Comments on: Alameda Point: All the protections in place

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:48:34 +0000

Liz, I’d recommend not reading it then. By the way, the post was written nearly two months ago, week’s before the election.

Have a great weekend.

By: Liz Williams

Liz Williams — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:38:26 +0000

What an astonishing waste of time this website is. I’m sorry to be so harsh, but good God, man: Find another dead horse to beat.

Sun Cal lost the election. Overwhelmingly. Time to move on.

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:21:28 +0000

And yet, just last week, he said that while it’s not perfect, he feels that if the initiative passes, the city has all the protections it needs in the DDA process, including the ability to negotiate on the caps.

You’ve trotted out that old article numerous times and presented it as meaningful in contexts that it’s not relevant.

Would he have rather the caps not be in the DA? yep. Is it a deal killer I asked him? “no” was his response.

By: dlm

dlm — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:17:31 +0000

David Brandt may not be the best person to quote (for SunCal’s purposes). Here’s what he said as quoted in East Bay Express article:

http://alamedapointinfo.com/stories/east-bay-express-changing-rules-alameda-point

“Brandt characterizes the scope of the initiative differently. “If you’re going to do it, might as well grab everything you can,” he said.

Of particular concern to Brandt are the financial provisions included in the development agreement, especially the $200 million cap on the developer’s obligation to pay for public benefits. That obligation is contingent upon the city providing funding through redevelopment mechanisms overseen by agencies not party to a development agreement. Brandt said the approach is novel. “I don’t know that the way that they’ve drafted it is per se illegal,” he said, “but I’ve never seen it done before.”

In addition, the details of the public benefits that SunCal must provide are unusually vague, says Brandt. “Typically, in a negotiated agreement, you would have it much more buttoned-down on both sides so that everybody knew what the obligations were. And the money part wouldn’t necessarily be in the development agreement.” Instead, those financial details would be spelled out in a separate “disposition and development agreement” — a document that also would cover the nitty-gritty specifics of timeframe, funding, performance guarantees, and the actual land acquisition and is expected to be negotiated by SunCal and the city’s redevelopment agency after the election. But with such language up for a public vote, the financial details would become binding upon passage of the initiative, and Brandt said the city’s redevelopment agency would have to negotiate a disposition and development agreement “under the sort of shadow of this whole initiative”

And here’s a link for other Express articles (and a site w/ loads of info as well):
http://alamedapointinfo.com/search/node/east%20bay%20express

By: dave

dave — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:16:45 +0000