• Scam Diego alerts

The Union-Tribune reports this morning (Oct. 9) that the state's budget agreement yesterday may clear the way for the Chargers getting a massive subsidy for a downtown stadium from the insolvent City of San Diego. Previously, the deal would have required the team and City jumping through a number of hoops to get a $2.9 million cap on downtown redevelopment lifted. The deal was "quietly advanced over the last week by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego with the blessing of Mayor Jerry Sanders and the knowledge of the team," says the U-T. The Chargers and City leaders have been talking about building a stadium on a small site near Petco Park that would cost at least $800 million; the City's subsidy could be $500 million to $800 million, depending on the stadium's configuration. The Chargers have been talking about a stadium that seats 62,000. That wouldn't be enough to get a Super Bowl, but the argument about attracting the event would no doubt be trotted out.

According to the U-T, Councilman Carl DeMaio criticized the "11th hour, unilateral action by the state." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger still has to sign the bill permitting the deal, but that's expected. Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, opposes the deal and told the U-T, "At a time when we are cutting from so many of our safety et programs, things that are taking away from any general fund revenues are very tough for me to justify."

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

a2zresource Oct. 9, 2010 @ 9:47 a.m.

It seems that the local buzz about our local redevelopment politics resulted in the CCDC legal masterminds demanding a change of venue. Of course, it makes perfect tactical sense for CCDC to avoid the relative sunshine of local civic debate in favor of stealing a march to Sacramento and getting things done their way as part of state budget negotiations behind closed doors.

Maybe I am totally wrong about this, but given recent Reader reports of moves made to prep municipal deals before letting those deals see the light of day, it is possible and likely that a certain strong mayor was perfectly willing to encourage such negotiations involving the redevelopment tax increment cap increase right before the election. The secretive Sacramento negotiations and resulting legislative proposal RE CCDC and increased TI cap remove that increase at the billion-dollar expense of city general fund revenues as a matter of debate here regarding the financial priorities of our elected city leaders, while those same city leaders seek their half cent tax rate hike on the November ballot, only weeks away.

If CCDC can't stand the heat, then it just moves the kitchen out of town.

0

brianb Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:31 a.m.

The mayor wants us to vote for Prop D b/c otherwise the city will go broke and will need to layoff police and firemen. But we can magically find a half billion dollars in the fund to pay for a new stadium????

0

harris Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:47 a.m.

Any new stadium would have to be legitimately expandable to Super Bowl capacity for all parties to jump on board. A new football venue is pointless if it can't bring the biggest sports event in the country back to San Diego. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis seats 63,000 for Colts games but will expand to 70k to host the 2012 Super Bowl. Ford Field in Detroit seats 65k for football and expanded to 68k for Super Bowl XL.

All things being equal, the league obviously would prefer to host the game in mega-stadiums like the new Cowboys Stadium. But not having 80k+ seats is no a deal-breaker, and the league will be happy to have Southern California back in the rotation.

0

a2zresource Oct. 9, 2010 @ 11 a.m.

RE "The mayor wants us to vote for Prop D b/c otherwise the city will go broke and will need to layoff police and firemen. But we can magically find a half billion dollars in the fund to pay for a new stadium????":

The money doesn't have to show up all at once. If the tax increment cap increase was from the old cap of $2.9 billion up to the previously-discussed $9 billion proposal, then that's over $6 billion in additional future city tax revenues that will not be used for public safety or anything else by a council vote. It's just a limit on how much total tax revenue will be instead diverted into CCDC, SEDC, and any of their partnerships and ventures with local business improvement districts as those little fiefdoms choose to spend or hoard of their off-city-budget redevelopment treasure chests.

As long as that tax increment increase number is out there, developers can simply get clueful friendly investors (AKA "insiders") to put up cash now for relatively guaranteed profits later, with all of them knowing that the tax increment cap acts as their security by preventing the City Council from using city tax revenues for city public safety, libraries, and other needful things rather than on city-funded stadiums for privately-held sports teams.

