Posts Tagged ‘california redevelopment association’

While the City scrambles, TMC’s truth squad, oops, that’s the City’s tag line, has been blogging, reporting and speaking at Council Meetings as to why the Council should not have passed certain loans.  In addition, how passing these loans will come back to hurt the tax paying constituents.   The states silver bullet of termination appeared to be the only answer.  Now 10% of those Enforceable Obligations submitted to the State Finance Department were rejected for not following state guidelines.  Enforceable Obligations are legal contracts which declare that one person or agency owes another.  The question being asked is were these filing discrepancies inadvertainly overlooked by our protector of citizens, City Attorney Gregory Priamos?  And even their hired hand, Best, Best & Krieger?  Could these discrepancies possibly be considered faulty legal advice?  The City of Riverside shot back at the State Finance Department with the following letter.  According to the latest Press Enterprise the City Manager Scott Barber is defending some of the debt.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

In the response letter sent back to the State Finance Department by City Manager Scott Barber, he then agreed with the State on the following two items which could not be considered Enforceable Obligations.  But shouldn’t the City’s legal council, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos, have been able to clear this question of what is enforceable and what is not?

Page 1, Line Item 38: Grant agreement between City and Housing Authority  $60,000,000.00                                     Page 2, Line Item 13: LM LS Targets of Opportunity-La Sierra/ Arlanza            $1,085,749.17

A total of $61,085,749.17 which is due to hit our General Fund.

What is really disturbing in the letter is that Mr. Barber states there are three items of concern that can give way to a rate payer lawsuit.  This in response if the State is unable to accept the debt, it will go to Riverside residents in the form of higher utility rates.  But in doing so, these would in essence be a violation of proposition 218.  These are Page 1, Line Item 29 ($4,329,897.60), Page 1, Line Item 30 ($328,039.22) and Page1, Line Item 32 ($4,793,600.00).   Which amounts to $9,451,536.85.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno, emailed the following letter to Vicki Hightower of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office indicating our frustration with the use of local resources.  The letter was also read to the Council and Mayor at the April 25, 2012 public comment section in council chambers.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT

The rejections came from California State Department of Finance to the tune of nearly $159 million in projects and debts from Riverside’s former redevelopment agency, potentially leaving the city’s general fund responsible for the amount lost.  Did City management commit fraud when submitting inaccurate information to the State of California for responsibility of payment?  What role if any did the law firm Best, Best and Krieger have in this?  Or is the responsible party ultimately the decision makers, the deciders, the Council and the Mayor?

         

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT.

Above is the letter sent to Vanessa Kirks, Fiscal Manager for the City of Riverside dated April 13, 2012 from Mark Hill, Program Budget Manager for the California State Finance Department detailing the states rejections.  What was also found, was that the California Department of Finance sent 55 cities this letter out of over 400 cities with one or more items rejected.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE CORRESPONDING DRAFT ROPS SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.  POINTS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE THE REJECTIONS DETAILED BY THE STATES LETTER.

What people need to know about the relationship between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Riverside, is that Redevelopment Agency is a state agency.  The agency board is made up of your own city council, mayor and employees of the city’s development department. The City and Redevelopment are one in the same, they just change hats.  Ultimately, they are responsible for all actions and decisions.

The state then mandated that local oversight boards or succesor agencies be created to organize and dissolve the assets, debts and other obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency.  Loveridge stated, “The irony of this is that the state set up these local oversight boards but (the Department of Finance) is setting the rules of the game”.  True mayor, but did some of your oversight board actually know some of these loans were wrong? While others may have not?  Or were you steered inaccurate legal advice?  Also Mayor, when you met with the initial oversight board didn’t you set some rules of the game?  It appears that Mayor Ron Loveridge and County Supervisor John Tavaglione appointed each other for Chair and Vice Chair of the Board.  Conflict of interest?  Or just two peas in the pod?  Not to mention, it appears that John Tavaglione is covering all bets by endorsing three mayoral candidates, which are running against each other.  Former Councilman Ed Adkison, Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey.  But would these endorsements have have anything to do with John Tavaglione running for Congress?  Or further, even Richard Roth, Esq., oops General Richard Roth, Esq.,  who does quite a bit of legal work for the city, such as the current Sgt. Valmont Graham case regarding racial discrimmination issues and a proposed settlement offer in todays city council agenda.  Even though they are both endorsed by Mayor Ron Loveridge, is this a conflict of interest?  Or just bad, bad business?  Even Nick Tavaglione endorses General Richard Roth.  Possibly some relation to John Tavaglione?   “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”  This is pretty bad legal situation for our city and someone needs to be disbarred, but the city which continues to exist in a clouded stupor and may not have the gumption to know the difference.  For example, there are City loans made to the redevelopment agency, if not repaid, could be a future hit to the $214 million general fund. The problem is our general fund will not be able to sustain the additional debt load, we our are currently in a deficit as it is.  Will this mean layoffs? Program cuts? Department cuts etc. etc.?  More utility hikes?

