Category Archives: Politics

04.14.11
by

Waiting for the Victory Court EIR

Yesterday I sent an email to Oakland CEDA Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Eric Angstadt, asking for an update on the Victory Court Draft EIR. Angstadt has been the point man for the project. So far I haven’t received a response. Now it’s nice that we’ve got the regular season going to get our minds and eyes focused on the field instead of off, but someone had to ask. It’s the middle of April and there’s no word on when it’ll be released. Hopefully it’ll be soon. I’m dying to look at it, and I’m sure that pro-Oaklanders want something – anything – to help keep the December momentum going.

If you’re interested, click the link above and send in a request.

04.06.11
by

SJRA’s party ends, SJDDA’s begins

Wary of Governor Brown’s intent to dismantle redevelopment and weary of budget woes, the San Jose Redevelopment Authority laid off nearly half of its staff and is ready to cut almost all of the rest, according to the Merc’s Tracy Seipel. Some city backers feel SJRA’s work is unappreciated and unfinished, while redevelopment detractors consider the agency a bloated, wasteful example of government overreach. SJRA has been winding down its work over the past year, with only a few projects remaining.

Other than a much-hoped-for baseball stadium in downtown San Jose, a 700-plus-unit housing development in the area north of downtown’s San Pedro Square and infrastructure improvements within the agency’s 21 project areas, there isn’t much left on the agency’s plate.

Of course, there’s the fact that the City created the San Jose Diridon Development Authority last month. This “Son of RDA,” as I coined it then, will have the power to do virtually everything that SJRA can do now, except that it will be restricted to a specific part of downtown San Jose including the ballpark site. The lawsuit by the county that threatened the newborn agency? Settled. SJDDA currently has no website, no specific projects, and no end date. For now its only limitations are what the City and various public and private interests dream up for the district. That includes a ballpark, San Jose’s “Grand Central Terminal,” a small mixed-use development, just about anything.

So while Dandy Don Meredith may be singing while SJRA head Harry Mavrogenes turns out the lights, it’s likely that some of the agency staff, including Mavrogenes, will end up with similar jobs at SJDDA. Mavrogenes was a signatory to the joint powers agreement.

Redevelopment is dead. Long live redevelopment. Especially if the City makes it happen.

Update 4/8 2:10 PM – The first payment made by the City to the County as part of the settlement was made on schedule, with additional payments forthcoming. When you have to make a $21 million payment with only a few weeks to spare, costcutting measures such as layoffs have a good chance of happening.

04.04.11
by

Santa Clara to authorize 49ers to sell naming rights

On Tuesday, Santa Clara’s City Council/Stadium Authority is expected to approve a small procedural change in the financing for the 49ers stadium. The change is fairly simple: Allow the 49ers to sell the naming rights to the stadium instead of the Stadium Authority. Doing so could reduce overhead for the Authority, which is important since it has no money of its own with which to operate.

Under the terms of the agreement (PDF), the 49ers – er, Stadco – would have 2 years to get the naming rights deal done before the task reverts back to the Authority. If a broker is used and is successful in getting the deal, it would get 5% of the top. The top of what, you ask? Well, the City isn’t willing to say. But they and the team have had a number in mind going back to when the stadium concept was hatched. Remember this?

$7 million a year for 40 years. That’s $280 million, or 40% of the $700 million naming rights deal announced two months ago between AEG and Farmers. The 49ers could be gunning for a higher figure because of what the Farmers Field deal represents. Then again, TBA Stadium won’t be domed so it won’t be flexible enough to hold nearly as many events, so perhaps a 40% deal is in order. If the 49ers have an on-the-DL Raiders agreement in their back pocket, it could provide impetus towards a higher number. Any increase over that $7 million per year figure could reduce pressure to sell Seat Builder Licenses (PSLs), which could in turn make financing the whole thing much more feasible.

The article mentions Yahoo! as a neighbor, though not as a naming rights partner. In 2007 I heard that Yahoo! was the likely candidate, though the company has since been knocked down several pegs and is still in a state of recovery. At this point they may not be the best choice, though they are certainly no fly-by-night operation. Intel may be a better partner, as would – you guessed it – Cisco. Both Intel and Cisco advertise heavily on ESPN and on other national sports broadcasts, so this would be right up their alley. However, you have to wonder about what Cisco’s possible deal with the A’s represents. Is Cisco’s naming rights worth more if the ballpark is in San Jose, not Fremont, and not tied to a land deal? Possibly. Would Intel or Cisco pay more than twice as much for naming rights to a NFL stadium than a MLB ballpark? That’s unclear. As much as I thought that the days of throwing funny money at stadia were over, the Farmers deal went and reset the playing field – even if it never gets built. We’ll find out over the next couple of years if it’s merely an outlier or the start of a trend.