It is possible that the money in those future tax revenues isn't reachable even in the event of a San Diego municipal bankruptcy.

It is likely that part or all of any San Diego sales tax increase (if the half cent increase is approved in November) just might get eaten up by the state's tax increment give-away of city revenues to redevelopment agencies if that sales tax is collected at businesses within redevelopment district boundaries.

I wonder what our City Attorney thinks about that...

In any case, keep your council member closest of all if you plan on coming out of the profit side of those transactions.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 9, 2010 @ 12:26 p.m.

The Chargers and City leaders have been talking about building a stadium on a small site near Petco Park that would cost at least $800 million; the City's subsidy could be $500 million to $800 million

OK, this is the LAST STRAW-I am starting a recall drive on that progressive surrender monkey Sanders.

Who's with me?

0

Burwell Oct. 9, 2010 @ 1:39 p.m.

Jerry "Tubby" Sanders theme song should be: "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo." It's a shame that San Diegan Frankie Laine died. He could have sung the song at Sanders campaign rallies.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 1:41 p.m.

Response to post #1: Former San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre is looking into ways to challenge this dead-of-the-night deal legally. The state legislature has certain Brown Act-like procedures to guarantee that matters such as this get aired publicly before they are adopted in a secret session. Aguirre suspects that this was done without granting the citizenry due process. He is scornful of the claim -- (always pulled out) -- that a highly-subsidized downtown stadium will create jobs. "This is not about creating jobs. This is about creating wealth for powerful officials. It's a charade," he says. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell Oct. 9, 2010 @ 1:46 p.m.

The state legislature has certain Brown Act-like procedures to guarantee that matters such as this get aired publicly before they are adopted in a secret session. Aguirre suspects that this was done without granting the citizenry due process.

Aguirre is right, but any lawsuit he files will be steered to a judge who will ignore the law and side with the city in order to obtain an appointment to the appeals court. Any local superior court judge who ruled against the city would face a well-financed challenger in the next election and would likely be out of a job.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 2:49 p.m.

Response to post #2: You are correct: this is insanity, as well as blatant thievery in broad daylight. The City can't provide essential services, can't keep up with infrastructure and maintenance, but can find more than half a billion dollars to subsidize a family that is worth more than a billion dollars, and is in much better financial shape than the City is in. It is time to abolish CCDC. It is time to let know Sanders know that his disingenuousness won't be tolerated any longer. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 2:51 p.m.

Response to post #3: Of course, the NFL's claim that a Super Bowl brings $350 million or more to a city is pathetically untrue. It's more like $35 million, objective scholars say. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 2:55 p.m.

Response to post #4: It's being twittered around today that Goldsmith is saying that if this crooked deal (which he loves) goes through, the citizenry won't vote on the stadium. I don't know that Goldsmith himself has said anything; the rumor mill has him saying it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 2:58 p.m.

Response to post #5: I don't know about a recall, but I do believe his life could be made miserable in his last two years. Make that SHOULD be made miserable. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 3:06 p.m.

Response to post #6: How about the song, "The Man Who STOLE the Bank at Monte Carlo." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 3:12 p.m.

AGUIRRE TO ASk U.S. ATTORNEY IN SACRAMENTO TO INVESTIGATE IF FEDERAL LAWS VIOLATED. Former City Attorney will write the U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento Monday to see if any federal anti-corruption laws were violated in the secret Chargers downtown stadium deal pulled off late this week. "We can't rely on the district attorney or U.S. Attorney in San Diego to carry out such an investigation," says Aguirre. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 9, 2010 @ 4:45 p.m.

Someone find me KFC Sanders email address, I have a link for him http://www.reformsandiego.com/ .

0

harris Oct. 9, 2010 @ 5:19 p.m.

Response to #10: So which is it: the stadium won't have enough seats to attract a Super Bowl, or Super Bowls don't actually bring a big economic impact?

According to the U-T story, CCDC was formed in 1992 and state law eliminated spending caps in 1994. This bill brings San Diego in line with the law that other cities have operated under for the last 16 years.

