Pacifica reigns unchallenged as a county-wide leader in--drum roll---- mismanagement of redevelopment agency and money loser.
Any explanation from Council?
Submitted by Mark Stechbart
Money at work: Foster City’s Miramar
Apartments, left, is a city-funded project that would not have been
built without redevelopment funding. (Mike Koozmin/The Examiner)Each city is handling things differently, but Foster City’s Redevelopment Agency looks sure to perish.
Click the picture for more.
Two new state laws order these agencies to surrender $1.7 billion in 2012, and $400 million each year after that. Cities are hoping these changes will be derailed by a planned lawsuit against the state, but if redevelopment agencies fail, they must surrender the funds starting in January.
“It’s essentially holding a gun to the redevelopment agencies’ head saying, ‘We’ll eliminate all of you, but if you want to give money to us voluntarily, you can stay in business,’” said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the California Redevelopment Association.
Foster City’s agency, which has financed major projects over three decades, including the 20-story Metro Center Tower, would owe $6.2 million next year and $1.5 million every year thereafter. But because it recently closed its largest redevelopment area, it only expects revenues of $825,000 next year, Finance Director Steve Toler said.
Yet the new legislation is indifferent to that, and bases payments on 2008 and 2009 property tax revenues — before the development zone closed, and when property tax revenues were much higher.
Although the agency expects to complete two ongoing projects — Miramar Apartments and Marlin Cover Shopping Center — it will have to give up on plans to develop a 15-acre site next to city hall, a big affordable housing development for seniors and upgrades to two aging shopping centers.
Other cities are less certain of their futures, although the pictures are rosier than in Foster City. In San Mateo, Community Development Director Lisa Grote said some downtown projects in the shoreline area might be canceled, while partly funded projects might not go through.
“We are assessing which projects we would need to defund to make that payment,” Grote said. The state’s ruling would leave San Mateo’s agency with just $300,000 a year for nonhousing-related projects, she noted.
Redwood City Mayor Jeff Ira said the reforms could cut funding for downtown police patrols, which get redevelopment money.
“It puts everything in limbo,” Ira said.
If the agency is to survive, it may need infusions from the city’s reserves or budget amendments, the latter of which is “probably more likely,” Ira said.
Belmont Finance Director Thomas Fil noted that if redevelopment agencies cannot afford payments to the state, they may seek life support from their cities or other lenders.
In Millbrae, a number of planned redevelopment projects look likely to get the boot.
“There are long-term projects that we would appreciate the opportunity to use RDA funding to support,” City Attorney Joan Cafsman said. That particularly includes projects around Millbrae’s BART station, which she said are now on hold.
South San Francisco city manager Barry Nagel said that his city is “still analyzing impacts and options at this time.”
nkyriakou@sfexmainer.com
Law changes may force Belmont to pull plug on job-creation plans
Belmont officials say their efforts to develop a greater sense of community and create thousands of new jobs could be lost to changes to state law regarding city redevelopment agencies.Shoreway Place Project — a 300,000-square-foot development along U.S. Highway 101 that was to include two hotels, an office building and a 1,200-spot parking garage — was supposed to create about 1,000 jobs, but that’s no longer certain. The city has a negotiating agreement with Bohannon Development, a company run by Scott Bohannon — the man who last week landed his Cessna on Interstate 280.
“There’s some glimmer of hope that the project will be able to proceed because we entered into it prior to June 29,” City Manager Greg Scoles said.
According to John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Agency, legislation permits redevelopment agencies to keep funding projects to which they are legally obligated. But the complicated process typical of developments such as Shoreway makes it unclear whether those obligations have been met.
Officials also hope that SunEdison’s pledge to open a 400- to 500-job solar plant in Belmont won’t be threatened. The project is slotted to receive “marginal investment from redevelopment,” Scoles said.
Finance Director Thomas Fil said the Belmont Redevelopment Agency faces annual payments to the state that it cannot afford.
