on many issues is a boon to the community. as a SENATOR, I enjoy the luxury of defending my comments with the tried and true "because I said so" logic. However, you not being a SENATOR and clearly being far more educated than the rest of "us people", I think you are held by a much higher standard of proving your statements to be true with relevant citations. Thank you for your support.
Please identify the "multiple studies" that "Pacifica taxpayers have been forced to fund" over the last 25 years. What are they? Also, please indicate where each of the identified studies "specifically names housing as the largest single source of tax revenue per square foot of development." More BS from Mike Bell.
Todd, probably only in Pacifica is a redevelopment agency a failure. Generally speaking redevelopment in California IS a "cash cow", when development happens. That's why cities which have qualified blighted areas elect redevelopment agencies (RDA).
In a RDA the return on sales tax is huge, some one else may better describe that; my memory suggests its something like 80 cents, rather than the usual 15 cents.
The city hall, library and road improvements I mentioned are needed.
Most of our city tax revenue comes from gasoline tax, because most commerce and jobs are over the hill. Travelers stop to fill-up driving through town, as well as out-of-town.
You and Mike can duke-it-out. Based upon his comment, he's informed, advising of the RDA reports which have occurred.
My post calling Mike on his BS was deleted. Mike Bell is not informed, he's making this stuff up.
anon at 422 wanted reports. I just so happen to have them chronicled going back 40 years. Anyone want more detail, see planning dept.
List produced in 2005
One of 2 parts due to file size
List produced 2005
A brief sampling of Pacifica's collection of strategic plan, quarry and economic development documents. Sure to cure insomnia.....Notice Mayor Lancelle was on the 1994 committee.
1. December 1968, Issues and Objectives, Pacifica, CA (Duncan & Jones, Berkeley, planning consultants for City of Pacifica)
“Can Pacifica make up its deficit of retail commercial activities by attracting hotels, motels, restaurants and revitalized ocean front? Pacifica has the unique marine waterfront location in the Bay Area in that it is an integral part of the Pacific Ocean. How can it best benefit commercially from this? Does Route 186 give Pacifica the chance to tap the airport market and build a convention center and the usual associated facilities in an unsurpassed location fronting onto the ocean? “ page 26.
2. June 1984, Task Force Action Plan to Promote Commercial Development in Pacifica
Panel: Amick, Biby, Carpenter, Coson, Fulford, Growney, Goldstein, Gust, Headley, Jaquith, Kell, Loeb, Locher, Malick, Propert.
“One of Pacifica’s major problems is the lack of sufficient commercial development to adequately service the needs of local residents and other visiting or traveling through Pacifica.” page 1.
“Recommendation 5: designate ‘economic development areas’ and develop specific plans to coordinate future commercial development in this areas.” Page 5, including Pedro Point, Rockaway area and Palmetto.
September 17, 1984 City Manager Finigan letter to Task Force Members: “ As you will note, there is a specific proposed action for each of the report’s 26 recommendations. The proposed action reflects staff’s ability to carry out all these recommendations on a scheduled basis over the next couple of years.”
3. March 1986, Redevelopment Plan for Rockaway Beach (including quarry)
“The Plan is designed to achieve two major goals, First, the Plan seeks to revitalize the West Rockaway beach and quarry areas so that they become efficient and attractive centers for visitor-serving commercial, office and retail activity. Second, the Plan is intended to improve the access for vehicles and pedestrians into the Project area.” page 4.
4. March 1986, Rockaway Beach Specific Plan City of Pacifica.
“The primary land use designations called for in this area include visitor commercial, open space/recreation and parking. The visitor commercial and mixed use activities are clearly intended to be the ultimate predominant uses, but the plan does call for the encouragement of new office employment on portions of the quarry site.” page 12
5. November 1991, The Future of Commercial Development in Pacifica.
Panel members: Headley, Rehn, Mueller, Fearing, Culler, Machado, Pickerell, Anderson, Payne, Lucia, Lewis, Messer.
“Can the City adopt a ‘friendly, helpful’ attitude adjustment proposal and be proactive in commercial development?”