On a tangentially related note, the Florida Marlins are looking to get a naming rights deal for its domed ballpark done sometime within the next month.

03.30.11
by

State Budget Talks Collapse

The word from the Capitol tonight is that budget talks have broken down. Governor Brown took to YouTube to explain his side of things, laying blame on the Republicans for holding out for more cuts.

Brown says he’s not given up on the process, but it sounds more and more like the Democrats are going to try to do this on their own. What that means is highly uncertain at this point. It could mean Draconian cuts, it could mean getting concessions from public employees unions – just about anything is up for grabs at this point. That anything includes redevelopment. Safe again for the time being, redevelopment was supported by the Republicans in a smaller, compromise plan. It remains to be seen whether some (or many) Dems will start supporting redevelopment again or if they stay unified behind the Governor.

One thing’s absolutely certain: This isn’t getting resolved anytime soon.

03.25.11
by

Interesting Oakland news 3/25/11

The following nuggets were too big to relegate to the end of the last post, so they’re getting their own.

Former Oakland fire chief and San Diego city manager P. Lamont Ewell was named Interim Oakland City Administrator. That interim tag means five months, as Ewell was brought in to take care of the budget. Ewell also had a stint as Oakland’s assistant city manager. Dan Lindheim, who was placed in the City Administrator role by former mayor Ron Dellums, will stay on to handle various contract negotiations, including a Victory Court ballpark if it comes to fruition. This comes over two years after Robert Bobb was brought in as a consultant to clean up the budget mess left by his one-time successor, Deborah Edgerly. Bobb was offered the permanent position and declined it to take the helm of Detroit Public Schools. I’m not sure why Oakland’s had to bring in two people to do effectively one job twice in the last four years, but that’s gotta stop. Surely there’s someone out there who’s qualified and actually wants the Oakland City Administrator job.

Oakland is in the bidding for a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory campus. Among the locations being considered are the Oak-to-Ninth site which we’d covered here a while back, the area across the Nimitz from the Coliseum, where the Zhone Technologies building now sits, and the Kaiser Center (the office towers, not the arena). The Trib’s Cecily Burt reports:

Oakland has stiff competition. The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Dublin, Richmond and Walnut Creek have all responded to university’s request for proposals. And UC could very well decided to scrap them all and build the second campus on land it already owns in Richmond. The university is expected to announce the finalists by mid-April, and could make the final choice in June at the earliest.

Nevertheless, Oakland’s putting out several potentially feasible sites. One of the unique wishlist items is space for a 3,000-foot long building. That would seem to rule out O29 since the length of the entire site is barely more than 3,000 feet and would require filling in the bay in a spot. However, this is a government project we’re talking about, so the environmental process could have exemptions or waivers to help it along. Other wishlist items include a desire for minimal environmental cleanup, which may be why LBL is looking beyond the brownfield albeit UC-owned Richmond Field Station.

Landing this project would be a huge win and would more than offset last year’s loss of Clorox’s research pool to Pleasanton. If Oakland doesn’t win the bid, it’ll lose jobs associated with the LBL-run National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is located near the Kaiser Center. At least 800 employees would move into the new second campus by December 2015.

How any of this fits with the ballpark is anyone’s guess, since there’s no clear cut favorite. Berkeleyside has more info on what LBL is aiming to build. The RFQ and clarifying Q&A can be found here. An internationally renowned research facility near either the Coliseum or Victory Court is bound to create some kind of halo effect, making surrounding land attractive for peripheral development. Then again, it could also hike up land values in what could be a very speculative market. Either way there’s huge potential. May the best bid win. Going back to the quoted paragraph – a decision could be made in June. Can you imagine a big, bureaucratic government agency (DoE) acting more swiftly and decisively than Major League Baseball? Say it ain’t so, Bud.