Fil said the agency, which earned $8.5 million last year, can afford its 2012 $2.3 million payment to the state, but not the subsequent annual payments of $500,000. So the city is considering options such as loaning money to the agency to keep it alive, he said.
Other threatened Belmont projects include:
- The Firehouse Square development, currently a vacant building on El Camino Real.
- Emmett’s Place, which occupies a block of El Camino Real.
- Belmont Station, near the railroad.
- A development at the corner of Hill Street and El Camino Real.
— Niko Kyriakou
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/peninsula/2011/07/state-reform-strips-redevelopment-funds-san-mateo-county-cities#ixzz1RiyfxOPx
27 comments:
Wow, viewing the chart comparing our city to others, look at "no growth" Pacifica, our city council must have been on vacation during their 8 year tenure.
But as we always say "no gain, no pain", almost except no money, no jobs, no services, no advancement, no improved city, no higher stream of income. No need for a lumber company. And, maybe no city either, oops.
Wonder what that will look like. Better or worse? I doubt it will be the breakdown of western civilization. Bigger county role and a bigger county infrastructure. No doubt some adjustments will have to be made locally but for most people no big difference. Wave of the future for lots of CA cities.
Council says the same thing;
The damned State keeps taking OUR money away
Well it's true the state has taken money away and will probably continue to do so but the real problem is that towns like Pacifica have existed on gov't subsidies for so long they missed every opportunity to be more self-sufficient. We were able to indulge a non-productive, impractical, anti-growth idealogy
for decades and now its caught up with us. Chickens home to roost and all that.
Can you list the names and amounts of the government subsidies that Pacifica has existed on?
That would be like listing every type of food, and amount, that you've eaten for the last year.
"Pacifica reigns unchallenged as a county-wide leader in--drum roll---- mismanagement of redevelopment agency and money loser.
Any explanation from Council?"
If we keep phrasing this question rhetorically Council will just look stupidly at their friends and hand out another award for volunteerism or feel-good-ism.
They really do need their asses hauled out on the carpet to explain why they destroyed our city and why they stacked our Planning Commission with their sycophants to ensure continued destruction.
If it's true that Pacifica exists on government subsidies, then there must be some examples of large amounts of government subsidies that Pacifica gets that other cities don't get. Without specific examples, the statement is BS.
Mike I have never sought favors from or fawned over any Council Member or City Official. I am far from being a servile flatterer and have told The City Council publicly when I felt they were making mistakes. Please be careful with the words you throw around.
After 8+ years of ongoing mismanagement by city council majority, including the view of redevelopment statistics above, there is no need for further rhetorical questions and inquiry, except as Mike (757) has so clearly stated:
"They really do need their asses hauled out on the carpet to explain why they destroyed our city and why they stacked our Planning Commission with their sycophants to ensure continued destruction."
That, and the resignation of Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt would be honorable.
Tom, its observable as a contractor you really are outnumbered by Pacifica environmentalists on the evolved Planning Commission. No EPA or "open space" experience.
Anon (851),your insistence on knowing what government subsidies may be premature (not everyone responses as quickly as you are demanding.
Meantime, possibly related examples. The city does seeks-out grants when available combined with city money, the restructuring of Linda Mar Beach is one, the utilities undergrounding on Palmetto Avenue will be another. Measure A highway money was spent on trails and "the shuttle" rather than the highway. The city General Fund raided WWTP monies paid by property owners for years until stopped by the State-- leaving a crippled WWTP facility infrastructure, and a $2 million fine (to be paid by property owners of course). Some city bonds were "interest only" and/or flipped while drawing out monies, rather than paying down debt. And, in a self-inflicted "poor city", since about 2006 there is the city council approved cash in lieu of medical plan benefits (whereas there should also be no medical plan duplication per family). Stuff like that.
Subsidies, grants, loans, seed money, matching funds, etc. have been very important parts of Pacifica's finances for decades. To deny that is simply playing with semantics and avoiding reality. Free money is always nice to get but if half the energy and expertise and official enthusiasm spent on obtaining these "freebies" was spent on developing our assets we would have the economic resiliance to better weather the economic storm we're now in and the ability to maintain and improve our city. That lack of planning and foresight is a failure of leadership.