6. January 1992 Pacifica 1992 and Beyond City of Pacifica
Soberanis, chair; S. Campagna, vice chair.
April 23, 1992 report: “ we strongly recommend the following:
1. expand our commercial base.
Pacifica has a number of sites that could be developed with little or no impact on open space. Those sites include the Pedro Point Shopping Center, part of Palmetto Ave and the quarry. We recommend that those area be developed to provide retail and commercial facilities that will serve both Pacifica resident and tourists.” Page 3
part 2 of 2
pac economic and quarry reports.
7. May 1994, Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Economic Vitality Council report to City Council on Economic Development in Pacifica. Soberanis, chair.
Panel: Blackstone, Culler, Dakan, Gust, Lancelle, McCarthy, Miller, O’Neill, Rehn, Simon, Wells, Mueller.
“Pacifica Means Business, Improving Pacifica’s Business Images: The proposed $40 million shopping center in the quarry which would have provided the City with $1.5 million in tax revenues and 800 jobs.” Page 17
8. September 1995, Rockaway Quarry Background Briefing, City of Pacifica, Community and Economic development.
Steering Committee Mission Statement: To study background information on development possibilities for the Rockaway Quarry, to gather input from the public on preferred development options and to present a report to the Redevelopment Agency Board on its findings. page 1.
9. February 1996, Rockaway Quarry Steering Committee Executive Summary.
“ based on all of the input from the public and the Committee members, the Committee arrived at the following recommendations for development of the Quarry:
The development should be revenue positive and environmentally friendly.
Retain (upper) pad for public use.
A mixed use approach should be followed.
Use a unifying design theme.
Residential use should not be the cornerstone of quarry development.
A green conference center and performing arts center are strongly desired.
Adverse traffic impacts must be minimized.
Public participation should be solicited throughout the development process.” Page 2
10. June 1997, City of Pacifica Economic Development Plan and Strategy
“ With a commitment to increasing Pacifica’s commercial tax base through the expansion of the visitor serving economy, the City Council is ready to take positive actions which will promote that sector of the economy.” Page 1 introduction.
Other reports mentioned in the above documents, but not located:
1993 City of Pacifica, Chamber of Commerce Report on Small Business in Pacifica conducted by SF State students.
1994, City of Pacifica management audit, Davis M. Griffith and Associates. Increased commercial tax base emphasized.
Various general plan updates and additional Rockaway Beach specific redevelopment plan documents not located and therefore are also omitted.
I'm sorry Mark, I didn't get that, could you repeat that please?
Kathy, RD has been a failure in a lot of communities such as San Jose because the projected revenues were never realized. We transferred close to five million dollars of RDA debt to our general fund and San Jose transferred somewhere near one billion dollars of RDA debt to it's general fund. In both cases and many many more RDA debt that was to be repaid by "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" became public debt while the profits of those same RDA projects stayed with the private developer.
Kathy, RDA does not work. It is a bad deal for the public. History is showing us just how damaging RDA has been all along. We should be thanking Jerry Brown for seeking to abolish RDA altogether.
RDA is fools gold Kathy.
And I like Mike, he knows I do, and knows I think him a cute and cuddly rouge who sells real estate and has a vested interest in housing development and should say so when arguing land use issues.
SENATOR KYL, you warm me.
Todd, if the RDA is such a hardship for cities, why are they screaming "foul" because Brown is after them?
Todd, if RDA doesn't work, why are so many cities fighting to keep the state from ending them?
It hasn't worked everywhere, but in Pacifica's case, it hasn't worked because we haven't taken advantage of it.
Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by not taking advantage of RD. We have and it ended up taking advantage of us. I think the cities that are screaming about losing RDA are the ones with the biggest RDA debt like LA, SJ and SD or cities like Santa Clara that are trying to fund a stadium to steal the 49ers using RDA to borrow against future projected revenues.
But Jerry's solution allows for RDA's to continue collecting taxes until such time as the RDA debt is paid off. And as stated above without debt an RDA no longer exists.