If you were to read the California Department of Finance Question & Answer, which appears our city management did not, it states what is acceptable and what is not.  The state even has Question & Answer on Enforceable Obligatons as follows:

CLICK THIS LINK TO VEW FULL VERSION.

The Oversight Board or Succesor Agency, with John Tavaglione and Mayor Ron Loveridge on the sidelines appeared to approve all the obligations for the former RDA and thought they could pull the rug over on the State Finance Department.  The City and the Oversight Board sent the state a list of obligations they said were allowed and should be paid under the 2011 law that dissolved redevelopment agencies.  The Oversight Board in itself was filled with conflicts of interest, and they obviously acted accordingly and expectably.  The state then enforced its own pre-released guidelines, and rejected particular line items accordingly.  State officials disagreed with a number of items on the list, including construction contracts for the new downtown fire station, Municipal Auditorium and Doty-Trust Park, as well as a disputed amount of loans from the city to the redevelopment agency and nearly $18 million from bonds issued in 2007 that the state says should not be spent.  The City of Riverside took offense, and threatened litigation, well Gregory did, possibly by default.

In response to the State Finance Department rejection letter, City Manager Scott Barber will now send the state a response letter early this week, while Mayor Ron Loveridge will follow up with a trip in person to Sacramento.  This will turn into a grand event by having his lobbying group, the League of Cities, behind him?

City Attorney Gregory Priamos stated, “We’re confident that by continuing to engage in a serious dialogue with the Department of Finance that we’re going to solve these issues without the need for litigation.”

But to even think that the city attorney would threaten the state with costly taxpayer litigation without considering the guidelines the state implemented,  would be considered political suicide.  Especially in a time when the city has less of a revenue stream, but not the city attorney’s office it seems.  But of course, this is an office which operates without transperancy and without the duty to divulge expenses to the public, of which the public are entitled to.  Many constituents in the City of Riverside are telling TMC that they are questioning Greg Priamos’s abilities and practices, which do not appear to be truly protective of our local constituents interest.

According to the letter sent to the City of Riverside by the State of California Finance Department the state says no to approximately 10% of the submissions, while the City of Riverside of course, as we are now aware, threatens litigation.  What the State is saying is that Enforceable Obligations (EO),  of which the State cites HSC section 34171 (d) , declares in part that Enforceable Obligations do not include any 1. Agreements, 2. Contracts or 3. Arrangements with City (that created the Redevelopment Agency), and especially the Redevelopment Agency itself.  So it appears that the City and the Redevelopment Agency entered into multiple loan agreements.  The law appears to be very clear, I’m not sure what part Gregory, our City Attorney and Best, Best & Krieger didn’t quite get?  I know that they are both sharp cookies and it would appear to me that they wouldn’t allow the city to submit erroneous paperwork purposely.  But what do I know, I’m only a common citizen..

But let’s go a little further down.  The State considers the following not EO’s.  You cannot make inter agency loans and that’s what the TMC truth team has been trying to tell the Mayor and the City Council.  Did the city’s lobbying group The League of California Cities say this was legal.? Did the Greater Riverside Chamber say it was legal?  Did our City Attorney Gregory Priamos say it was legal.  Did Best Best & Krieger, the City’s hired law firm, say it was legal?

There were loans between RDA and the City totaling $41.3 million.  There was a cooperative and an agreement between RDA and the City totaling $61.2 million.  There was a loan between RDA and the City Housing Authority totaling $1 million.  So far $103.4 million total

Then there was an unused revolving line of credit for $19.9 million.  Again it remained unused, but the City still tried to push this through for payment regardless.  The State said no, it’s not EO’s. New total is $123.3 million.