0

JustWondering Oct. 9, 2010 @ 5:20 p.m.

Don, Was that the wrong consonant? I believe that should have been a 'B' for billion not the 'M' in million where you referred to the cap in the second sentence.

And this ridiculous $800 million for a stadium... There's no way a NFL caliber stadium in 2011-12 will cost that little. When "everything" is tallied and accounted for, 1.3 BILLION easy.

0

laplayaheritage Oct. 9, 2010 @ 5:44 p.m.

Redevelopment is not a bad deal in itself, just bad in San Diego where the public get suckered by the downtown establishment to steal from the poor to give to the rich. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/ERAFbyCity10.pdf Page 20 shows the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Tax Sharing Payments that CCDC and the Redevelopment Agency pay to the State of California . In addition 20 percent has to be set aside for Affordable Housing.
Per the existing 1992 Agreement, currently CCDC has to give 13.1 percent of their Tax Increment for Pass Through Payments to the County of San Diego, Community College District, Unified School District, and County Office of Education. Starting July 1, 2011 the Pass Through Payments increase to 30.58 percent (see Page 8) of the Tax Increment in downtown. Instead of keeping all the Tax Increment money for themselves CCDC will have to give over 50 percent away off the top. www.tinyurl.com/20100924 Currently CCDC in theory has to give the County of San Diego $8.4 Million per year from the 80 percent Non-Housing set aside funds for many social services including Counseling, Educational, Training, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation, Children's Services, and Health and Welfare Facilities and Programs. We have not been able to confirm if these public funds were ever deposited in an account in the County specifically for the poor and homeless from 1992 to the present. Starting on July 1, 2011 Pass Through Payments from CCDC to the County of San Diego the poor will, in theory, increase to $17.6 Million a year. This income can also be used as a source of funding to Resolve our Homeless problem city-wide. Before any talk of the Chargers or a new multi-purpose stadium, the City is obligated to solve this Health and Safety issue. Instead of crying poor, CCDC can give back the $228 Million in misappropriated Federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Loans they stole from the Homeless, got caught and promised to pay back to the Office of Inspector General, then tried to resteal for the benefit of privately owned luxury condominiums and the beautiful new Hilton Hotel on the Waterfront and its promised Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) that would go to the General Fund. http://www.sandiego.gov/iba/pdf/10_17.pdf

0

a2zresource Oct. 9, 2010 @ 6:13 p.m.

RE "Per the existing 1992 Agreement, currently CCDC has to give 13.1 percent of their Tax Increment for Pass Through Payments to the County of San Diego, Community College District, Unified School District, and County Office of Education. Starting July 1, 2011 the Pass Through Payments increase to 30.58 percent (see Page 8) of the Tax Increment in downtown. Instead of keeping all the Tax Increment money for themselves CCDC will have to give over 50 percent away off the top.":

This is good payoff information to have.

I don't recall if the existing 1992 Agreement ever came to a public vote that year or after, but I sure as hell didn't vote for it, and I was involved in pretty much all kinds of SDCCD budget stuff back in early '92 as a darn curious student rep, especially after that '90 S&L Crisis internship with FDIC HQ in DC...

State law clearly specifies that the redevelopment districts keep the tax increment money that results from redevelopment. If this agreement exist, then those deals to local government units are merely expenditures out of the CCDC treasure chest that were included in the four corners of the agreement as a result of the attendant inter-agency negotiations to reach the agreement in 1992, political payouts to protect bureaucratic turf in each of the various government units named.

The $2.9 billion Agreement clearly exists, at least until the Governator signs the bill replacing it with the higher cap (at most likely $9 billion unless somebody has a document with another number on it). Draw your own conclusions.

0

a2zresource Oct. 9, 2010 @ 6:54 p.m.

RE "AGUIRRE TO ASk U.S. ATTORNEY IN SACRAMENTO":

Some may see Aguirre's involvement as a publicity stunt, but in the mad Sacramento political crush right now to get the budget done right now BEFORE the November elections, it's about par for the course that the entire state legislature violates the open government laws in a wholesale fashion in order to pass a budget that defies a constitutional deadline by a good three months.

