— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 8 March 2012 — 6 comments »
Add historic buildings to the list of assets the City is selling to help shore up the budget deficit.
Along with negotiations to sell Parcel C (known as Bayside Marketplace at one time), Victoria Crescent and Sycamore North (the sins of our fathers) on the agenda for the closed session portion of next Tuesday’s city council meeting, the council will also discuss the sale of 1991 Railroad Avenue, the restored historic Civic Arts Building — home to Sala Restaurant.
It was not that long ago, although it feels like a lifetime, that the city spent a considerable amount of money restoring the historic building then an additional sum to suit it as a restaurant. The Redevelopment Agency-owned property then leased the space with arguably very favorable terms to the owners of what is now Sala Restaurant, and what has become, coincidentally, an absolute gem on the waterfront with priceless views of the bay and Mount Tamalpais at sunset.
The sale price of the building would have to be in the $1m range (I’m assuming). Outstanding loans on the building are unknown — therefore revenue is unknown. I’m not sure if the lease agreement with Sala would be at risk of termination from a sale. (I hope not, although a renegotiation of terms would be likely, if not altogether appropriate).
It is also unclear how the revenue, if it materialized, would be used at city hall, although it is probably safe to assume that it will be a one-time cash infusion to the ailing general fund. (Ailing is too kind a word; upside down is more accurate.)
UPDATE — Tom Lochner mentioned the Civic Arts Building in a report on the city’s settlement with Ambac.
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 5 March 2012 — Comments Off
Tom Lochner reports:
The long-stalled development of the Hercules waterfront got a major boost with the City Council’s recent approval of a package of agreements that would let the city and a developer move ahead with building a transit center and adjacent village with offices, stores and about 1,400 homes.
But the two projects face additional hurdles. The transit center for buses, trains and ferries needs large infusions of public funding, much of it time-sensitive; the latest cost estimate of $76.7 million does not include the ferry terminal and about $13.5 million that the city has already spent on the project.
And much of the private developer’s transit village plan could not be built profitably in the current economy.
The article includes a few quotes from my comments at the podium last week. I do realize the car metaphor is unfortunate (considering the project is about transit-oriented, walkable development) — and perhaps ironic.
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 1 March 2012 — 5 comments »
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 28 February 2012 — 3 comments »
The City Council made a big leap forward at tonight’s meeting. In a unanimous 3-0 vote (with two councilmembers recusing themselves along with the city attorney), the council approved readings of the development agreements and both the landside and waterside purchase and sale agreements. Virtually no City money was involved in the approved deal. (The council will approve the vesting map at their next meeting on March 13 after receiving a staff report this evening.)
City Manager Steve Duran started the discussion with high praise for the project and its ability to establish the waterfront — and Hercules overall — as a unique place. Special consultant Charlie Long echoed those remarks during his presentation to council. Amidst a relatively quiet meeting, the council received rounds of applause following each of the five individual project-related items they voted on and approved. It was long overdue — the deal and the recognition of the council for making it happen.
To be quite honest, the hard work is about to begin — delivery. Funding from CCTA (a considerable amount) must be obtained. The community must remain engaged and dedicated to see this project through. It is also time now for the landowner/developer (AndersonPacific) to follow through. The development agreement is all that the community has asked for — to provide the developer the opportunity to move forward on the vision and the community the potential. It should never have been this hard. But a real milestone has finally been reached.
Credit should be placed where credit is due, but since the task force started more than a year ago, there has not been a naysayer that has advocated against this project — not a single one. There has been the worry that the City could not afford their end or that the unit price of submerged property (i.e., mudflats) was a dime or two too high — and all of that was eventually dealt with in negotiations (as it should) — but never a legitimate argument surfaced against the project itself. It is quite remarkable in an era of fractured discourse and is testament to the project’s broad appeal — from within the city and across the region. It has always been a win-win and will be a solid step in creating a sustainable local economy that the community can be proud of.
There is a lot more work ahead but this was big and a cause for celebration (however brief).
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 25 February 2012 — 6 comments »
Editor’s note. This blog — and the activism this blog promotes (principally New Urbanist development in Hercules, Calif.) — has absolutely nothing to do with a group purportedly of the same name that has filed legal challenges against the planned 2013 America’s Cup in San Francisco. (Google has failed you.)
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 22 February 2012 — 2 comments »
The Bayfront task force will meet on Thursday — 6pm at city hall — and will review the terms of the developer agreement with the waterfront landowner/developer AndersonPacific. The task force will ostensibly make a recommendation for council approval of the terms at their next meeting on Tuesday, February 28. This is a very big step and long overdue.
Special consultant Charlie Long has distributed the terms of the agreement in his most recent status update.
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 21 February 2012 — 9 comments »
The Patch recently reported that Standard & Poors “slashed its ratings on three Hercules Public Financing Authority revenue bond issues from a respectable ‘A-’ to junk status of ‘BB,’ and further placed the bonds on negative credit watch.”
It was big news — the City’s deteriorating ability to borrow will worsen its recovery — and representative of the hard-hitting journalism that has reaped praise on the publication.
But: irony. Its misuse indicates editorial comment (similar to my criticism last week). It is not journalism.
This is the seemingly throwaway line in the article (emphasis added):
Ironically city council members are scheduled to hold a public study session on wastewater and discuss a plan for the city’s financial recovery beginning at 6:30 p.m.
It was a coincidence that the previously-scheduled public study session was held on the same day that Standard & Poors downgraded its ratings for the City. It was not ironic — unless you wanted it to be in order to make an editorial comment (e.g., that the city is failing and the best it could to do is have a public study session on the subject, har har).
Another word also would have worked perfectly in the quoted sentence above: fittingly.
The city is facing a financial crisis the likes of which most towns could never imagine. The failures of the past city council and administration have resulted in resignations, firings and a recall. Every step the City makes is being observed — and criticized (for better and worse). The community is taking effective action to repair its city. Public meetings and debates on sensitive issues — like indebtedness — are the norm these days.
It is fitting that this council is developing a financial recovery plan (perhaps by tax) in the wake of the disaster. It is not ironic.
