City Leaders Predict Formation of New Board to Succeed Redevelopment Agency
Court decision will dissolve agencies in more than 400 California cities including Hercules.
Photos
The City of Hercules will have to form a new organization to succeed its Redevelopment Agency, according to civic leaders, one of whom decried the timing and legality of yesterday's decision by the state Supreme Court.
"The Agency is going to be dissolved," Vice Mayor John Delgado said of Thursday's ruling that upheld the state's right to eliminate community redevelopment agencies. "The most important question so far is whether we (the City Council) will become the successor agency."
Both Delgado and Mayor Dan Romero said city leaders and its redevelopment attorney are "still digesting" the 83-page decision, but Romero predicted, "I think we might still be in a good situation."
The mayor based that contention on a belief that the state would be responsible for $34 million owed the city by its Redevelopment Agency, a debt that prompted the city to take over ownership of the agency's four parcels: Sycamore Crossing, Sycamore North, Victoria Crest and the so-called Parcel C.
A report in March by the state Controller's Office criticized the Hercules Redevelopment Agency for being more than $10 million in debt and allegedly misappropriating housing funds.
Romero said that he favors creating a successor agency whose board would consist of not just the City Council but includes community representation, possibly including a school board trustee and members of the public.
"There's nothing in writing that says it has to be just councilmembers," said the mayor, suggesting a board of seven or nine directors.
Delgado stopped short of describing who the board should be until more is known about the decision, adding, "At least now we know the parameters."
Romero criticized the timing of the court ruling and said it conflicts with the intent of voter-approved Proposition 22 to keep a fair share of tax revenues in the communities where they are generated.
"The public's vote is being taken out of their hands by the state Supreme Court," charged the mayor. "This supercedes that Proposition and the court is going along with it.
"This is not a decision that should be made by the select few. This is a decision that should be made by the voters ... I'm surprised that we have the Supreme Court making up the laws now, rather than interpreting them."
In questioning the timing of the ruling, Romero noted that it was due Jan. 15 rather than during the last week of the year, when many smaller jurisdictions like Hercules are closed.
"Why do it now when there's no city staff to answer anything? That's not normal," he said, asking, "Who pushed this early to get this decision out like this?
"It's going to make for an interesting 2012, doesn't it?"
Richard L.
11:24 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
Interesting criticisms by Mayor Romero. I think I would cool off on criticizing the Supreme Court. You're mayor of Hercules talking like a big shot.
Steve Spilman
11:40 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
He's entitled to his opinion, just like you or I. In this case, I happen to agree with him. This move reeks of a state attempt to pilfer local funds.
marinayiu
11:42 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
RDA with these low low low income housing totally trash this City. Damn if you do and damn if you don't.
RJ
12:30 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
The Hercules RDA has been nothing more than an ATM machine for past officials and a dishonest city mng/staff and I'm glad to see it dissolved. The debt left by the Hercules RDA is shameful. Oh well, maybe the school district will stop with the parcel tax proposal's sense they will benefit by the decision?
marinayiu
10:38 am on Saturday, December 31, 2011
Our property bills also look like an ATM machine for the school district.
Jeffrey Boore
12:33 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
How has the RDA contributed to creating low, low, low income housing? I'm not aware of that.
marinayiu
10:36 am on Saturday, December 31, 2011
You are not. Wow.
Jeffrey Boore
12:26 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
@marinaylu - I am well aware of the dealings and shortcomings of the RDA, and I think I am generally pretty well informed about the financial and other struggles of this city. However, as I said, I am not aware of how the RDA has contributed to creating low, low, low income housing. Since you say that is true, I meant my post to be a request for you to substantiate your claim with a few details of how this is true. Simply ridiculing me is no answer, and I suspect is really a form of admission that you don't have any evidence of this, but rather just wanted to say something mean about poor people.
Sarah Creeley
3:01 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
I agree with Ron, when he wrote, "The Hercules RDA has been nothing more than an ATM machine for past officials and a dishonest city mng/staff and I'm glad to see it dissolved. The debt left by the Hercules RDA is shameful."