Now if we could only find a state judge gutsy enough to jail legislators for constitutional contempt until they can pass one to the Governor's Office on time...

0

laplayaheritage Oct. 9, 2010 @ 7:21 p.m.

http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd5/pdf/news/memo100917.pdf

Linked above is a September 17, 2010 Memorandum from Councilman Carl DeMaio and Councilwomen Donna Frye requesting an independent Audit of the 1992 Tax Sharing Agreement between CCDC Redevelopment Agency and the County of San Diego through the City Council's Audit Committee in which Carl DeMaio, Kevin Faulconer, and 3 other public members conduct public meetings with the Independent City Auditor. This 8 year old CCDC Redevelopment Agency mess will hopefully appear in the Audit Committee next month in late November 2010. The Council Members' Memorandum discusses possible ways to incorporate Homeless services into CCDC's budget and Financing priorities. Solving the homeless problem would drive up prices of condominiums in downtown San Diego, which increases Redevelopment Revenue.

www.tinyurl.com/20100924

We have a Public Records Request into CCDC, the 10 days turn around time expired last month. Their legal department is looking our request over. Hopefully the City Attorney's Office will amend Legal Memorandum MS-59, which incorrectly states that Tax Increments funds cannot be used for social service facilities and programs including solving our Homeless problem city-wide. When this great news is confirmed by CCDC Redevelopment Agency and the City Council Audit committee, many problems facing the poor can actually be solved using Redevelopment Funds as was the original intent of California Redevelopment Law. The City Attorney should amend MS-59 ASAP so that our blight and our Third-World slum conditions in downtown San Diego can be cleaned up and Redeveloped.

0

Visduh Oct. 9, 2010 @ 7:41 p.m.

It will be interesting, most interesting, to see what the Light News does with this story. Recently the paper has been doing some things that were unimaginable under Copley and with Kittle writing the editorials. Could it be that the "Watchdog" staff will actually sniff out the corruption and fact that a new stadium is utterly out-of-reach for a brake city like SD?

If this paper is really something new, it will have to take a radically different tack with local corruption and giveaways, along with unmasking the malfeasance of Bonnie and the local US Atty.

0

Visduh Oct. 9, 2010 @ 7:44 p.m.

"broke", not brake, in previous posting.

0

Founder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 7:51 p.m.

JU$T Great!

Let's close our Library's and then our "Hero's" (PD & FF) Unions will spend BIG money to mail Prop D propaganda with quotes from our Mayor & Donna Fry saying "the only choice will be deep cuts in fire, police and paramedic services" asking voters for more money...

while at the same time, our City Council Council & Mayor are asking the State for $500-$800 Million Dollars for yet another Stadium!

Our Leaders and our Mayor Are taking us to the cleaners!

Wake up San Diego and $MELL the PORK!

Our City doesn't "JUST" need to declare Bankruptcy we also need a "recall" election A$AP!

Our Leaders are now in denial, out of control and talking out of both sides of their mouths!

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 9:44 p.m.

Response to post #15: You'll have to find his email address, because he says publicly he does not read the Reader. Indeed, nobody at City Hall will even speak to us. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 9:47 p.m.

Response to post #16: At this juncture, it's both. The stadium as now configured doesn't have enough seats to house a Super Bowl (unless there can be a way found to add temporary seats), and the Super Bowl contributes little to an economy in any case. Pumping up the value of the Super Bowl is one of the NFL's many scams. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 9:53 p.m.

Response to post #17: You are correct. It should be billion, not million. You are also right that the cost of the stadium could go over $1 billion. The teams always understate the cost. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 9:55 p.m.

Response to post #18: If redevelopment were used for its rightful purpose -- particularly creating affordable housing -- it would not be bad. But it has been expropriated. Redevelopment funds now flow to the superrich for downtown projects. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:01 p.m.