There are contracts with the city with other entities, not RDA, that the City tried to pass to the state as a Redevelopment issue for $19.9 million.  It said no, these are not EO’s. New total, $143.2 million.

There was various expenditures with no expenditure contracts, similar to how the City handles business with BB&K, with no contracts.  The state said no, this amounted to $15.4 million. New total, $158.6 million.

So for now, the City of Riverside claims victim status, blaming the state for themselves over extending the city’s finances.  We all know that the City is in denial, they will never admit fault, and will not take a bit of responsibility for their past voting record as they should.  Continuing to blame the State Finance Department for themselves incurring our $2 billion in Redevelopment debt, and of course, the constituents of this city will ultimately be responsible for the debt.  We must also not forget those who were in charge at the time of these occurrences, such as Former Chief Financial Officer/ Assistant City Manager/ Treasurer Paul Sundeen.

The truth of the matter is that the city can only ‘cry wolf’ a limited amount of times, before the residents of this community realize what they have done.  But in all fareness we must allow the city’s newly formed “truth squad” to respond to this conundrum, and we will wait to hear from them.

Interum Public Works Director, Tom Boyd is now named Public Works Director.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

UPDATE: 06/01/2012: STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SEND LETTER OF APPROVAL TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLOWING COVERAGE OF $26 MILLION OF THE ORIGINAL $156 MILLION ORIGINALLY REJECTED.  CURRENTLY, APPROXIMATELY $133 MILLION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAINS A DEBT OF THE CITY.

WHAT WOULD JOE ISUZU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?

UPDATE:04/23/2012: CITY HALL SCUFFLE? Info has been brought to TMC that Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s aid Chuck Condor was allegedly involved in a scuffle with another individual at City Hall.  Condor has been called on the carpet of City Hall for making derogatory remarks such as calling woman commenters “bitches” and “idiots.”  This was done in plain sight of others at city meetings.  Is Condor out of control?  Or is this an accepted part of City Hall culture?  TMC has been told Chuck Condor is now on administrative leave, ‘paid leave’?  That we do not know.  Is Chuck Condor going to lawyer up?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

As if they were testing their parents, as children do, the state said no more, enough is enough, and slammed it’s iron fist of authority over municipalities.  Cities cannot become rogue entities and become microcosms of self proclaimed commonwealths, they must still answer to a higher source, as the state has indicated.  California Supreme Court judge ruled this morning that Assembly Bill 1X 26 to abolish redevelopment angencies is legal!   Assembly Bill 1X 27, the measure conditioning further redevelopment agency operations on additional payments by an agency’s community sponsors to state funds benefiting schools and special districts, also abolished.   This is based on Proposition 22 (specifically Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5,subd. (a)(7)) which expressly forbids the Legislature from requiring such payments.   According to the L.A. Times the state acted legally when it abolished more than 400 redevelopment agencies to close a budget gap.  The State acted legally.  Therfore, the state has the right to legislate and remove legislation as it sees beneficial to the citizens of the state.  Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, said the agencies long ago outlived their usefulness and should be shut down, particularly as the state confronts a $25.4 billion budget gap.  The cities lobbying groups, The California Redevelopment Association and The League of California Cities sought a writ relief arguing that each measure was unconstitutional.  Well ok..  You have to wonder why these city lobbying groups, who represent cities, are going to the costly legal expense of fighting so hard, for taxpayer monies for a city’s redevelopment plans.  Well, then, are they really looking at the best interest of the taxpayer in the long run?  ..or in reality, only for those they actually represent?  and in addition, do they actually contribute to the abuse by showing cities how to fully take advantage of redevelopment, against the best interest of the taxpayer?  In our opinion, these lobbying groups are in no way friends of the taxpayer.  According to the California Legislative Analyst Office back in February 16, 2011 came to the conclusion that there was significant policy shortcomings of the California Redevelopment Program.  They made mention that documents released by the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), a lobbying group for the cities, were seriously flawed.  This was in reference to claims made by the CRA that 304,000 jobs would be lost if redevelopment agencies were eliminated.

READ FULL VERSION OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING BY CLICKING THIS LINK!