Susan D.Keeffe
6:11 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
The California Supreme Court has its own timeline. They've been studying this for months and had announced long ago when they would make their decision. The shameful thing is Oliva's abuse of the RDA via his NEO with council blessing is one of the reasons the state disapproved RDAs. I hope Dan is right but I think the City still has to pay off its bond debts regardless.
G.C.
7:09 am on Saturday, December 31, 2011
I hope Dan can send his constructive criticism up the chain-of-governance so our concerns can be heard at the state level. Perhaps, city mayors need to combine their efforts, such as at the following Contra Costa Mayors conference this week.
http://www.ccmayors.com/2012Files/Packet120105.pdf
Note to Dan: We need a "big shot" to speak up. Thanks.
G.C.
6:30 am on Sunday, January 1, 2012
Clarification: My comment refers specifically to the timing of the ruling, as Mayor Romero states, not allowing opportunity for a response-dialogue.
Susan D.Keeffe
11:35 am on Saturday, December 31, 2011
Jeff,
I don't either. It was pretty much a gravy train for Oliva, Weigle, etc. of course there is Sycamore North.....
Wil
11:45 am on Saturday, December 31, 2011
Dan: You are little out of line with your statement in my opinion. Let the redevelopment agency go belly up. There is so much waste in it as in most government run programs. The court has made the proper ruling in my opinion.
marinayiu
12:54 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
Face reality - with the steady decline of property value all over since 2007 we are all poor people now. The whole city is an affordable home program.
Jeffrey Boore
1:08 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
@marinaylu - That is still no answer to the question of how the RDA has contributed to creating low, low, low income housing as you have accused. Is that because you don't have any answer to that question? Please stop with the flippant remarks and address the real question so that we can move forward in increased understanding of reality.
Annie R.
11:40 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
Regarding Mayor Romero's comments concerning the ruling, the word "blowhard" comes to mind.
Phil Simmons
9:23 am on Sunday, January 1, 2012
Why do you say that?
Annie R.
12:27 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
"blowhard." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009. Retrieved January 01, 2012 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-blowhard.html
Phil Simmons
1:25 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
No, I was not asking what the definition was. I was asking what caused you to draw that conclusion.
The comments all seemed to be a normal part of the debate regarding the RDA, voting principles, and activism in the judicial branch.
So, I was wondering how you drew the conclusion that there was some sort of blustering or boasting.
G.C.
3:05 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
I noticed that Dan cannot speak without someone branding him as such. He is either a "blowhard" or he is "grandstanding." Why have any discussion at all? Why should anyone share their thoughts on any issues? We should all just put a sock in it and see what happens with the governance of our city.
RJ
4:51 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
G,C
Dan has only one meeting,,,,,give the Mayor a break,, Cities all over Ca, are to trying to figure this out. The cities that were clean are not sweating, Those that went dirty are. Lets us think of Hector R. for a council member next go-around.
Hector R. for the next move on city cou
G.C.
5:21 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
I was defending Dan. My point is that he cannot speak up without people questioning his motives.
Susan D.Keeffe
9:05 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
GC
I noticed that too. It almost looks like
there are some looking for any excuse to put him down. . And those who make those comments hide behind pseudonyms which meets the definition of cyber bullying. I for one would like to know who is making these comments.
marinayiu
9:06 am on Monday, January 2, 2012
This sharing of opinion is supposed to be open and friendly and not personal attacks. Will unsubscribe myself after this last comment. Goodbye. You folks have fun. Btw - don't let low low low income happen to Sycamore North. Poor homeowners there don't deserve this.
Jeffrey Boore
9:22 am on Monday, January 2, 2012
@marinaylu - You started with a post that was hostile to both those who ran the RDA (not that they don't deserve it) and to poor people in need of our help (by your implication that they are the ones who have "trashed this city.")
I then simply said, in an open and friendly way, that I am not aware of the particular transgression you accuse the RDA of and asked you politely for clarification.