Response to post #19: The redevelopment district keeps the tax increment resulting from the project. San Diego's downtown establishment, which controls CCDC (therefore the council), has managed to keep that money downtown where there is very little blight, which is a requirement. However, in other cities such as L.A., the redevelopment money gets spent all around the city. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:04 p.m.

Response to post #20: Aguirre wants the Sacramento U.S. Attorney to look into it because he knows it will never be done in San Diego. The city is kept. Law enforcement now is completely kept in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:07 p.m.

Response to post #21: Your approach is correct. The San Diego real estate establishment will do nothing about the homeless problem unless it becomes convinced that a solution could help raise real estate values again. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:10 p.m.

Response to post #22: I have sensed some intelligence at the U-T, but I think any change will be slow. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:12 p.m.

Response to post #23: Caught it. But when an institution is broke, it has to brake some essential activities. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 9, 2010 @ 10:15 p.m.

Response to post #24: You took the words right out of my mouth. Best, Don Bauder

0

historymatters Oct. 9, 2010 @ 11:44 p.m.

wow this is the best discussion I have seen on this topic. The Voice has consistently been too scared to really dig into these issues. But you guys are awesome. Im so glad to see Katherine rhodes and others are all over this. CCDC really needs to be ammended. One of my biggest concerns is that there doesnt appear to be any quality standards and "redevelopment" is intended to mean "redevelopment" not just "development". They seem to have taken this theoretically good idea and exploited it taking all the profits and giving us none of the benefits. we should see all the old delapidated buildings like the california theater being rehabbed and turned into public uses. instead we are seeing them give developers land for free and the developers demolish these valuable resources, replacing them w/ corporate architecture straight out of irvine. we desperatley need transparency and we need more control over what they can demolish and what they can build because right now they are taking money intended to fix blight and using it to build blight.

0

historymatters Oct. 9, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.

katherine I wanted to ask you....I saw that goldsmith said since CCDC is a seperate corporation they dont fall under the rules of the City Charter. Is this really legal for CCDC to reap all the tax dollars for their private projects like the stadium and yet avoid any laws outlined in the Charter?

Obviously CCDC is created as sort of a shill organization to be a buffer so the developers can operate by their own rules and not deal w/ the real rules thus they get to avoid the 45 year review process and other scrutiny.

Im just wondering if CCDC was legal in the 1st place since the Charter is our Constitution. seems CCDC is sort of "unconstitutional". I wonder if Aguirre is on this?

0

historymatters Oct. 10, 2010 @ midnight

I wonder if we could take CCDC and other redevelopment agencies to court for the quality or lack of quality they are building. In studying for my architecture exams I learned that there is actually Supreme Court precedent that requires any public projects to have a high degree of aesthetic quality thus lending some objectivity to aesthetics which developers insist are purely subjective. The Supreme Court said aesthetics are objective to a degree thus schools and other public buildings you see are always a higher quality than the tract homes.

So I would think a case could be made that they cant use public money to build such low quality depressing stuff.

0

historymatters Oct. 10, 2010 @ 12:08 a.m.

At any rate something needs to be done because as we know redevelopment Agencies are popping up everywhere and abusing their powers like the grantville project.... the direction this is going....basically all of our tax dollars will be going to private developers. they will take the money and build garbage everywhere that no one wants or needs. then no one will buy it and the federal govt will step in and buy the glut (which is already happening) so we will be forced to pay twice for this stuff that we never wanted and they will take all the profits.

Check out this article in the LA Times detailing how we are being embezzled all over the place by these shill agencies.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/california-cities-mismanaged-funds-meant-for-affordable-housing-times-investigation-finds.html

0

Fred Williams Oct. 10, 2010 @ 1:20 a.m.

CCDC is being sued right now.

The Grantville Action Group has been hard at work, raising donations from private citizens who are outraged at how the City, CCDC, and County colluded together to ignore the plain language of the law, and transfer money from Grantville to downtown insiders.

Support the lawsuit..!!

http://www.grantvilleactiongroup.com/

The long awaited hearing is on the 29th of this month.

Best,

Fred Williams

0

Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 7:49 a.m.