According to the L.A. Times the state acted legally when it abolished more than 400 redevelopment agencies to close a budget gap.  The cities lobbying groups, The California Redevelopment Association and The League of California Cities sought a writ relief arguing that each measure was unconstitutional.  Dan Berstein’s of the Press Enterprise had much to say about Redevelopment in the City of Riverside.

But it has scarred and scraped communities. It has put people out of business by ripping down buildings and not replacing them, or evicting businesses — the “private sector” — and filling the void with nothing.

Redevelopment is a mixed bag, not a money bag. But that’s not how its champions see it. They see an entitlement program and they’re hooked on it.  Tax increment is their heroin. No wonder they went to court.    -Dan Berstein, Press Enterprise

Hopefully Dan won’t be warned with a SLAPP suit by unknown entities within the City as TMC, for stating an opinion.  But even the City of Riverside pushed the envelope of their contempt by calling the states actions a form of “ransom”, as indicated in their July 27, 2011 news release, or even as a form of “theft”, as indicated in this June 16, 2011 release.  I wonder if they are on the State’s list of potential SLAPP suit candidates?

     

CLICK THE IMAGES TO READ THE WHOLE NEWS RELEASE

All you have to do is walk Downtown Riverside and see what your $1.8 billion has attained for the taxpayer.  What does our city’s favorite son, former city manager Brad Hudson have to say about this?  What did he know? and did he leave town just in time?  Will the city now try to sneak a new ballot initiative for the citizens of riverside to pay the bill for their bad business decisions and indiscretions?  Get ready for higher property taxes.  Just by the fact of shutting 400 angencies throughout the State of California, state officials already estimated that the new laws would generate $1.7 billion this fiscal year, the City of Riverside has already spent $1.8 billion alone on redevelopment projects… in the middle of this, where are the obligatory affordable housing projects?  They weren’t found in the Raincross Promenade… What are ex and fired city employees saying about the cities redevelopment program?  Where does the City of Riverside go from here?

“For far too long, California taxpayers have financed obscure government agencies that use taxpayer dollars and their power of eminent domain to benefit politically connected developers,” said Marko Mlikotin, alliance president

Thursday morning Riverside City Officials converged for an emergency meeting regards to the effects of the new Supreme Court rulings.  I would have loved to be a “fly” on the wall on that one.  Keeping in mind, the redevelopment agency and the city are two different entities which are unrelated.  Mayor Ron Loveridge said the meeting was to discuss a potential $5 million shortfall, which the new ruling would place in the city’s general fund budget.  Therefore, some projects would not get done, such as the new shopping plaza in the Five Points area and a long-planned multi-modal transit center.  Some months back, TMC reported comingling of the general fund with redevelopment money, and a $5 million dollar oversight.  Questions were being raised regarding the movement of state monies to the city’s general fund, otherwise known as an inter-agency transfer.  As far as we understand, state agency monies cannot be transferred to the city’s general fund, monies are to remain in seperate accounts.  The question still remains unanswered.   Mayor Ron Loveridge called it “the worst possible outcome for cities.”  Which is true, since the taxpayer will be the one responsible for the bill.  

He went on to say, “Redevelopment’s been our primary way which we’ve created jobs and worked on economic development projects, and now that tool is taken away.”  Let me think about this, the primary way we create jobs, according to the mayor, is through taxpayer raised monies?  I always believed as many,  it is in the private sector.  And that the success of a business is dependent on what they produce in terms of products or services, or both.  This creates demand, demand then creates value. This in turn creates the encentive for the business to expand, hire more people, in turn, creating jobs.  Funding jobs through tax payer money does not constitute real jobs in a free market.  The idealism of Keynesian economics does not work in this instance, or has it worked in any instance in history.  In a capitalist form of government, what would give the impression and perception that government knows best, and this can be the “norm.”  It goes against all that this country was originally based on.  But the practice and its illusion continues.

UNKNOWINGLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST…  AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  TMC WISHES ALL, EVEN CITY HALL, A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM  BY THE WAY, COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

A long habit of not thinking a thing is wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right  –Thomas Paine

NEWS RELEASE: CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT DEAD ON ARRIVAL?  THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAVE SUED CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ANA MATOSANTOS.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS MANDATED A STAY OR FREEZE ON ALL CITY REDEVELOPMENT, UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS FROM NOW IN THE BEGINNING MONTHS OF 2012.  THIS MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS MANDATED EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FROM INCURRING NEW INDEBTNESS, TRANSFERRING ASSETS, ACQUIRING REAL PROPERTY, ENTERING INTO NEW PARTNERSHIPS, ADOPTING OR AMENDING REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ETC.,  AND ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING:  ENTERING INTO NEW CONTRACTS OR EVEN MODIFYING EXISTING CONTRACTS.  EVEN THE NEW ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL THIS WEEK IS NOW DOA.

ON JUNE 29, 2011 GOVERNOR BROWN SUSPENDED ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACITIVITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHILE CRITICIZING THE AGENCIES FOR DRAINING TAX DOLLARS AWAY FROM SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SAFETY AT A TIME WHEN REVENUES ARE RUNNING THIN.   THE STATE GAVE CITIES TWO OPTIONS TO THIS SUSPENSION,  AS A RESULT OF THE ABUSES OF REDEVELOPMENT, DISSOLVE IT OR CONTINUE IT.  IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE, THE PAPERWORK THE STATE EXPECTS CITIES TO FILL OUT, IS TEDIOUS, AND THIS HAS UPSET MOST CITY GOVERNMENTS AS OURS. THEREFORE, OUR CITY ISSUED AN ORDINANCE TO CONTINUE THE VOLUNTARY REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.  THIS CHOICE TO CONTINUE BECOMES AS THE STATE CALLS IT “ VOLUNTARY CHOICE”. THEREFORE ENTERING INTO THIS CONVENANT CITIES ENTER A MORE STRUCTURED PROGRAM TO FORCE THE CITY TO BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE, THIS IS WHAT THE STATE’S VIEW THAT IT WILL MITIGATE ABUSE OF FUNDS. 

THIS IS WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE MERE FACT THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR BONDS JULY, 1, 2012, AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IS A FACT, AND EX-RIVERSIDE CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.  THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE WILL INADVERTANLY HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS THRU HIGHER UTILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRIC, WATER AND SEWER FEES.  IF YOU LOOK A OTHER CITIES, YOU WILL REALIZE WHAT 2 BILLION OF CONSTRUCTION REALLY LOOKS LIKE. REDEVELOPEMENT CRITICS SAY THAT, TOO OFTEN, THE MONEY BENEFITS PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND STEAMROLLS PROPERTY OWNERS.  ASSEMBLYMAN CHRIS NORBY, R-FULLERTON, SAID THE AGENCIES LONG AGO OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS AND SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN, PARTICULARLY AS THE STATE CONFRONTS A $25.4 BILLION BUDGET GAP. BUT IN THEIR ARROGANCE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DID NOT TAKE THIS SUSPENSION WELL, THEIR ENTITLEMENT WAS CLEAR, GOING AS FAR AS CALLING THE OBLIGATION PAYMENT  “RANSOM” AND A FORM OF “THEFT“.  AS INDICATED ON THEIR WEBSITE.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE WOULD BE ON THE TEAM EFFORT AGAINST SUPPORTING SUCH WASTE, BUT ARROGANCE IS DEEP SEATED AND IRREVERSIBLE AS A MALIGNANT CANCER THAT IT HAS LED THEM TO SUE THE STATE.  THE STATE IS YOU THE TAXPAYER.  THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES, OF WHICH MAYOR LOVERIDGE IS PART OF, ARE TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING INTEREST GROUPS WHICH ARE SUING YOU (TAXPAYER) TO GET THEIR SPENDING MONEY.  IT’S AS IF YOU GIVE A CHILD AN ALLOWANCE, WHICH THEY KEEP SPENDING AN IN TURN, THEY KEEP COMING BACK TO YOU FOR MORE.  THE REAL SAD CONTRADICTION IS THAT YOU (TAXPAYER) ARE ALSO PAYING THE LITIGATION FEES TO SUE YOURSELF FOR MORE OF YOUR MONEY.   THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES FUNDED A CAMPAIGN THAT ULTIMATELY STOPPED SERIOUS EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM IN CALIFORNIA, LEAVING PROPERTY OWNERS VUNERABLE TO SEIZURE IF CITIES FIND A BETTER USE FOR THEIR LAND OR BUSINESS. 