03.24.11
by

News for 3/24/11

Quick housekeeping note: If you were not aware, this blog is a self-hosted WordPress site. Ever since I moved to this platform in November 2009 after years with Blogger, I have been astonished at the rapid pace of third party development for WordPress. One feature came out today in the form of a server-side plugin called Onswipe, which can automatically reformat any WordPress site into an iPad/touch-friendly format. If you’ve used iPad apps such as Flipboard, Pulse, and Zite, you’ll feel right at home. Here’s a screenshot:

If you have an iPad, your browser (Safari) will show this version of the site automatically. I’m going to leave it up for now, but if any iPad users would prefer to go back to the original version of the site with the sidebars, I’ll heed your words. No other browsers or platforms should be affected. If you are, let me know in the comments. I’ve experimented with a mobile version of the site, but I’ve chosen not to launch it because nobody’s asked for it, so I didn’t want to penalize readers who are happy with the full site on their smartphones, etc.

Now the news:

Evan Weiner has a good overview of how the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986 impacted the ways stadiums and arenas could be financed.

Jorge Leon was interviewed by Oakland North, a three minute clip in which he manages to dismiss economic viability concerns in Oakland as easily as he does train safety.

Press Democrat columnist Robert Rubino bashes the Giants in consecutive weeks – first the fans, then the team over T-rights.

Bleacher Report’s Brandon McClintock seems to buying into a Wolff conspiracy theory – nevermind the millions spent in Fremont, the lack of interest or cooperation during the Brown administration, or the Coliseum Authority’s lack of willingness to explore a ballpark plus development at the Malibu/HomeBase site.

As for the fate of redevelopment? The legislature is steeling themselves for the fight over tax extensions. Redevelopment will have to wait.

Added 2:27 PM – Speaking of trains, the Harbor Drive Bridge, a pedestrian/bike span that goes over heavily used heavy and light rail tracks near PETCO Park in San Diego, has finally opened. It’s lovely and it only cost $12.8 million $26.8 million to construct. A Victory Court-to-Jack London Square bridge shouldn’t cost as much. It will probably cost many millions of dollars to build, and yes, it absolutely is necessary.

Picture from San Diego Union Tribune / CCDC

03.22.11
by

Santa Clara gives 49ers $4 million for stadium project

It’s all starting to get a little unseemly at this point.

The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg and Lisa Fernandez report that the City Santa Clara, in its haste to lock in the 49ers stadium deal, gave the team $4 million for the project. That’s a huge turnaround from what was intended a few weeks ago: the team would advance the City money to kick off the work. Back in February I wrote this as part of the Redevapocalypse post:

$40 million doesn’t seem like a big deal as it’s less then 5% of the project cost. It’s still a lot of money to raise and a big enough gap to throw a wrench into the works. There’s a chance that both parties could figure out a way to bridge the gap but it’s not going to happen immediately, and unless it’s the team pledging to cover it completely, any contractual details will require renewed scrutiny.

That renewed scrutiny amounted to two hours to review the new contract (PDF). There are some interesting nuggets in the document:

  • The organization the 49ers have set up to take care of their side of the agreement is Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, shortened to Stadco throughout.
  • The money is getting shifted around due to a bunch of predevelopment work being done by Stadco for the stadium project.
  • An additional $1.6 million was transferred from the City to the Agency (a.k.a Stadium Authority per the agreement) to take care of development fees.
  • Up to $40 million can be spent by Stadco with the promise that it will be covered by the Agency. Essentially this is a loan or advance per the terms. Interest is 8.5%.
  • The work described is your garden variety utilities relocation and street reconfiguration stuff, as described in the final stadium project description.

Is it as bad as the Irwindale giveaway? No, because the 49ers – I mean Stadco – are actually doing work. Al Davis didn’t promise to do anything for Irwindale. Still, it looks really, really bad and really, really rushed to go about things this way. If the stadium never proceeds past this initial stage, the City will have spent a lot of money on infrastructure changes that will not be helpful for any replacement project.

03.21.11
by

Redevelopment survives the weekend

Late Thursday I tweeted that after a number of budget-related bills were passed, the Assembly didn’t get around to dealing with SB 77. Stuck at a 53-23 vote with only one Republican holdout needed, the bill would have to wait until Monday.