Rhodes posts under the name Laplayaheritage and she has a brilliant grasp of the issues. All her posts are MUST reading. As to the Voice's lightweight coverage, I certainly hope for that publication's sake that it is not toadying up to its donors who tend to be Chargers cheerleaders. I hope that its pro-Prop. D coverage is not similarly motivated. Voice does a very good job on many other issues, however. I think the U-T has done a good job on this issue. Best, Don Bauder

0

laplayaheritage Oct. 10, 2010 @ 7:54 a.m.

I never heard Goldsmith say that CCDC does not have to comply with the City Charter. CCDC and SEDC are subsets of the Redevelopment Agecy which does have to follow the City Charter. In any case the City Council is the ultimate Redevelopment Agency decision makers and they definitively have to follow the City Charters especially City Charter Section 225 - Mandatory Disclosure of Business Interests. A great new source of Revenue would be to follow City Charter Section 225 (see Page 5) regarding Mandatory Disclosure of Business Interests, to destroy, then renegotiate the illegal Master Leases on publically owned properties, if the Lessees are hiding behind Delaware LLC status.

San Diego has several Master Leases on publically owned land with differing Delaware LLCs, whose ownership is unknown including McMillin NTC LLC for Liberty Station, Manchester Pacific Gateway for the Navy Broadway Complex (NBC), Ballpark Village LLC (associated with Nancy Graham/Lennar Corporation), and Padres LP, a Delaware limited partnership for the City owned the Padre’s Park at the Park.

According to the City Charter all these leases are invalid and can be renegotiated on the open market. Instead of the unfair leases made when the City Council was giving away our public assets, the City of San Diego can get the fair market value of our public Leases as new streams of Revenue to protect Public Safety workers totaling at least $100 million extra per year.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 7:55 a.m.

Response to post #36: In theory, CCDC reports to the redevelopment agency, which is city council. If Goldsmith has said such a thing, he should be challenged, in my opinion. He should be challenged on many things -- in fact, he should be run out of office. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 10, 2010 @ 8:36 a.m.

CCDC really needs to be ammended. One of my biggest concerns is that there doesnt appear to be any quality standards and "redevelopment" is intended to mean "redevelopment" not just "development". They seem to have taken this theoretically good idea and exploited it taking all the profits and giving us none of the benefits.

"Amended??? Everyone I know thinks it should be prosecuted, or at the very least 86ed from the face of this city.

As for exploiting the cities resources and then taking all the profits, isn't hat exactly what happened to the $100 million tobacco lawsuit settlement money, every last cent of it?? W

asn't that money for ALL of this city?? But where did ALL of it go?? Into the pension black hole, and here were are 2 years later with idiot Sanders and Prop D the pensions tax doing the exact same thing, and in another 2 years it will be another scam to close the so called deficit-which cannot be closed by tax hikes.

0

DX Oct. 10, 2010 @ 8:59 a.m.

Wow! +/- 1,000,000,000 USD for a brand "spanking" new state of the art plumbing facility; and, considering a dowtown location to boot. Can't wait.

0

Founder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 10:57 a.m.

Redevelopment depends upon elected Officials, to "do the right thing" and if those same Officials "cave in" to Council encouraged Mega Projects then everyone suffers except the Wealthy that "DO" the projects and the Councilmembers...

Our City Council sitting as the Redevelopment Agency could (and should) be using that money to fix what's BLIGHTED & BROKEN in San Diego instead of leveraging it to the limit and building more "fluff" for San Diego. Our City should have a equal mixture of all kinds of housing yet the latest trend in our City Planning is to "dump" more of it's Low & LowMod. housing "along transit corridors" which creates "linear ghettos" in some parts of San Diego while insulating other areas from any of "that kind of development"...

Bt State Law 20% of the money generated must be "set aside" to use for Low & LowMod. housing but that money can and is often used outside The Redevelopment Area that generated the money; for example The Redevelopment "NTC" PAC at Liberty Station is not spending ANY of it's Low & LowMod. housing money within the footprint of The Redevelopment "NTC" PAC at Liberty Station building new Low & LowMod. housing. This is just "unfair" to all the folks that would like to live or work near there but are forced to live in other parts of town that are not as affluent and commute! Our City Council sitting as the Redevelopment Agency has enabled this practice to continue!

