23 comments already …

1. # BGR commented on 21-Jan-11 @ 9:14am

   They used redevelopment to buy out then interest was paid from another RDA account? Wow.
2. # herculies commented on 21-Jan-11 @ 9:30am

   “They used redevelopment to buy out then interest was paid from another RDA account? Wow.”

   Yep. And all we got for that is a half baked “temporary” development where nothing is happening, and that no one goes to, managed by friends of certain ex-councilmembers who are also paid $20,000 a month with redevelopment money. Sick.

   I can understand why so many people want to recall the elected officials who were in office when this happened. it is inexcusable, they used our tax increment funds like it was monopoly money.

   The partner should have been PAYING the city for not fulfilling his agreement under the DDA, and then the city manager agrees to pay THEM $1.6 M to walk away and do NOTHING for the city?

   I have looked at the documents. This underhanded agreement was secretly signed by the city manager, Sakamoto, which violates the terms of the DDA. Then the next city manager did the same thing, signed another secret agreement to give Red Barn MORE money. The council should have been keeping tabs on their city managers, instead they let them plunder the city at will.

   And where was the city attorney? Why have this guy if he is just letting the city manager sign these stupid deals and avoid the public prcess? Why wasn’t he telling the council that this should have been approved at a pubic meeting? He gave teh city managers cover to bamboozle the council. It says so in the DDA that major amendments must be approved by council. THT DIDN’T HAPPEN because the city managers and the attorney lied about the nature of the amendments. They called them “minor amendments.” Of course the city attorney knew all about this subterfuge, his law firm is cc’d on all these amendments.

   Waterfron Watch, you should post the DDA and amendments, so everyone can see them.
3. # Susan Keeffe commented on 21-Jan-11 @ 10:24am

   Good idea -its all been a shell game.
4. # Christine commented on 21-Jan-11 @ 9:44pm

   I’m saddened and disgusted – I have lived in Hercules for 11 years and have been proud to live here now I feel embarrassed and taken! Thank you for this website that is finally uncovering the truth! I hope to see some positive changes coming soon!
5. # Mark commented on 21-Jan-11 @ 10:17pm

   This crap gets dirtier by the day…I am sickened by the revelations that continue to be revealed.
6. # ron mckeever commented on 22-Jan-11 @ 9:25am

   I do not agree with John Gioia on a lot of issues, however, his view of Gov. Browns proposal to eliminate the RDA has merit. As evidence we have Hercules. The realignment of the tax dollars to fund schools, public safety and other needed programs makes a lot more sense than the ineffective way cities use the funds that result in the corruption like Hercules has done. Now you will see the city managers and councils stand up and say RDA is viital to cities for growth and jobs, but actually their thoughts are only for personal gain. Just look at Hercules.
7. # Blake Mengotto commented on 22-Jan-11 @ 9:59am

   Unfortunately I have to agree with Ron. Local abuse of these funds by several cities, that we know of, in California are justification that these agencies be removed. I very much hope that all who were involved in these acts will face charges and pay some kind of price.
8. # patrick tang commented on 22-Jan-11 @ 12:46pm

   Blake and Ron, your criticism of redevelopment is understandable, based on what we see happening here, but I am not so willing to say that eliminating redevelopment agencies is a good idea.

   I have seen redevelopment funded projects in many cities across the state that have produced very good results, and without burdening taxpayers, because the increase in property values and tax revenues offset the cost of repaying the bonds. Just look at Berkeley 4th Street, and Santana Row in San Jose, and what they’ve done in Emeryville.

   If undertaken responsibly, redevelopment is an effective way to “kick start” economic development. Unfortunately, Hercules may become the poster child for redevelopment project abuse. Sad.

   Hercules hired a city manager who was out of his depth and only wanted to push affordable housing. I was at CIty Hall today, and it is interesting all the signs for “affordable housing” that are up. It is clear that this was priority no. 1 for Oliva.

   We just didn’t have the right city manager and didn’t provide enough council oversight to prevent the abuse. Redeveloment offers cities a lot of discretion and leeway to fashion local remedies, and it is unfortunate the city council enabled Oliva to run amok.