Redevelopment got a three day reprieve because the California Republican Party was holding its annual convention in Sacramento, just blocks from the Capitol building. Though I choose not to pay much attention to party politics, it was clear from the various updates coming out of the CRP bash that the whole affair seemed a bit too Lord of the Flies to get anything substantive out of it. Republicans aren’t just worried about unity, they’re wondering if they’re relevant in the state.

The fate of redevelopment may be a hot-button issue, but it pales in comparison to Governor Brown’s interest in extending tax hikes. Brown’s budget proposal is predicated on half cuts, half taxes, which on the surface looks fair. It’s the details of it that have gotten people upset, which is not surprising. The Republicans, who have rallied hard for more cuts and an end to that tax extension, simply don’t have the numbers to do anything other than be a spoiler in Brown’s plans. That’s where redevelopment comes in. Should SB 77 not pass, it would throw a monkey wrench into the budget proposal, inevitably delaying the final budget while the Democrats look for other places to bridge the gap.

Redevelopment as a tool is broadly supported and reviled by people in both parties, so it’s not as though there were some ideological divide there. The delay in getting the budget framework passed (it was supposed to happen 10 days ago) has allowed cities to come up with an alternative proposal that may make its way through the legislature in short order. The proposal, which has not yet been introduced in bill form, allows for redevelopment agencies throughout the stake to remain intact while pledging more tax increment as passthroughs to local schools. The League of California Cities has the outline:

  • Local redevelopment agencies can voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12. An equivalent amount of funds must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas.

    • In exchange for this contribution of funds for FY 2011-12 to local schools, the agency will be allowed to extend the project area’s life by TWO YEARS.

  • In addition, or alternatively, redevelopment agencies could voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their non-housing tax increment revenue stream to local school districts each year for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12.

    • The tax increment revenue stream they could contribute would be calculated as a percentage of the gross tax increment minus the existing pass-through payments to local taxing entities.
    • For each percentage of tax increment paid to schools, an additional year could be added to the project area life, up to a maximum of 10 years. For example, if five percent of tax increment was dedicated to schools, the project area life could be extended for five years.

    The gist of this is that cities would be trading affordable housing funds for school funds. This is driven by several people in some of the largest cities in the state who believe that, at least in their jurisdictions, there is enough affordable housing already and that more would only harm local and state governments more from a revenue-and-cost standpoint. What I don’t get is the use of the word “voluntarily.” How exactly would the budget shortfall be bridged by some shaky pledges from the cities? The League positions this proposal as the “lawsuit free” solution, as it would hold up Prop 22 and keep cities from having bondholders pull the trigger on lawsuits against the state.

    It’s unclear who would write and sponsor this redevelopment bill, since Brown has been using his muscle to get the Democrats in line and moving forward. It all may be moot anyway, since SB 77 will get called for a vote again sometime in the near future. We’ll find out soon enough.

    03.16.11
    by

    Deal struck between San Jose and Santa Clara County

    It took until the very last minute, but Santa Clara County pulled back from its lawsuit against San Jose when the two parties struck a payments and land deal. As reported by the Merc’s Karen de Sá and John Woolfork, the key is the City relinquishing its old City Hall north of downtown to the County. A smallish, dated postwar relic, the old City Hall could work fine as additional office space for the County. There are also suggestions that the County could turn the land around to a housing developer, which isn’t exactly promising given the land’s proximity to San Jose’s Main Jail. The property is right next to the Civic Center light rail station, which might make it attractive (It’s not really the Civic Center anymore – shouldn’t the station be renamed?). Talks about the transfer have been happening pretty much since the new City Hall opened. It’s a good deal in one sense for the County, as the corten-steel Government Center is next door so consolidation of the bureaucrats can begin in earnest. Or, if the hint in the document is correct, demolition can begin in earnest.

    Additionally, the City would pay the County $21.5 million by March 30 and $5 million by May 15. Hopefully that money can address county services that would otherwise face cuts. Part of that money will come from 50% of the proceeds from the North San Pedro (Brandenburg) sale. Five payments of $4.756 million each (plus interest) will be due by the end of each of the 2014-18 fiscal years.

    The upshot is that the San Jose Diridon Development Authority will remain intact, depending on the endgame of RDAs. Existing tax increment passthroughs would continue to be applicable at Diridon. Sometimes it takes a crisis to bring about results.