A few weeks ago there was a special council meeting here in Pacifica to adjust wording to the local RDA to ensure the debt transfered to the pubic would continue to be paid in case Jerry's proposal becomes law.
Oh and a note to Kathy. RDA board members are not elected. They are appointed like our own council. It's that added secret government aspect of RDA that I dislike. Especially since determining "blight" is completely subjective. There have been so many abuses of "blight" that the rules were changed several years ago to discontinue the land grabbing practice.
I declare my posts rebutting my good friend Todd Bray are being consumed by blogspot's hunger for hypertext!
my esteemed colleague Mister Bray seems stuck in 2005/2006 when the city of San Jose - after enjoying 2 decades of amazing profits from its RDAs - saw a decline in its revenue.
Of course they are now fighting the state for redevelopment funds, but that debt of $1 billion seems to be grabbed right out of 2005!
http://www.sanjose.com/news/2011/01/20/san_jose_fights_to_keep_redevelopment_money
-->Not only do the RDA funds often provide affordable housing to needy sectors of the population, but advocates argue that building the homes helps alleviate unemployment. Then there is the cultural element and the revitalization of downtown areas. “The downtown of San Jose was a hole in the donut a few decades ago,” says San Jose’s RDA chief Harry Mavrogenes. “Everything had gone. Were it not for redevelopment, you would not have all the development, all the jobs that are there now,”
of course you must remember not everything posted by my good friend Todd Bray is intended to be a factual statement . . . he learned well from me.
"...determining "blight" is completely subjective."
Todd (5:58pm), then how is it that this city paid consultants to advise what would be considered blighted areas and qualify for redevelopment a few years ago?
LA, SJ, SD are large cities, which likely have multiple areas which qualify for redevelopment. It stands to reason that some areas would be more successful than others.
But, then I think your friend Senator Kyl of AZ, snooping into California business, said that.
"RDA board members are not elected. They are appointed like our own council. It's that added secret government aspect of RDA that I dislike."
Todd (5:58PM), we agree on that one. Think the only reason we don't agree on some issues is that some of us got the development gene.
mike bell said: "Every report specifically names housing as the largest single source of tax revenue per square foot of development."
None of the reports that stechbart listed say that.
mike bell is making this stuff up.
Enough Anonymous, what, are you stuck in low gear or something? Anyhow, Mike Bell is one of my heroes, he doesn't make stuff up period (if he said it, he saw it or knows about it). You, on the other hand, who are you, and how do you justify what you are saying? And, really what are you saying?
The reports you refer to from Mark Stechbart has limited detail and include "mixed-use" meaning housing. Housing, Anonymous!
Why would people (living in houses of course) be good for a local economy? Well lets see. People pay property taxes (which also fund schools and libraries). People pay sales taxes because we all shop, eat, drive, and buy all kinds of stuff; we also find recreation, entertain etc. Additionally, we pay some fees to the city, such as franchise fees on trash collection (11% on the gross fees collected). Some of us have Comcast cable television, that's another franchise fee, etc. etc., etc.
Therefore, taxation paid by a human (including a human family) occurs in living, and from various of these multiple tax and fee sources the city benefits. That's why housing (where the humans live) might be considered "the largest single source of tax revenue per square foot of development. a "big benefit to a community" (Mike Bell, 1:15pm).
Got it? If not Anonymous, you're "making stuff up".
"Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by not taking advantage of RD"
Mission Bay in SF was built in a redevelopment zone. Not a shabby use of a previously run-down area.
Once a city designates an area as a redevelopment zone, it needs to go out and find something to go there. SF did. Pacifica, as usual, sat around with its thumb up its ass.
And cities are not required to borrow money from their redevelopment zones. That was Pacifica's decision. Blame the city, not the redevelopment program.
And don't forget the poison pill Pacifica placed on the quarry redevelopment zone. Not only has Pacifica NOT taken advantage of its redevelopment zones, but it's actively discouraged taking advantage of them.
That "poison pill" is the requirement of voter approval for housing in the quarry. Gee, democracy as a poison pill. What a concept. If it hadn't been for that poison pill, the entire quarry would be covered by a huge housing subdivision.
