So the value of what we get from our government may in fact only be worth 22 cents while we utilize 88 cents worth of services provided by other Agencies, and Districts that also need to be funded.
Grand Terrace has been focused on the lowest rate of taxation Sales Tax Generation. Where as the city should have been looking to increase the Real Income of the citizens, by increased Jobs in the City's Industrial Base. Even the fictional inflation of property values was a false basis upon to lay your hopes for a sustainable revenue supply to the city.
So the question and answer not being disclosed to the public is what would the City's finances and staff look like IF we accepted the 22 c per dollar contributed, and we paid our fair share for the numerous services we consume from other agencies, and levels of government.
The Cities that have in the past been operating in a RDA have been taking a bigger share of the available funding pie. This greed has not been productive and there is little reason to think that continued use of RDA funding and debt financing will result in any different outcome. We are foolish to think otherwise.
The Citizens and Council Members should be presented with a real budget, and a picture of a City that can or does operate on 22c per dollar. If the city / citizens find that it is better to be under the administration of the County, then so be it. It should not be the preference of the City Manager or even the Council. The Citizens should be informed and engaged on such an important matter. This by far is more important than the question of having or not having Fireworks.
Spending money to defend our right to have an RDA and pretending we don't have to pay the fees or kick in until there is some sort of court ruling, is approaching the same mismanagement tactics of the past administration. The inappropriate accounting for the red light fines were an example of improper accounting. Let's spend money, that we may have to pay to the State if we lose the case, or later decide not to be an RDA. In addition there will be significant legal fees paid to lawyers and others to defend the RDA income game. Eventually these funds will be so drained it may be useless effort or folly to continue down this path as it will not lead to sustainability or the clear refinement of the functions the city can sustain on its real available and true resources.
To resent a pay back into the system we have been drawing more than our fair share out of all these years is nothing more than Greed. We really need to ask is our NEED greater than the need of the other agencies and departments and service providers? We need to ask what can we afford on 22 cents and can we actually justify taking money for US and deny the Greater WE. Stankiewitz and the Council need to put the budget tourniquet on the limb that is bleeding the most. That would be OUR RDA Dependency, as it is making the entire state die a unsustainable death. Guess what... If the State of California fails, so does GT folks. It is time for us to bite the budget and be real about our expectations for local government funding.
It is time that the City of Grand Terrace face the fact it can't afford steak. It is time to figure out how to live on rice and beans of a budget. If our loyal employees can't adjust to the reduction in their income while working full time, let's hope they can find work at the income they desire. We as their employer can not afford to pay more than we have to spend. We don't have the right to print more money just so a few people in City Employee provide part-time management, while providing only a small portion of the civic and social services consumed by GT Citizens.
Mayor Stankiewitz and Council, there is no shame in an honorable end of GT as a City if that is what the financial reality we face. However, to go run up more unsustainable costs, or increased spending for any reason is like a person going on a 30 day curse after being told he is going to be terminated. Such an action lacks any moral high ground. This council knowing that the city is unsustainable under current laws, should not be spending more and more trying to avert or defend itself from the responsibility of living within its known financial resources until the other matters are reversed, ore resolved. There should not be any would of could of, might be spending from this point forward. We as a city have been doing that for far too long. We still carry the stench brought about by those practices.
If the foreseen crash comes, it will not be the long term homeless that are the most impacted by further economic down turn. As Citizens of a Bigger WE, we have or should have a real concern for the greater good beyond Grand Terrace. As shown above we from Grand Terrace extract services, well beyond those provided by the City. What are you going to give up? Would you sacrifice a limb or organ to save a life? That may be the real comparison here folks. In order to save all those services we consume from non GT City Agencies, we may have to either live on 22c of each dollar paid by GT Citizens, or both GT and the other Agencies Fail or die.
10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Grand Terrace may have to surrender $2.8 million to the state of California this year and more than $670,000 a year in the future to keep the city's redevelopment agency alive.
The City Council voted preliminary approval July 12 of an ordinance re-starting the agency after state budget legislation abolished local redevelopment agencies. The state left the door open to reinstate them on a voluntary basis, provided local governments pay the state hefty shares of the money they raise.
The Grand Terrace council is expected to take up final approval of the ordinance Tuesday.
City Manager Betsy Adams told the council that Grand Terrace will appeal the $2,850,665 amount it owes this year to the state's Director of Finance, who could rule on the appeal by Sept. 15 and has the option of extending the deadline another month.
The city is also hoping the state legislation will be overturned by the courts as a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of local redevelopment agencies.
"This is a money grab. That's all this is," Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz told his fellow council members. "The state is extorting $2.8 million out of Grand Terrace."
He said that without redevelopment, 22 cents on every tax dollar paid by Grand Terrace residents would come to the city. With redevelopment, 64 cents comes to the city, he said.
Councilman Bernardo Sandoval said that if the state wanted to abolish redevelopment for the benefit of taxpayers, it would have lowered property taxes to refund the money.
Councilman Gene Hays asked "What if the agency said, 'We don't want to play?' " and did not make the payments.
"If we do not pay," Adams responded, "our agency would be dissolved" in November.
Grand Terrace raises $7 million a year through its redevelopment agency, which pays for public improvements and helps pay the salaries of two-thirds of city employees.
"This is a very difficult time," Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia said. "We're trying to hold onto revenue."
Reach Darrell R. Santschi at 951-368-9484 or dsantschi@PE.com
The In-N-Out restaurant on Second Street in San Bernardino that is being chased out by construction of an Interstate 215 offramp will settle three blocks away on property once inhabited by a pair of crime-ridden motels. The City Council on Monday approved a deal to sell to In-N-Out the vacant property on the southeast corner of Fifth and H streets. The city paid $6.3 million for the land and buildings and spent about $800,000 more to relocate tenants, clean up contamination and cover other costs, according to a staff report. It will be sold for $844,000, and the difference between the purchase and sale prices drew criticism Monday. Carl Van Fleet, vice president of planning and development for In-N-Out, said the company hopes to keep the Second Street location open through the day before the new restaurant opens. That likely will be near the end of the year, he said. In-N-Out is required to be out of the current location by Dec. 31. That building has twin drive-thru lines and no inside seating. The new location will have a single drive-thru line and seating for 95, including the outdoor patio, Van Fleet said. In-N-Out also has a San Bernardino restaurant near Interstate 10 and South Tippecanoe Avenue. The conversion of the motel properties to an In-N-Out location is part of a Redevelopment Agency plan to remake the Fifth Street corridor. The agency sold $26 million in bonds to pay for the acquisition of properties. Laundromats, motels and pawnshops are being replaced by senior housing and businesses that might attract others to the area, said Emil Marzullo, the agency's interim executive director. "The area had become a magnet for crime and blight," he said. The redevelopment plan didn't please everyone. Example of Bad Use of Tax Payer's RDA Tax Funded Money:
SAN BERNARDINO: In-N-Out buys new site from city
10:49 PM PDT on Thursday, July 21, 2011