Compare NTC PAC to the North Park PAC and you will see the huge difference in how their money is spent!

NTC: http://www.sandiego.gov/ntc/housing/affordable.shtml

NP: http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/northpar.shtml#projects

0

Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 6:28 p.m.

Response to post #43: CCDC should be abolished. It is fundamentally dishonest. Redevelopment is meant to provide affordable housing and eliminate blight. CCDC has expropriated the process to build expensive buildings that provide no affordable housing and are not located in blighted areas. CCDC exists to subsidize billionaires such as those in the Spanos family. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 6:30 p.m.

Response to post #44: It's called plumbing the depths. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 10, 2010 @ 6:32 p.m.

Responses to post #45: The people who run CCDC and similar redevelopment operations are in the business of twisting the law to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource Oct. 10, 2010 @ 7:48 p.m.

I am not ignoring surfpuppy's call for a recall. I've just been takin' my time thinking about it.

I thunk about it.

I second the motion. Should debate be scheduled before or after Fitch Ratings does the city council teach-in on debt servicing tomorrow?

0

a2zresource Oct. 10, 2010 @ 9 p.m.

RE "Maybe I am totally wrong about this, but given recent Reader reports of moves made to prep municipal deals before letting those deals see the light of day, it is possible and likely that a certain strong mayor was perfectly willing to encourage such negotiations involving the redevelopment tax increment cap increase right before the election. The secretive Sacramento negotiations and resulting legislative proposal RE CCDC and increased TI cap remove that increase at the billion-dollar expense of city general fund revenues as a matter of debate here regarding the financial priorities of our elected city leaders, while those same city leaders seek their half cent tax rate hike on the November ballot, only weeks away."

I'm a total idiot. U-T front page yesterday: "The arrangement, quietly advanced ... with the blessing of Mayor Jerry Sanders... eliminates a $2.9 billion cap on downtown redevelopment since 1992."

I wish Aguirre well.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 11, 2010 @ 7:17 a.m.

Response to post #49: Recalls are very expensive -- some say prohibitively so. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 11, 2010 @ 7:19 a.m.

Response to post #50: He will need community support. The establishment will smear him again. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 11, 2010 @ 8:11 a.m.

CCDC should be abolished. It is fundamentally dishonest. Redevelopment is meant to provide affordable housing and eliminate blight.

Thank you Don.

CCDC should have been gone 5 years ago, no 10 years ago. SEDC even before that.

These DEVELOPER FRONTS posing as quasi gov redevelopment agencies have been nothing but a fraud.

And "blight" is the new fraud they use. The can "blight" anything they want to these days......... probably even the Hyatt, Horton Plaza and the Convention Center if they had the need to

0

Don Bauder Oct. 11, 2010 @ 8:29 p.m.

Response to post #53: It seems to me that Coronado -- maybe the entire Coronado -- where homes are about as expensive as any place in the county, is considered blighted for redevelopment purposes. Yes, it's blatant fraud. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Oct. 12, 2010 @ 10:36 a.m.

Reply #54 Yes, you are correct, Coronado is one big BLIGHT at least according to State Redevelopment code, but that said, you don't see their Redev Board pulling the same tactics as in the City of San Diego...

Fraud or Fantastic, it all depends on who is directing how and where the money is spent! If our City of $an Diego Leaders had spent the Redev. Money on curb and gutter infrastructure improvements then the voters of San Diego would NOT NOW BE IN DEBT and they would be singing their praises instead of blogging about their RE-CALL...

Our State Senator C. Kehoe and (soon to be elected) T. Atkins both $URFED the SD Redevelopment Money wave to State Office! They both did this on the backs of voters that are now stuck with huge City Debt; while they themselves are now enjoying their HUGE City of San Diego "Pensions", for leading us into that Debt.