"If it hadn't been for that poison pill, the entire quarry would be covered by a huge housing subdivision."
say what?
Old Pacifica=Brain Trust (John Curtis, Peter Loeb, Fred Howard, Nancy Hall
Current Pacifica=Brain Trust (John Curtis,"Sneaky" Pete Dejarnatt, Jim Vreeland, Nancy Hall
"If it hadn't been for that poison pill, the entire quarry would be covered by a huge housing subdivision."
Without the poison pill, there would have been both commercial and housing in the quarry, and we'd be getting 85% of the property tax revenue instead of the 0% we're getting now.
why is there a poison pill? because the Old Brain Trust knew that no developer would touch that property without adding a housing component to their plans. because no development would be profitable or sensible without it.
and they knew they could always control a vote on housing with the same scare tactics. so the quarry never gets built out and Pacifica spirals into insolvency. great planning.
Steve, Mission Bay is a great example and I'm glad you brought it up. It completely changed the character of Potrero Hill from a sleepy forgotten neighborhood with a spectacular view to sleepy forgotten neighborhood with a horrible view which affect property values immediately downward.
Mission Bay on it's own, a collection of office buildings w/o housing, is a great use of the landfill it's on, and the improvements in the locale of public transport are also great. So good example. However it came at great expense to he property owners of it's neighbor Potrero Hill.
The quarry is in a different situation than Mission Bay as it is in the coastal zone requiring a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. Unlike Mission Bay which has been planned for decades and does not require a CDP the quarry has been hampered not by the city or any group of Pacificans but by the near sighted hubris of developers who thought they saw an easy fast buck.
If the quarry had had a responsible land owner who had taken the time to really plan a project, and I mean P-L-A-N a project which admittedly would have cost millions to, like Mission Bay, I'm sure a project would have been built there decades ago, with a mixture of retail, commercial, housing and municipal structures. But as we have seen no such quarry owner ever existed. Not Bottoms, not Trammel Crow and certainly not Donnie.
Lets just hope that if BSB decides to get involved they do so calmly, without a rush. BSB are far from saints but I have no doubt BSB would do a good project. I know a few people that work there and was made aware about a year ago of BSB interest in the quarry and I have been trying to save them the nightmare of that cursed property but they feel they can get a project built there, a large one with the same foot print of Trammies and Donnies failed attempts. It's like watching someone walk off a cliff, do you yell out a warning or just let them fall? I yelled out a warning and showed them where the cliffs edge is. At the time of my visit they felt confident they can handle it... sigh.
Steve, An RDA zone is not an RDA zone really until debt is incurred by the RDA agency. Without RDA debt the RDA zone is just another piece of property. I implore you to look it up.
Mission Bay and Potrero Hill??
What are you talking about Bray they are at least 3 miles apart
Please buy a compass or a map before you talk
Hahaha. "3 miles apart" "Please buy a compass or a map before you talk." Mission Bay, you should google map it before you speak. The bottom of Potrero Hill is at 16th between Potrero Ave. and 7th St. It's right across 280 from Mission Bay at 16th between 7th and 3rd.
What are you talking about Mission Bay?
Potrero Hill and Mission Bay are right next to each other. They're as close as neighbors can get.
"Please buy a compass or a map before you talk"
Todd,
I haven't bought or sold real estate since 2006.
I build out commercial buildings in Silicon Valley, SF, etc.
I'd love to help create some community wealth in Pacifica but I'm not interested in wasting finite resources.
If and when Pacifican's for No Development move away or die off I'll reconsider.
now now now Mister Bell you know my good friend Todd Bray said those things about you, but they were not intended to be factual statements. Bashing the Realtor boogeyman is a tried and true practices of the BANANAs in town . . . ("Buildings Are Not Allowed Near Anything"). I'm sure Mister Bray has a fine idea on generating revenue in your fair city, just waiting for him to run for office and share his vision.
Mike, please accept my apologies and please forgive my assumption. Wont happen again.