   If Hercules had someone like Flores in Emeryville or Charlie Long handling redevelopment instead of Oliva, the waterfront would have been built by now.
9. # ron mckeever commented on 22-Jan-11 @ 1:46pm

   You know Patrick, your probably right. However, I “ve lived in this town 25yrs and have seen this happen several times and have lost my faith in RDA. Now, with the right council overseeing the decisions made by the city manager, we may be back in action. But, it will take a council that will do their research and ask the right questions and not be afriad to vote against an issue that they know is wrong and will hurt this city and residents. Ethics…..

   That person may be you Patrick…….
10. # Anonymous commented on 22-Jan-11 @ 6:16pm

    Jeff wrote about the City Council, including Myrna and John:

    “somehow the council walks into the cloakroom as independent humans for closed session and exit as zombies spewing rhetoric that accomplishes only one thing: indicating to residents that they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.”

    Patrick…. Do you agree? You have remained true to Jeff’s positions all along the way. How say you now?
11. # Annie R. commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 12:20am

    I’ve lived in Hercules since 1983. Unfortunately, management of the City has been mediocre at best and criminal at its worst. Because of the council’s “this is the way we do things” attitude, the environment has always been susceptible to cronyism, nepotism, and back room deals. The tendency of council members to make decisions based on self-interest rather than on behalf of Herculeans.

    As much as it pains me to say it, Hercules is the poster child for redevelopment gone wrong. I’m with Jerry Brown on this one!
12. # PS commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 10:54am

    # Anonymous
    Here is an answer to the question that you want answered. Yes I believe this city council, so far, has hamstrung the progress and process regarding the waterfront. And yes, I think they have come from closed session and concluded in lockstep to take actions that has left the waterfront with all of the problems still before us. And I can only assume that whatever their conversations in closed session are they do not yet have a sense of how to make progress on improving our community. Time will tell if the council will support the waterfront communities needs. I just hope that the time it takes is short.
13. # PS commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 11:03am

    # Anonymous
    By the way, this post is: Times: “Hercules agency helped developer buy out a partner”.
    Let’s try to discuss that in this particular thread. Is using RDA money for this purpose the right thing to do? I think it is an abuse of RDA funds and misappropriated.
14. # Anonymous commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 1:41pm

    PS….

    So I understand, you agree that Myrna and John have no idea what they are doing. Thanks for finally answering. I personally believe you have set your cause back significantly by telling the people whose help you need the most that they are both idiots. Good luck with that. Better hope they don’t eat your brains the next time you take the podium. (cause that’s what zombies do!)

    To answer your question, NO, using RDA money in this way is wrong. But that is what RDA money has become, a scam to enrich developers and corrupt city officials instead of to actually do good. I agree with Brown’s call to end redevelopment.

    I’ve read over and over that the Waterfront is a private development to be built in concert with a transit center. So why, if it is private, do we need RDA money to give to Anderson? Let him build it. Privately. I do believe he is entitled to build whatever he wants that meets the guidelines of the city and planning commission, etc. Let him do it with his money. No handouts. Let him sell it and keep all the profits. If there is no ITC, so be it. As I understand it, there is little or no RDA money to be had. From what I’ve read the city is already covering some of the RDA debt. I’d find it hard to believe that property values have gone up significantly in the last year to increase the available tax increment.

    So now a question for you……
    Give me the Reader’s Digest version of the time line you would like to see regarding Anderson and the Waterfront project. Lay it out for all to know. Have y’all given the council that time line? Do they know your expectations? Please don’t tell me about the past. You were dealing with crooks and you can’t hold John and Myrna accountable for that.
15. # Jeffrey Wisniewski commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 3:01pm

    @ been here 50 years — The tax increment is calculated based on the year the redevelopment area was established, which is 1983 in the case of the Waterfront. Also, welcome back.
16. # Anonymous commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 3:30pm

    Jeff…

    One more reason to end redevelopment in California.
17. # Jeffrey Wisniewski commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 3:40pm

    @ been here — That may be. It is wholly unfortunate we had a council so inept not to take advantage except to deliver hundreds of homes (but no businesses, retail, transit or even schools to serve them) and Sycamore North. Give that man a bonus.
18. # PS commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 3:46pm

    # Anonymous
    No, I think they are going to be quite good at their jobs. I don’t think they know what they are doing in regards to the waterfront issues and need to hear from the waterfront what the issues are that we have. I do not think that they automatically have the intuition, nor the experience, nor the vested time to understand the issues. I have already had one on one conversations with at least part of them to discuss some of my concerns and they did not have the facts right. But they do now. I had to pull information from the city manager about a few details to verify that what the city council thought they knew was not in fact true. So, one step at a time.