They both exemplify why our Country is in the Dismal Financial Situation we now face; our trusted Leaders have used money from Big Union endorsements to get elected and once elected, they gave huge pension increases as a "gift" to those same Unions (and their own soon to be pensions). BTW: Now our City Councilmembers have their salaries "connected" to those of our Judges so that the City Council does not have to publicly approve their "own" pay raises and that takes the public pressure off them when they approve raises for our Judges...

0

Don Bauder Oct. 12, 2010 @ 10:56 p.m.

Response to post #55: Unions help finance politicians, yes, but you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. It's the corporate fat cats that are providing the most juice to the pols. Union membership is down to about 7% in the private sector, around 25% in the public sector. It's the public sector unions that are irresponsible. Private sector unions don't have the bucks anymore. This is why the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations and unions the ability to feed money to pols without restraint overwhelmingly favors one side: the corporations and billionaires -- those who have the real bucks. Have you read how the Koch brothers are financing the tea partiers? Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 13, 2010 @ 8:41 a.m.

This is why the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations and unions the ability to feed money to pols without restraint overwhelmingly favors one side: the corporations and billionaires

Citizens United was right behind Kelo/new London as the worst SCOTUS decision in the last 100 years.

I think 70% of public sector employees are union members, vs 7% in the private sector. In STATE politics public unions are by far the biggest special interest group/s, outspending corps by a wide margin.

Whitman said last night that teh public unions have contributed over $300 million in campaign $$ during the last few (4??) years. That is an incredible number.

0

SanDiegoParrothead Oct. 13, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

So how DOES one go about getting a recall started?

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 1:59 p.m.

Response to post #57: I agree that those were the two worst SCOTUS decisions in decades. One point: 37.4% of public sector workers are in unions vs. 7.2% in the private sector. See my column today. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 2:04 p.m.

Response to post #58: Anybody got any ideas? Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource Oct. 13, 2010 @ 2:23 p.m.

I think there is a $200 initiative fee for a recall of a City of San Diego elected official... and there has to be some minimal percentage of voters signing an initiative petition relative to the last general election turnout?

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 6:55 p.m.

Response to post #61: Gathering the signatures can be expensive. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 6:57 p.m.

Response to post #62: 15% is a lot, especially considering the low turnouts for actual voting. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 13, 2010 @ 8:01 p.m.

Gathering the signatures can be expensive

Whatever it will cost it's peanuts to what that clown Sanders is going to cost us with this billion corporate welfare giveaway, by a factor of 10,000 to 1.....at least.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 13, 2010 @ 8:24 p.m.

response to posts 62-63-64 as I read it, basically, you have 39 days to circulate a recall petition after all the prelim stuff is finished.there are about 600,000 registered voters in the city. So that means about 90,000 VALID signatures would have to be gathered. that ain't gonna be easy. even just taking a 10% margin for dq'ed signatures, that's 100,000, in just 39 days. that's 100 people getting more than 25 signatures a day for 39 straight days. I've done petition drives before and it's tough to do when you have a job, kids etc. I know as much as I'd like to, I don't have that kind of time; I have too many other obligations as it is right now.Then there's the question of how is a special election going to be paid for since the city is already out of money. It can be done and I'm all for it but seems to me it's an ify proposition at best.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 10:02 p.m.

Response to post #65: That's a good point. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 13, 2010 @ 10:09 p.m.

Response to post #66: It would be tough, but as SP says, it may be the only way to stop economic madness. The U-T quoted a local real estate expert saying that it would take $5 billion of downtown development to cover the $50 million yearly debt service on the new Chargers stadium. Think about that: $5 billion of development when downtown is already filled with condos and hotels that are damned near empty. Commercial real estate is a disaster. Maybe no one has told the mayor. At this point, I can't see any sane underwriter willing to try to peddle those bonds, no matter what the interest rate. Look at the bright side, though: if the city did finance the stadium, it would surely go into bankruptcy, which is where it belongs right now. So maybe San Diegans should let the fools drive the city over the cliff. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close