SENATOR KYL, why on earth would you want me to run for council?
you seem to have all the answers and all the connections, my good friend Todd Bray. And a willingness to say things for the record that are not intended to be factual statements. I like the cut of your jib, who knows? maybe you'll get to Washington ahead of my other good friend and esteemed colleague Jim Vreeland. Now when Pete Dejarnatt says he is ill, was that intended to be a factual statement? WHO CARES!
Dear sweet innocent SENATOR KYL, I just received a text message from you mental health care nurse Raoul (if you look over your shoulder he's the big guy chasing you down with a butterfly net) who has asked me to not respond to your heart felt posts any longer as he says it causes you to run rampant throughout the state hospital grounds. Take care SENATOR, and remember a butterfly net can only trap your body not your mind.
there is a freedom in releasing yourself from making factual statements all the time.
"Steve, An RDA zone is not an RDA zone really until debt is incurred by the RDA agency. Without RDA debt the RDA zone is just another piece of property. I implore you to look it up."
Toddster, I'm not going to spend time looking for something that I don't believe exists. If you have a link to a website that explains why, "Without RDA debt the RDA zone is just another piece of property," then please make it available.
These guys don't care about the truth. Its about slinging the BS.
Facts what facts I don't want no facts
Amazing how nothing gets done in town, huh?
Steve, here is a simple primer http://www.pinnaclenews.com/news/contentview.asp?c=276532
More to come.
Todd's link proves his point, the one that Steve Sinai doesn't believe exists. Redevelopment is a debt mechanism. It's a way of financing redevelopment by incurring debt that is paid back by the captured property tax revenues. You can't create a redevelopment area just to get the increased property taxes to spend however you want. The captured taxes have to be spent on financing redevelopment so you have to go into debt to get those increased taxes to pay off the debt. Without debt, the redevelopment area is just another piece of property.
Thanks for the link, Todd. I've only been able to take a quick look, and was hoping for something more official than someone's interpretation of how redevelopment areas worked, (which is akin to Brent Plater explaining how peer-review works,) but you provided something to start with.
"Todd's link proves his point"
Some people sure set low bars for what constitutes "proof."
Steve, as I suggested before you can always go to the states website and read the actual law. I'm not sure how smart it is for you to expect to be hand fed exactly what you want to hear. If RDA is of interest to you read up on it at the source. Form your own opinion and then lets go at it.
Todd, I have been snooping around the state's redevelopment-related websites, and have found nothing that says local governments are required to incur debt from their redevelopment zones.
The fact that many local governments borrow money from their redevelopment zones is, as far as I can see, not a requirement. Cities can choose not to do that. Many people take out home equity loans after they buy a house, and get into trouble later, but they were never required to take out the home equity loan in the first place.
Todd, when you make a claim about something, it's up to you to provide evidence. I don't understand why you think it's up to everyone else to spend time doing it for you.
Steve, I'm not making a claim.
Todd, you're claiming that "An RDA zone is not an RDA zone really until debt is incurred by the RDA agency."
Local governments set up redevelopment areas in order to borrow money to finance improvements. The debt is paid back with the increased property taxes that are captured for use in the redevelopment area improvements. It's called tax increment financing. A city can't just draw lines around all or part of the city, declare it a redevelopment area, then sit back and collect the increased property taxes that result from improvements in the area. The city has to go into debt to help finance the improvements, using the increased property tax revenues to pay down the debt. That's what redevelopment IS. That's what it means. In brief, debt is a requirement of redevelopment.
Yes Steve, but I don't post that as a claim, I post it as a reality of RD.
What a bs response, Todd. Now you're playing word games.
If that's the best you can do, I'm not going to waste as second more of my time believing anything you say about redevelopment zones.
You cannot inform a person who insists on staying ignorant.
I didn't think you ever did Steve. Best cure is to read up on it yourself, call a RDA or two and ask targeted questions if you have any and develop an opinion of your own based on your own studies. I've encouraged you to do that more than once. Rather than be belligerent toward me personally go find out for yourself.
Is it just me or do Bray and Sinai fight like an old married couple???
yeah, couple of cranky-pants for sure and it ain't over.
Post a Comment