We interrupt our usual flow of rumors, allegations, and unnamed sources for some actual news: the Merc’s Howard Mintz reports that the California Supreme Court is set to rule on the fate of redevelopment tomorrow morning at 10 AM. During the hearing, I felt there was the distinct possibility that redevelopment could be eliminated entirely. If you think I’m being Chicken Little about the issue, you should know that I’m not alone:
Can’t predict, but us journos at CA SupCt last month all felt justices inclined 2 zap redevelopment altogether. #cabudget
— John Myers, KQED (@KQED_CapNotes) December 28, 2011
Of course, journalists and bloggers handicapping redevelopment’s chances don’t amount to a hill of beans, so we’ll have to wait until tomorrow morning for the reckoning. Until then, we can at least lay out the possibilities. Remember that the future of redevelopment will be dictated by how the Court rules on two bills passed during the legislative session, ABX26 and ABX27. ABX26 dictates how redevelopment-related tax increment will be funneled back to either the state or local school districts to help shore up their budgets for the next five years. ABX27 creates the “Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program” which allows cities and counties to continue redevelopment work if they first make required payments under ABX26.
- Both ABX26 and ABX27 are upheld. Redevelopment agencies that have chosen – in advance – to pay the state’s “ransom” payment can continue to operate redevelopment agencies, though their ability to fund new projects will be hampered by the redirect of tax increment to the state/schools. Roughly 90% of RDA’s throughout the state have indicated that they can and will comply with this plan. Oakland is one of those cities, San Jose is not.
- Both ABX26 and ABX26 are struck down. Redevelopment agencies can go back to “normal”, and the state, already scrambling for funds in the face of lower-than-projected revenues so far this fiscal year, would have to look to raid someone else’s cupboard.
- ABX26 is upheld, ABX27 struck down. This outcome effectively scuttles redevelopment since it does not specify or provide a new alternative form of redevelopment. This is the worst possible outcome for RDAs all over the state, and the best for the state. Redevelopment would have to make a comeback through new legislation, which would take at least another year to enact.
- ABX26 is struck down, ABX27 is upheld. This doesn’t appear to be much different from striking down both bills, since ABX27 is dependent on ABX26 to be effective. ABX27 also sets up an agency in every county to make sure ABX26 is enforced properly in terms of payments to the state, so it’s hard to see how it has any teeth if ABX26 is killed.
We’ll see how it plays out tomorrow. Until then, I’ll let you cry over the Bailey trade.
ML, as it pertains to both San Jose and Oakland what do your option 1 and option 3 mean for stadium efforts in both cities at this point? (Option 2 obviously means Oakland still have it’s 250 mil to attempt to buy Victory Court and SJ still has all the land, etc… at Diridon as does Option 4).
@Dan – As long as Wolff pulls through on his pledge to pay for the rest of the land, infrastructure, etc., it doesn’t matter one bit how any of it plays out. Option 1 is ideal for Oakland, 3 is disastrous.
So basically San Jose is beyond the point where this could impact it, but Oakland is praying 3 doesn’t happen and is pretty much dead in the water if 2 happens as well…
Also regarding the Bailey/Sweeney trade… what’s the over under on our attendance even breaking 1 million this year. Because at this point I believe we only have 8 2011 opening day starters left on the roster (and who knows if Beane is done). They’ve pretty much gutted the valuable parts from the team and replaced them with almost entirely with parts that won’t be ready until 2014-15. As much as this signals they’re planning for SJ (which is good), it also means that the last years in Oakland are just going to be pitiful.
I’m still waiting to see Kurt Suzuki get traded. I’m hoping there’s a stadium resolution by Feb because it is tough to see players traded.
If there isn’t a stadium resolution by Feb it’s going to be a very tough year for ALL A’s fans not just the Oakland only crowd. There isn’t much of a team left. They’ll be giving away tickets to this bunch of kids. I don’t even think they could beat the RiverCats at this point.
FWIW, Josh Reddick, the main piece in the Bailey trade, hit .280 with just a .318 BABIP. I imagine his LD% and power are actually quite valuable assets. We’ll see how he turns out
I like Reddick a lot better than Cowgill. I like them both a lot more than Ryan Sweeney. I don’t think the A’s traded anything away that isn’t mostly replaceable. The return on Gio Gonzales is awesome. I think next years team will surprise some folks, they might actually be about the same as this years.
I’m still waiting for Ricky Vaughn and Willie Mays Hayes to come back to Oakland in a deal.
And the Montrealization of Oakland baseball continues…
Montrealization? Montreal had much better players than we’ve got as their end approached.
Yeah, yeah, yeah crister, we’ve heard all that crap before, come back when you have something original to say. The A’s want a better ballpark, and have for 15 years, so get over yourself.
Reddick is a better hitter than Sweeney, and Bailey is the most replaceable man on the roster since the A’s have four or five alternate closers ready to go.
Many of us A’s fans have been whining about the need for power hitting, so boom boom, we just got some. Turn off the water works.
The ruling on this should be coming down any minute now.
Now the burden is on Wolff to pay for EVERYTHING. Lets see it. This would be an historical first for MLB.
Wow they went with Option 3. Redevelopment is completely dead. And with it any hope Oakland had left of ever building a ballpark.
Here’s the link. AB 26 was upheld, 27 was struck down.