    03.16.11
    by

    SB 77 (End to redevelopment) in session

    As I type this I am watching the State Assembly stream the debate over SB 77, a bill that would ostensibly end redevelopment as we know going forward. Sponsors and critics are speaking now, including numerous Democrats who are voting for the bill despite having reservations over its effect on the future availability of affordable housing. Republicans seem to be voting no. Will it go party-line or will some of the Republicans cross over? Introductory text of the bill reads as follows:

    (1) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects ofblight, as defined. Existing law provides that an action may be brought to review the validity of the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan by an agency, to review the validity of agency findings or determinations, and other agency actions.
    This bill would revise the provisions of law authorizing an action to be brought against the agency to determine or review the validity of specified agency actions.

    (2) Existing law also requires that if an agency ceases to function, any surplus funds existing after payment of all obligations and indebtedness vest in the community.
    The bill would repeal this provision. The bill would suspend various agency activities and prohibit agencies from incurring
    indebtedness commencing on the effective date of this act. Effective July 1, 2011, the bill would dissolve all redevelopment agencies and community development agencies in existence and designate successor agencies, as defined, as successor entities. The bill would impose various requirements on the successor agencies and subject successor agency actions to the review of oversight boards, which the bill would establish.
    The bill would require county auditor-controllers to conduct an agreed-upon procedures audit of each former redevelopment agency by October 1, 2011. The bill would require the county auditor-controller to determine the amount of property taxes that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency if the agencies had not been dissolved and deposit this amount in a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in the county. Revenues in the trust fund would be allocated to various taxing entities in the county and to cover specified expenses of the former agency. The sum of $1,700,000,000 of these moneys would be allocated to the various counties for deposit in a Public Health and Safety Fund, which would be used to reimburse the state for health and trial court services in the county. The bill would authorize the county to elect not to administer this fund, in which case the Director of Finance would be required to designate a different entity to administer this fund. Under the bill, if the county elects not to dminister the fund, it would not receive moneys remaining in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, which would otherwise be distributed to taxing entities in the county. The bill would also require, for the 2012-13 fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year in which funds are available, each county auditor-controller to allocate to various educational entities a specified amount. By imposing additional duties upon local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

    (3) Under the California Constitution, the Legislature is prohibited, except by a 2/3 vote, from changing the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county.
    Because this measure would provide property tax revenues that would otherwise be received by enterprise special districts from
    former redevelopment tax increment allotments instead be received by the respective county, and may result in property tax moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund not being allocated to the county if it declines to administer the Public Health and Safety Fund, the bill would constitute a change in the pro rata share of property tax allocations in that county and require the passage of the bill by a 2/3 vote.

    (4) The bill would appropriate $500,000 to the Department of Finance from the General Fund for administrative costs associated
    with the bill.

    (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

    (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

    More as the vote is taken. Passage requires a two-thirds approval.

    4:10 PM – District 16 (Oakland) Councilman Sandré R. Swanson is speaking in favor of the bill and will apparently vote yes. The Dems are talking about holding Governor Brown to a promise of setting up whatever the proper successor to RDAs is.

    4:14 PM – Closing statements happening now.

    4:18 PM – 50-21 Aye, 8 abstentions. They are four short of the necessary absolute two-thirds thanks to the abstentions, putting the bill on “call” or hold. Bill may come back after the other three budget bills are addressed.

    5:02 PM – Call lifted on SB 77. One additional No vote, 50-22. Can no one else be whipped into voting for this? Apparently not, bill placed on call again.

    5:54 PM – Still don’t have the additional four votes. Republicans are calling for a caucus.

    6:25 PM – The Assembly is now taking up a few Assembly bills. Looks like AB 77 will have to wait until the end of the night, whenever that is.

    6:57 PM – Call lifted. Vote is now 53 AYE, 23 NO. 3 holdouts remain. All four Assembly members who represent ballpark areas (Wieckowski – Fremont, Beall/Campos – San Jose, Swanson – Oakland) have voted to approve.

    7:09 PM – Still can’t get that last vote, bill moved to call yet again. Tally remains 53-23.

    9:25 PM – Last motion to lift call and vote. No 54th vote. Tally remains 53-23. Assembly adjourns for the night, will reconvene tomorrow at 11 AM. (Thanks for interfering with my NCAA tourney quality time, pols.)

    Note: Let’s keep the discussion to redevelopment and the impact of it going away.