You then made a personal attack by ridiculing my post with your words, "You are not. Wow." Why exclaim "wow" except to ridicule my question and admission that I don't understand your accusation?
It therefore strikes me as hypocritical for you to complain that others have been the ones making personal attacks, especially since I see no evidence of anyone at all attacking you, personally or otherwise, but rather simply asking (or insisting) that you explain your accusations.
Julian W
10:04 am on Monday, January 2, 2012
Jeff, the obvious thing that comes to mind re: RDA and ultra affordable housing was the planned distribution at Sycamore North. If that were to go through as planned, better just to rename it the "projects" and be done with it. The main determinant that I've seen in various Hercules neighborhoods detracting from the quality of life is the growing proportion of renters, who have no "stake in the game", and hence don't keep up the properties--which obviosuly has nothing to do with the RDA and everything to do with the economy and housing market.
Jeffrey Boore
4:51 pm on Monday, January 2, 2012
Sure, I'm familiar with that plan the city had for Sycamore North. But the comment by marinaylu was that this city has already been trashed by the low, low, low income housing, and Sycamore North isn't even finished, let alone occupied. The real scandal with the RDA and the city more generally is that very little affordable housing has been provided for the large amount of money that has been spent for that purpose.
Annie R.
2:51 pm on Monday, January 2, 2012
@Phil,
I was stating my opinion of Romero. It's based on a number of factors, none of which will be shared in this forum. And Susan, please stop with the criticism of people "hiding" behind pseudonyms. It's getting old.
Phil Simmons
4:34 pm on Monday, January 2, 2012
Annie,
No problem. I was asking because I thought there was something Dan had said that was quoted in this article that made you think that way. I was just a bit confused because you stated "Regarding Mayor Romero's comments concerning the ruling, the word "blowhard" comes to mind." which made me think you meant that it was some comment that he made.
Annie R.
10:08 pm on Monday, January 2, 2012
@Phil, I believe Romero could have chosen his words more carefully. Thanks for understanding, You've always been fair-minded and I appreciate it.
Steve Spilman
11:09 pm on Monday, January 2, 2012
All Section 8 housing does is spread the misery of the inner city projects to the rest of America. Please read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576480542593887906.html
Phil Simmons
9:40 am on Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Steve,
The article is in the Wall STreet Journal. What else would you expect to read there?
I am not a fan of Section 8 for a few reasons but it is needed. Keep in mind that the landlord in S8 properties have exactly the same rights in who they chose as a renter as a none S8 landlord has. Also, the S8 landlord has an easier path in removing a bad tentant. Done with the appropriate restrictions S8 serves a needed purpose. Like most things (government) it has problems. The advantages that S8 offers landlords is where the real problems are. I know of S8 landlords that get premium (10%-%20) rental rates on their properties. That along with a lack of background check on just who is really renting and living in a property is not well managed. Because of this the renter quality is often not considered. Landlords will take their chances because they get such a sweet deal on the S8 program. Control the benefits to the landlord and much of the rest will take care of itself.
Jeffrey Boore
10:55 pm on Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Do we suppose that some of our fine neighbors who are benefitting from section 8 assistance might be reading some posts on the Patch and be very hurt by the mean-spirited words that sometimes appear here? It seems fine to me to talk about this or other programs in the abstract, but it seems very mean to me when some people say things like how it is those who take section 8 assistance who have trashed our town and similar things. Not everyone who needs society's financial help at some point in their lives is a bad person, and very few of us (me included) would have been as successful in life without some sort of government assistance.
Annie R.
11:59 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
@Jeffrey,
Thank you for calling everyone's attention to the neverending stream of negative comments concerning Section 8 residents. One of the most vocal opponents of Section 8 has made it a personal crusade to rid our City of such residents. In fact, I am aware this person went so far as to report two female neighbors as being involved in prostitution. Basis for this conclusion? The two women were African American and always well dressed. That's it. (BTW, the two women were mother and daughter).