    Try not to confuse the issue of their competence about the waterfront with other issues that they may well have the knowledge and experience to deal with.

    As to your last question, I have had numerous discussions with city council including Myrna. The past has effected the present. So the past is not the past. It is a benchmark to use to measure progress into the future.

    The timeline that could be done for now is this. The council and the city manager could call a meeting next week specifically to discuss with AP the needs of the MOU and the DOPA. That meeting will not cost the city one dime. The city could set aside the threat of eminent domain next Tuesday as a means to offer good faith dialog. The city could decide next Tuesday that forcing the sale of the ITC land is premature because the city does not have the money to make the purchase right now anyway and they do not have the money allocated or arranged for the buildout of the ITC either.
    So, they could engage next week in full and open discussion with AP how to create the public/private partnership and begin the dialog for when or if the public side of the equation might be possible. This is what AP has been asking the city to do for many months. No money needs to pass hands until there is a clear, orderly, transparent to the public means to move ahead. In other words – Ya can’t make a deal until you know what the deal would be.

    So, time line for the MOU – next week. the DOPA first week of Feb. Land transfer of the portion of the ITC that is for the road and bidge infrastructure – Early April (there is already $25M in grant money that is not the RDA nor the city’s, so fund the infrastructure with it before it is repossessed by the state and the feds. Break ground on the roads and bridges by June. Private project pieces could start as early as May because once the DOPA is done there are pieces that could start without the ITC infrastructure being started. There are pieces that have access from the current roads.

    That is a fairly agressive schedule. All parties would need to work as PARTNERS rather than as COMPETITORS to make that happen.
19. # PS commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 3:50pm

    # Anonymous
    By the way, this post is: Times: “Hercules agency helped developer buy out a partner”.
    Let’s try to discuss that in this particular thread. Is using RDA money for this purpose the right thing to do? I think it is an abuse of RDA funds and misappropriated.
    But you pulled me in again to talk about other things.
    Glad to hear your feeling about the topic at hand. I understand it and almost agree.
    But I think we should just tighten up the uses for RDA money, mange and control it better.
    Otherwise we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Their are very good uses for RDA funding.
20. # PS commented on 23-Jan-11 @ 4:10pm

    # Anonymous
    By the way, this post is: Times: “Hercules agency helped developer buy out a partner”.

    Here is what I think about shutting down the RDA in total. (by analogy)

    Someone discovers that banks have been robbed. So a decision is made to shut down all the banks so that they don’t get robbed again
21. # John Bender commented on 24-Jan-11 @ 7:41am

    Patrick,
    Regarding your comment “Just look at Berkeley 4th Street, and Santana Row in San Jose, and what they’ve done in Emeryville”. A correction I believe is in order as Sanatana Row was not built as a San Jose RDA project. It was privately funded so it’s housing does not include low income, or so I believe, unlike Sycamore North courtesy of NEOliva. Funny how Sycamore North has been referred to as being like Santana Row in City website documents. Well nothing can be further from the truth. Sycamore North is a poorly conceived project from it’s program to it’s design, which has rendered the immediately adjacent residences to the north undesirable with it’s hulking presence.
    Everyone should note how construction progress has slowed even further from it’s very slow pace as witnessed by how long it is taking to frame out the eastern “tower” end.
22. # patrick tang commented on 25-Jan-11 @ 10:31am

    Mr. Bender, thank you for clarifying that Santana Row is not a SJ RDA project. Nevertheless, there are a number of redevelopment projects that have successfully addressed blighted conditions in cities all across California. I like Phil’s “bank robber” analogy a couple posts prior, sums up how I feel about the move to eliminate RAs.
23. # John Bender commented on 26-Jan-11 @ 9:02am

    Patrick,

    I agree with you that there have been RDA’s that have produced credible and poitive results for their communities, San Jose one of them. The possibility of eliminating RDA’s is a very mixed bag.

Trackbacks so far …