About Planning Commission Clifford, I would not put him in the same basket as the rest of the commission. He seems very fair-minded and aware of what his job is and does not attempt to use the position to advance his own personal idealogy unlike the rest of that commission. He's no sycophant.
I'm not going to waste my time going through previous budgets looking for exact amounts, but without grants and subsidies the pier would have fallen down, none of the habitat restorations would have been accomplished, and we wouldn't have had any money to do road maintenance.
The issue I personally have with the city's over-reliance on grants involves all the time and resources the city spent pursuing those, while neglecting economic development.
I like what I heard from Tom during the last campaign, and he seems like a good guy. The concern I've always had about him was the way he so strongly supported the monster-home ordinance. It came off as another tactic by the no-growth clique to impose obstacles to development.
I have to judge people by what they've done, and not by what they say. That monster-home thing just sticks in my craw. (Whatever a craw is.)
Exactly! Those efforts or at least an equal amount of city effort and enthusiasm should have gone into becoming more self reliant thru growth.
I say we elect the complainers on this blog to council. Make them put up or shut up.
Did you have some Anonymous people in mind?
Yes! Elect Anonymous for Council.
Council and Planning Commission are already majority Anonymous.
The most "subsidies" in the county go to South San Francisco and Redwood City by far. People need to know what they are talking about before they complain. Few on our past city councils have been active in securing money available to all cities. We have not lived "off subsidies," we have barely received our fair share. We need people to go after the money available to all cities, not make fun of it.
'The most "subsidies" in the county go to South San Francisco and Redwood City by far.'
Your sources, please.
'The most "subsidies" in the county go to South San Francisco and Redwood City by far.'
Gee did we miss that money too? Why bother with a city council? Maybe 5 different volunteers can just sit-in as proxies at each council meeting, invite-in their friends, give away some land, and waive through the agenda.
Some cities have been very successful at the public/private partnership effort. A type of subsidy. Of course not Pacifica because those types of partnerships meant development and that's never been the plan here. Our plan is poverty and it's been in the works for decades.Decades. Why are we surprised and so outraged that we seem to have succeeded so well? There was no coup, no revolution. Fair and open elections took place, idealogies were supported, people took office and they made the decisions they were elected to make. From time to time the public weighed in on land use, bond measures, assessments and taxes. Results duly noted. No one foresaw the depth or speed of the decline but how can we be surprised that we are broke and no one is going to rescue us?
Anon (4:35) you lost me half way through your comment. Example, citizens did vote to develop Mori Point, but the planning commission majority at that time would not pass the project no matter what the developer would concede. (This was told to me by a minority member of that planning commission).
Citizens supported candidates who talked nice, they did not support the "no growth", poverty ideologies delivered. For the last 10 years the need for economic development leadership has been known by city council members. Opportunities were available, but no delivery from 8+ year city council.
Over the past 8+ years collective amnesia does not excuse what city council knew and when they knew it. All known: 1) the first Fire Tax about 2003, 2) the $700,000 drain from the WWTP to the General Fund (stopped about 2007) 3) the state of city bonds and outstanding debt, 4) the need to fix the highway, city hall, problems with the ocean and cliffs erosion, etc. Opportunities? The quarry 2x, Palmetto Avenue (Swenson and others).
"we have a $7,000,000 surplus."
"Tarballs, not sewage, closed our beaches."
"I'm going to make a dog park happen."
"I will protect you from evil outside developers."
"The biodiesel project is a sound investment."
"It's the state's fault, not ours."
"Our environment is our economy."
"Build trails and they will come."
Vreeland, deJarnatt and Digre continue to play to either gross NIMBYism or inexhaustable naivete.
What other candidates could get away with such obvious lies right before election time?
Larry Curly and Moe
The only problem is.. no one out of this bunch is Moe
I can see them all sitting up there with soup-bowl haircuts.
Post a Comment