BUT HOW MUCH DEBT SERVICE ANNUALLY IS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE PAYING ON RENAISSANCE PROJECTS?  IF $1.58 BILLION IS THE TOTAL FOR DOING ALL RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, WHAT’S THE TOTAL COST WITH INTEREST OVER THE LIFE OF ALL THE BORROWED MONEY?  IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN IT’S ALL PAID OFF, WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE?   THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE A PROJECTION, BECAUSE BONDS COULD BE REFINANCED OR PAID OFF EARLY DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY ETC.  WE MUST ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE LONGEST TERM OF BORROWING FOR THE RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, SUCH AS 30 YEARS ETC.

SO, TOTAL NEW MONEY BONDS ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD AMOUNT TO $1,084,051,402, INCLUDING NON-CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 1.   THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES IN THE RENAISSANCE: 

1. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

2.USER FEES.

3. STATE, FEDERAL AND REGIONAL GRANTS.

4. LAND SALE PROCEEDS.

5. PRIVATE FUNDING- SUCH AS RAILROADS, DONATIONS ETC.

6. GENERAL FUND CASH.

7. RDA TAX INCREMENT.

8. CERTAIN OLDER RDA BOND PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENAISSANCE.

9. CERTAIN MEASURE-G PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENNAISSANCE.

10. FUTURE PLANNED RIVERSIDE CONVENTION CENTER BOND ISSUE.

THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT VARIES BUT TYPICALLY IS IN THE MID $60 MILLLION RANGE FOR 2012 AND EVEN 2013, AS INDICATED IN THIS TABLE 2.  IN YEAR 2014 THERE IS A BALLOON PAYMENT THAT WILL LIKELY BE REFINANCED.  IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEBT IS UTILITY DEBT, WHICH THEY ROUTINELY CARRY AND WOULD HAVE REGARDLESS OF THE RENAISSANCE.  THE ACTUAL APPROXIMATE COST OVER THE LIFE OF DEBT WOULD HIT THE $2.0 BILLION MARK.  THEREFORE, BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE POPULATION COUNT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE CITY WILL BE LEFT TO PAY FOR THE RIVERSIDE RENAISSANCE IN INCREASED SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, PARKING AND GENERAL FUND REPLACEMENT.  THE $2.0 BILLION BREAKDOWN IS AS FOLLOWS:  THE PRINICIPAL IS $1,084,051,402 AND THE INTEREST IS $979,022,581.  TODAY, THE COST TO EACH INDIVIDUAL WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $6,660.00, OR A FAMILY OF FOUR WILL HAVE TO PAY OUT $26,400.00. 

JOHN CHIANG, WHERE ART THOU? YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT IN RIVERSIDE….

UPDATE:08/28/2011: OF COURSE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A TAXPAYER LOBBYING GROUP, WON’T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER ON THE SUPREME COURTS RULING OF PLACING A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT.  MOST HAVE SAID SINCE IT WAS LEGISLATED IN, IT CAN BE LEGISLATED OUT.  BUT THE CRA, WHO SUED THE STATE ON THE CITY’S BEHALF DID NOT LIKE THE RULING.  THE CRYSTAL CLEAR RULING PLACES A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED IN JANUARY 2012, THIS IS TO PREVENT FURTHER QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL MOVEMENT.  BUT THE CRA HAS NOW ASKED THE SUPREME COURT FOR A CLARIFYING ORDER WHICH WOULD ALLOW LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO THE NEW VOLUTARY STATE RULES, PAY THE ENFORCEMENT OBLIGATION PAYMENTS AND CONTINUE TO  DO LOCAL RDA BUSINESS AS USUAL.  BUT WHAT IS QUITE IRONIC IS THAT THE CRA AND THE CITY DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM TO BEGIN WITH, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SUING.  SINCE SUING THE STATE PLACED A STAY ON ALL ACTIVITY, THE CRA AND THE CITY NOW WANT THE STATE TO NOW HONOR THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM IN THE INTERIUM, THAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUED AGAINST.  GO FIGURE? 

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS”  BLOG SITE! NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE…