Schwabastic Spin Still In Press Coverage:

The situation regarding the "Need" for a house in GT for Tom Schwab was not so he could "move into Grand Terrace", he already lived in GT. However, his wife filed for divorce and Tom found himself like most separated men, homeless and couch surfing. One of his hosts during that time later sold his property to the city for an amount above the prior open market list price. Well, Tom Schwab, moved into a home the RDA had purchased as a Low and Moderate Income House prior to the City Council or Redevelopment Agency making any transfers of the property.

If you do a blog search you find these documents and a time line have already been posted.

Citizens have long complained that the Schwab House Deal was improper and not accounted for properly. In addition to the shifting of funds from RDA to the City's General Fund, we must recall that Mr. Schwab was given a "housing allowance" each month of service that was to off set the cost of the house. Did those payments continue even after he "Paid the Loan" and got a second on the property?.

Did he pay income taxes on those city paid house payments? He was not really required to live in Grand Terrace, he could have lived in Colton, Loma Linda, or found a typical separated from wife, kicked out of the house apartment like every other man who finds himself in that situation. No, this reality was beneath Tom Schwab, so he maneuvered a house, and house payments out of the City Council Members. Of course non of the paperwork was done right or in a timely way as he had already decided what house he wanted and had moved in prior to having the escrow close.

Schwab House Search will provide the prior posts. It is about time at least a part of what was wrong with that transaction has been noted for the OFFICIAL RECORD..

Retroactive accounting cuts Grand Terrace debt

By Ryan Hagen Staff Writer

Posted: 02/25/2011 03:48:03 PM PST

GRAND TERRACE - A month-long review of more than a decade of decisions has chipped more than $1million off what was once a $4.6million debt.

The city owes the money to its Redevelopment Agency, a city-controlled body that former City Manager Tom Schwab often borrowed from to balance the city's general fund, officials said.

After resigning for medical reasons in 2009, Schwab told the City Council he intended to dissolve the Redevelopment Agency without paying back the debt, a plan that current officials say would not work.

Instead, City Manager Betsy Adams and her staff have been poring over documents to find projects paid for out of the General Fund that could have qualified for redevelopment funding.

If the agency had initially paid for the city's $819,235 road project, the city would not have needed to use General Fund money and then borrow from the redevelopment fund to cover other General Fund expenses.

So, after running the idea by the city's auditor, attorney and the California Redevelopment Association, the City Council voted to use redevelopment money retroactively for the project and lower its debt.

The accounting move has shrunk the debt to about $3.5million, when combined with Tuesday's repayment of a loan in the other direction - $267,622 left over from 2003, when the Redevelopment Agency borrowed from the city and only partially repaid it.

Minimal documentation from the time makes it unclear why the agency borrowed city money, reversing Grand Terrace's usual trend, or why the loan was not repaid.

"They started paying it off, so it's clear they intended to," Adams said. "It's not clear whether, perhaps, they lost track of it."

Adams said her search leaves her confident there are no other loans that haven't been paid off. But there may be other opportunities to inch down the debt.

"We're still working through that, and there's probably at least one more item to do," Adams said.

She estimated it would knock an additional $100,000 off the total.

The 2003 loan paid for a house so Schwab could move to the city. Several residents filed a complaint with the District Attorney's Office over the loan, which Schwab repaid, but the case was dismissed.

"It looks like there was something wrong there," Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz said. "But it gets us closer to paying off the debt."

ryan.hagen@inlandnewspapers.com, 909-386-3916

THE NEXT STEP SHOULD BE TO HAVE THE STATE OR FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATE THE SCHWAB HOUSE TRANSACTION AND NEGOTIATION IN FULL FOR CRIMES INCLUDING CORRUPTION AND FRAUD AND COLLUSION TO COMMIT FRAUD.

WHO WAS DEFRAUDED? Well the bond buyers who thought they bought bonds that were for actual RDA activities, not the enrichment of Tom Schwab, the taxpayer who has to pay back the bonds, the person or family who should have had that house under the RDA Policy for Low and Moderate Income Housing, the taxpayers who then made "payments" for housing allowance to Tom Schwab under the misrepresentation that he had to "Move" or "Live" in Grand Terrace in order to be the City Manager, these people and agencies have all been subjected to harm by Tom Schwab and the former City Council Members, City Staff, and City Attorney who participated in his corruption by allowing the transaction, and for not responding to Citizens who objected at the time.

(Note Betsy Adams is not required to live in Grand Terrace. Steve Berry was not required to live in Grand Terrace).

Oh and one more thing. Schwab did not resign due to medical reasons. He resigned because the City Council finally was too embarrassed to have either Tom Schwab or Steve Berry as the City Manager and they decided to look for an outside hire. This was after Tom Schwab admitted to halting and covering up an embezzlement investigation regarding Steve Berry, and that Steve Berry had worked for political activities in Loma Linda without authorization from his employer. Bea Cortes, Steve Berry and Tom Schwab were all involved in the excessive charges filed against former Council Member Jim Miller.

Schwab left saying he got paid to keep his mouth shut. Taxpayers would like to know what else is hiding under the rugs of city hall.

It would be nice if the NEWS Papers would not rewrite the true history of events to gloss over the antics of those in government. This blog will not let the Schwab History re-write go un checked. Schwab still has designs to run for City Council, or Mayor and his past can not be expunged if we are going to be protected from Scwabastic Accounting and Governance in the future.

Grand Terrace & Stater Bro's Fund Set Aside

The action taken to set aside funds to payoff Stater Brothers is a prudent act of the current city council. As much as I am against making payments to Stater Brother's while not giving the same advantages to other businesses in GT thus giving Stater's unfair advantage over other businesses, I have to say setting aside the already obligated funds into a designated fund is the best way to account for such a liability and designation of funds. This insures the funds that were identified as "available" for the council members who approved the expenditure, remain available to pay for the contracted obligation.

This protection is not only needed against the actions proposed by Gov Brown, but by our own city management and council who clearly need to have funds set aside and designated in order to control the city's spending or overspending of funds. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has been the norm in GT Financial Management in the past. By designating funds, obligating those funds for contracts when they are approved forces the "Available Fund's Balance" to reflect the real amount available.

If the State Government or Federal Government could over-ride the contractual obligation between GT and Stater Brother's Markets all the better. Then the State can have the money that came from the state and the Federal Funds can be used to stimulate jobs that are not retail, which is not where stimulus investment gets the biggest bang for it's buck. Manufacturing jobs like at Archer's or Waldon Pump, or even Wild Bill's Mustard would create product that could be sold outside GT and that generates real economic growth. Ah but no one sees that funding a retail store is economic investment to see our money or investment circulate only one time in GT, unless what we buy is made in GT.

Unless incomes increase to buy more sales tax can not increase. Stater's will not be increasing the total income base of Grand Terrace when it moves into it's new store. So the use of stimulus money for this use is not efficient use of those funds.

It would have been better to repair the missing drain conduit than to increase Stater's bottom line. But, given the Old Council's Action, (Include Stanckiewitz and Garcia who voted Yes to Payoff Stater's, and waive Development Fees.), setting aside the money is a good restraint on the Council and City Management.

D. Hurst should be given a copy of the invoice for the checks she questions on the check register. If the Finance Department can't release the invoice they paid they should not make a payment.

Tax Payers Paying for ..... Know When You Shop

GRAND TERRACE: City protects development funds for Stater Bros. deal

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

By JAN SEARS

The Press-Enterprise

Redevelopment money intended for a five-year economic development agreement between Grand Terrace and Stater Bros. was safeguarded by the City Council on Tuesday.

The council voted unanimously to appropriate about $1.2 million of the Community Development Agency's non-housing funds to pay for incentive programs the city and Stater Bros. agreed to last September.

"We're doing what many agencies are doing because we don't know where the state will end up," Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz said Wednesday.

Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating redevelopment agencies throughout the state and spending their money -- possibly as much as $3 billion -- on courts, health care for the poor and schools.

"There is so much uncertainty about redevelopment, and this incentive package spans five years," Stanckiewitz said. "We said. 'Let's just set it aside now.' "

The city reached the incentive agreement with Stater Bros. about five months ago, before Brown was elected.

The grocery chain has begun construction of a store on Barton Road and eventually plans to create a shopping center at the site called Town Square.

The project will create about 140 construction jobs and 77 permanent full-time jobs. The city has agreed to pay Stater Bros. $2,500 per job, or up to $192,500 per year over five years, a staff report states.

The city also plans to use as many as 45 parking spaces at the site for a park-and-ride site, for which it will pay Stater Bros. $49,000 per year, the report states.

"We've noticed that Barton Road has become increasingly heavy with traffic," said Joyce Powers, the city's community and economic development director.

The park-and-ride lot would offer commuters a safe place to leave a vehicle and carpool to work. The city hasn't yet worked out whether commuters would park for free or pay a fee, Powers said.

Stater Bros. is investing $17.5 million to build the 43,000-square-foot market and has acquired property to add up to 80,000 square feet of additional retail space in the Town Square development, the staff report said.

"These people don't mess around," the mayor said. "They already have identified various pads for different types of businesses and are out speaking to prospective tenants."

The new grocery store is expected to add $70,000 in property tax revenue to the Community Development Agency and $35,000 to the city's general fund each year, the staff report states. Those amounts will increase as additional businesses are added, and do not include sales tax revenue from those businesses.

The appropriated funds will be held in a separate account and paid out quarterly, Stanckiewitz said.

Reach Jan Sears at 951-368-9477 or jsears@PE.com

Schwab's House Deal was BOGUS

The House Deal that Tom Schwab, RDA Director and City Manager arranged for himself with council approval was in fact a deal that was done with improper use of the RDA Funds. The home was purchased with Low and Moderate Income Funds, and then transferred to Schwab who in fact was far from qualifying for a Low and Moderate Income Housing of any kind.

This situation was brought to the Attention of our local District Attorney's Office and it was ignored or dismissed. Go Figure.

Well, the City Council finally cleaned up the last bit of that paperwork and Mayor Stanckiewitz remarked so the Citizens who filed a complaint about this situation were correct. The Staff did not want to respond regarding the action of their former boss Tom Schwab, and the City Attorney, said he was not prepared to make an assessment without review of the documents. Hello he was there when the land deal was going down and was negotiated behind closed doors. His judgement stunk then and his comment stunk again last night.

Schwab used his personal position to gain advantage. This is called in most circles corruption and should be a criminal charge sufficient to rid the community of any further obligation to pay for his retirement other than say in a jail.

The Staff is guilty of going along with Schwab's Bad Practices, after all they too enjoyed the inflated top salaries and benefit packages he negotiated for them also behind closed doors. The Schwab Legacy Costs need to be carved down to what the City General Fund can afford, independent of the RDA Funding Scheme he and the past council played.

When there are criminal charges against Mr. Schwab, and he is tried in a court by the State's AG we may be able to put all this behind us and be a city that is self supporting with out an RDA Dependency Problem.

It is time to say to the employees that are paid with RDA Funds, you no longer have that portion of your income and retirement package. Thanks for your service, if you can't stay there is the door. Any City Employee earning more than 50,000 per year is earning more than the Average House Hold Income, (2 people working). Think about it folks. A government can not support such costs if the base is not sufficiently supported. Schwab and the Past City Council has been gaming the RDA system to inflate the cost of city operations. Hold out hope that the new council can get a grip on the reality, and start the real work of building a government we can afford.

Or yes, we should not exist as a city. We will always be a community.

It is Time to Get off the RDA Addiction

Report: Redevelopment cash used for other purposes

Friday, February 18, 2011

(02-18) 15:06 PST Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

Much of the $5 billion a year in property taxes that cash-strapped California sends to cities across the state to promote redevelopment isn't used for that purpose but to fund government employee salaries and pay for other day-to-day operations, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

With California struggling to balance its budget, Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating the state's redevelopment program as a luxury the state can no longer afford. He wants to rechannel that money instead to schools, counties and the state itself.

Mayors of cities across the state have strongly opposed the proposal, saying redevelopment money is something their municipalities can't survive without.

The city of Grand Terrace, for example, uses a portion of its redevelopment money to pay part of the salaries of 14 of its 20 employees, the Times reported.

Without it, the city of 12,000 that is situated between Riverside and San Bernardino might have to disincorporate, said Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz.

"That's how serious this is," he said.

The Los Angeles suburb of Montebello authorized borrowing as much as $19 million from its redevelopment agency last year to balance its general fund budget. It also uses redevelopment money to pay its city manager and other employees.

Huron, in central California, uses the money to pay police, code enforcement and animal control officers.

Other cities that the Times said use redevelopment money to pay salaries include Long Beach, Oakland and San Jose.

In Oakland, the money pays the salaries of 171 full-time employees, including 17 police officers.

Grand Terrace, which was accused of misusing its redevelopment money, is struggling to pay back $4 million.

But other cities justify using the funds to pay police officers and others who work in run-down areas.

The 17 officers paid with redevelopment funds in Oakland, for example, provide safety to that city's most blighted communities, said Mayor Jean Quan.

"People think, oh, you're not supposed to use (redevelopment money) for core service, but (what) if economic development is a big part of your core service?" Quan said.

___

Information from: Los Angeles Times, www.latimes.com

Anti RDA== You're Not Alone

A state money grab that's popular

Posted: 02/20/2011 05:45:34 PM PST

Updated: 02/20/2011 08:39:57 PM PST

A recent opinion poll shows that two-thirds of Californians are on Jerry Brown's side when it comes to his controversial plan to raid cities' redevelopment funds. Should that be a surprise?

At least Brown is honest enough to say that Californians are clueless when it comes to understanding what redevelopment is all about. In other words, let's take advantage of voters' ignorance.

That's hardly a policy to brag about. Even so, Brown has a point. If voters have to choose between redevelopment and public safety or schoolteachers, guess how that comes out.

In case you've forgotten how redevelopment works, let's refresh our memory in simple terms. It's a program designed to clean up blight by allowing cities to redevelop it, often with subsidies to developers, and keep any increased property tax money from the redevelopment area.

Well, how do you define blight? The law is clear, but nobody pays much attention to it, so some high-end projects don't have much to do with blight. For example, as the L.A. Weekly has reported, the L.A. Community Redevelopment Agency plans to spend $52 million for a garage and plaza next to an Eli Broad Collection Museum. So where's the blight?

L.A. isn't the only city, big or small, that's playing loose with redevelopment money. As the L.A. Times reported, the tiny city of Grand Terrace in San Bernardino County has been using redevelopment money to pay part of the salaries of most of its 20 city employees.

That's barely legal. But if they didn't do that, Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz told the Times, Grand Terrace might not continue to exist as a city. (Is that so bad? Why should other public entities be subsidizing Grand Terrace?)

Bigger cities are doing the same thing. Long Beach and Oakland, for example, pay part of their city payroll with redevelopment money, with the excuse that those employees spend part of their time on redevelopment business.

Also, Long Beach used redevelopment money to pay for Port of Long Beach projects because the port had agreed to cover part of the bond payments for Long Beach's Aquarium of the Pacific. Again, where's the blight?

This sort of thing is going on all over California. But cities have a point as well: How is it good for Californians to shuffle money from cities to Sacramento?

The program is full of contradictions. When Brown was mayor of Sacramento, he loved doing big projects with redevelopment money that otherwise would have gone to schools, the county and the state. Now that he's governor, he is trying to get rid of it and, by the way, he even has taken up residence in a loft built by redevelopment.

That's politics. We'd rather see politicians focus on real solutions.

Gramps Adds:

The City of Grand Terrace has set aside $1,200,000.000 of RDA funds to Support Stater Brothers Market in their private development of a new store on land acquired by the threat of the use of Eminent Domain by the RDA. Obligated by contractual agreement the funds to pay off Stater Brothers for doing us the Favor of building in GT will be set aside in a designated fun in an attempt to protect that source of funds. I think on the other hand the State of California should take the City of Grand Terrace and Stater Brother's to court and have the obligation nullified, and not funded.

Low Income Parking:

Folks who have low incomes can not afford to ride the bus to work. It takes 2 hours or more to get to any employment if you are dependent on the Bus in GT. So it is fiction to think that Low Income people can live and work dependent on the Bus. Nope, what can be done is to provide each apartment with a LEV for running errands in GT and Limit the Commuter Car to 1 per apartment.

Parking on Gage Canal should also be a visitor parking option for the Canal Street Apartments being proposed. After All on Dump Day cars and trucks loaded with trash go over the canal. Trash Trucks and other heavy vehicles go over the canal when it is used by City Authorized activities.

The plan should have 2 ways in and out for the Fire and Trash Trucks. The street is wide enough for on street parking. A red curb does not help anyone's safety.

Unlined Drains?

Where are those unlined drains that Stanckiewitz spoke of to the reporter? Are these unlined holes in the ground under roadways where School Buses, Trash Trucks, Delivery Vehicles and family cars travel? If the City Knows of a unlined drain, the Citizens and Drivers in the Community should at least be warned where the risk is.

West Side Park Revisions: NO RESTROOMS

Added from Email: This looks like an invite for the city to be taken to court for ADA violations as Public Parks should have Restrooms and Sanitation Facilities that are ADA ready, if the Park is "Public". A handicapped child using Susan A Petta park may have a law suit being that Children can not go into the Senior Center to use the restroom, yet restroom facilities are available for the "Adult" public.

Well, here we go again. Make a Park you can't use in GT if you have a child or an elder that may need to use a restroom. The Revised Operational Budget of just over 10,000 per year for the proposed park is cut to that in part because the Park Plan has been revised to not include Restroom Facilities.

Well, folks, that makes public health a problem. Your going to have picnic facilities and no place to wash hands and or take care of other human bodily functions.

Is the park going to be called Human Feces and Urine Park? PUBLIC PARKS need to have PUBLIC RESTROOM and HAND WASHING FACILITIES. GADS People... if you are a neighbor to this proposed park your going to have people relieving themselves along your fence line, it will be a stench and a health hazard.

Better, an empty field, than an attractive nuisance of a half facilitated park. Relaying on neighbors to open and close the park is fine, however, will the neighbors be picking up human poop left behind because there are no flushing toilets for public use?

Isn't this like a big ADA Violation being planned to justify spending money to bail Jacobsen out of a property purchase in GT? This park deal smell bad and it looks like it will smell worse in time.

Resolution By Council Support for RDA

Your City Council will be voting on a resolution supporting the continuation of the RDA's of California.

The Agenda for the February 22, 2011 City Council Meeting is now available on-line.

Click Below for Agenda
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/30/02222011.PDF



IF you do not feel that the continuation of the RDA Funding Scheme is a benefit to the State of California and or the City of Grand Terrace, apparently the Staff and Council Need to hear your voices once again. Perhaps it is about time for a Citizens Revolt against the RDA Scheme of Funding that has served the Developer and a few in City Government, but left the public taxpayer paying the inflated bills of the excessive debt financing and salary inflation the RDA Scheme has placed upon the entire state.

It is time to break the addiction to the RDA and the City Council is acting like an enabler to an addict. Sure some of the staff are co-dependent junkies, but it is time the City Council and Mayor step up and say enough is enough, let's get on to being sober. Yes, it will be a nasty hangover and withdrawal.

Oh, Mayor Stanckiewitz I don't think Colton would want to assume your debt, in addition to their own, so don't hold out for South Colton as a replacement plan for Grand Terrace. You were elected to clean up and get beyond the Schwab Mess. Sure, it is tough, but get on with it. Rip off the band aid, stop looking for a bail out, and make the hard cuts. IF there are funds in the future that become available, ok, spend those wisely. But, don't plan on it.

A Starting Point: Going Back to move forward.

Budget Cost equal to the cost of Schwab's Retirement that would have been caused in part by the illegal transfer of funds from the RDA to the City should be removed from the obligation of the taxpayer and state. The same reduction in long term retirement obligations for the Planning Department and Finance Department Heads should also be reduced to represent the amount of their income not funded by RDA Funds.

All stipends and City Council Benefits supported by the RDA funds should be cut to zero.

If the transactions were illegal, those who proposed them and voted for them on the advise of Professional's should be required to repay all funds they received as a result of their action. Even if the funds are fungible, Those who approved 4 million of ill spent money, should have to repay all the funds they received during that time period directly or indirectly or deferred as retirement. Perhaps the City Attorney should also be required to return his fees as he sat by when the transactions were approved, raises negotiated, and obligations and costs inflated, to be paid with ill gotten funds.

GT to become "South Colton"????

Cash to fight blight paying city salaries in California

Strapped for money, some municipalities in the state are skirting the law to draw on redevelopment funds.

February 18, 2011|By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times

Cities throughout California are using redevelopment funds — intended to fight blight and promote economic development — as emergency ATMs to pay for core services, including police, fire and code enforcement, and sometimes the mayor's salary.

---

FOR THE RECORD An article in the Feb. 18 Section A about cities' use of redevelopment money to pay salaries and other general expenses misspelled the name of the Sacramento River town of Isleton as Ilseton.

---

This use of redevelopment money is clearly illegal in some cases, and legal or on the margins in others. Either way, officials in many cash-strapped cities say they have come to rely on redevelopment money to avoid making deep budget cuts.

That helps explain why many are fighting so hard against Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to abolish municipal redevelopment and shift the money to other purposes.

Brown wants to shut down the state's approximately 400 municipal redevelopment agencies and send much of the $5 billion in property taxes they take in each year to schools, counties and the state instead. He has characterized redevelopment, which was created more than half a century ago, as a laudable endeavor that the state can no longer afford.

"Do we take more from the university and start cutting into the public schools?" he asked city officials recently.

The picture looks different to mayors such as Walt Stanckiewitz of Grand Terrace, a small city in western San Bernardino County.

For years, the city stayed afloat by directly transferring money from its redevelopment fund to the general fund — a practice that was illegal and that Stanckiewitz and other officials say they have halted. They are struggling to pay back the $4 million owed.

Even so, the city continues to rely heavily on redevelopment to pay a portion of the salaries for 14 of its 20 City Hall employees.

Like many officials throughout California, Grand Terrace leaders say it is legal because those employees work on things related to economic development.

Without the redevelopment money, Stanckiewitz said, the city would be forced into adopting "doomsday budgets" or possibly into disincorporation.

"We could return to an unincorporated part of San Bernardino County or become South Colton.... We may not exist as a city," he said. "That's how serious this is."

Other cities also have been borrowing or appropriating money from their redevelopment agencies — sometimes skating up to or across the line of what is legal.

Last fall, council members in Montebello authorized borrowing up to $19million from their redevelopment agency to balance the city's $45-million general fund. Redevelopment money also pays for parts of several employee salaries, including the city manager's.

Peter Cosentini, the interim city manager, called it mostly a "cash-flow loan" because the city takes in most of its revenue in the second half of the fiscal year.

He said the funds will be paid back this year as required by law, but acknowledged that the city may have to seek another loan from somewhere else to raise enough money.

In Huron, a hard-scrabble town in the Central Valley, redevelopment money pays for police officers, code enforcement and animal control.

All told, City Manager Gerald Ford estimated that redevelopment money accounts for "between 10% and 20%" of the city's $1.2-million budget.

For years, borrowing or taking from redevelopment funds attracted little notice. Historically, the state has provided sparse oversight of redevelopment, and state and local governments have made little attempt to reign in abuses.

Karen Chapple, a UC Berkeley professor of city planning, has described raiding redevelopment money as a "bad habit," akin to tapping "a slush fund."

But she also noted that it is easy to understand why cities have turned to it. "This is a tool cities use to fill the gap when they are desperate," Chapple said.

Los Angeles officials say they do not borrow or otherwise use their redevelopment funds for core services such as police and fire protection.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been trying to persuade legislators not to eliminate redevelopment, and has proposed a number of ideas including limiting it in communities where there aren't large numbers of people living in poverty.

"We're willing to share the burden [of the state budget crisis], but this is a tool we need to create jobs," Villaraigosa said.

Other big cities frankly acknowledge that they use redevelopment money for basic functions.

Long Beach, Oakland and San Jose are among dozens of other cities that use redevelopment money to pay for the city staff, including police officers, the mayor and city council — a practice officials say is legal because the expenditures confer benefits to blighted areas.

In Oakland, for instance, money from the redevelopment agency pays the salaries of the equivalent of 171 full-time employees in 12 city departments — more than the entire payroll of many smaller cities. That includes the salaries of 17 police officers.

Mayor Jean Quan said the move is justified because the officers work only in blighted neighborhoods such as "the most dangerous parts of east Oakland."

In fact, redevelopment pays half of Quan's own salary, as well as some of the salaries of several City Council members. It also covers parts of the salaries of planners, building inspectors, graffiti patrols, architects and people in the housing department.

When Brown was mayor of Oakland, redevelopment paid 15% of his salary.

"People think, oh, you're not supposed to use [redevelopment money] for core service, but [what] if economic development is a big part of your core service?" Quan said.

In Long Beach, officials use redevelopment money to pay the salaries of the equivalent of 90 people. The city's leaders have found other novel, highly complicated ways to use the funds.

Two years ago as Long Beach was facing a $40-million budget hole, officials decided that the city's port would take over debt payments that the city general fund had been paying on bonds used to build the Aquarium of the Pacific.

Then, the redevelopment agency stepped in and pledged to reimburse the port for public improvements that will be made there. The result: The city's general fund got to keep $14 million over the next three years.

Such creative maneuvers — which officials argue are quite legal — are becoming increasingly common.

La Mesa and Rohnert Park have sold city land to the redevelopment agency and used the proceeds to balance their budgets. San Jose's redevelopment agency pays for improvements to city streets and roads, allowing the city to use the savings for police officers and gang intervention workers.

It is easy for city council members to convince their redevelopment agency boards to go along with these plans — in most cities, the two bodies are made up the same people.

It is not always clear where the redevelopment money goes. A Times review last year of redevelopment agencies' affordable housing funds found that more than 30 cities spent most of their affordable housing money on "planning administration" — and yet never built a single unit of housing.

A state Senate report noted that some cities "paid salaries … with little additional or improved housing to show for the money."

Some cities already have learned that they poach on redevelopment coffers at their peril.

In tiny Ilseton, which sits on the banks of the Sacramento River, officials long paid their bills with illegal transfers of redevelopment funds, despite warnings to stop from a county grand jury and the state attorney general's office.

Responding to state and county audits, a new city manager managed to pay the redevelopment funds back — but the consequences for the town have been profound. The Fire Department is now made up of volunteers and so is the Police Department.

"These are the kinds of cuts cities have to make," said the new city manager, Bruce Pope.

Still, Pope said he could understand the mindset of officials who break the law to put redevelopment money into their general funds.

"They're looking for ways to pay bills and they just started grabbing money," he said. "They just hid it, or started adopting budgets that weren't real. Or [maybe] they thought they were the state of California."

jessica.garrison@latimes.com

GRAMP SAYS:

IT is time to Cut all Budget Plans to reflect ZERO RDA Funds and be done with it. IT it time the City and Citizens and Employees go Cold Turkey and get off the addiction to ill gotten financial scheme called the RDA. Yes some will have to cut their wage packets by half. In addition those after cuts who are getting more than 90,000.00 year should get additional cuts. GT can not afford to pay more than the average income of its citizens to its public servants. It is too bad Schwab ran us into this ditch, but folks here we are and it is time we say get on with it and adjust to the new reality. IF for some reason down the road RDA funds are available, they should be for RDA Capital Investments such as the drains, not wages and long term retirement obligations.

The Rewards of the Schwab Administration & RDA Addiction

GRAND TERRACE: Mayor sees city crisis if redevelopment scrapped

10:00 PM PST on Friday, February 18, 2011

By DARRELL R. SANTSCHI
The Press-Enterprise

Grand Terrace Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz says his city would face "serious consequences" if Gov. Jerry Brown succeeds in closing down local redevelopment agencies throughout California.

"If redevelopment goes away, we are down to considering what we are required by law as an incorporated city, what services, and that's all we would provide," Stanckiewitz said by phone.

Brown has proposed eliminating redevelopment as a way of shoring up the budgets of state-financed programs. Cities, which rely on redevelopment as a way to pay for infrastructure they could not otherwise afford, are showering the state capital with protest letters.

Grand Terrace is using its general fund reserve to pay back about $4.6 million that had been taken from the city's redevelopment agency since the 1990s to balance the general fund, which pays most day-to-day expenses.

"If we didn't have that $4 million debt to deal with, we would weather this," the mayor said of the potential loss of redevelopment money. "But paying back that debt and trying to move forward is almost insurmountable. We are hoping that either this whole proposal gets wiped off the table or some kind of compromise gets worked out and we get some time."

He said the city's dilemma is compounded by the fact that the citywide redevelopment agency raises about $7 million a year and that the money is used to help pay the salaries of 14 of Grand Terrace's 20 employees. The agency is charged for work those employees do on the agency's behalf and none of the city workers receives more than half their pay from redevelopment proceeds.

Stanckiewitz said the city needs to spend at least $20 million on future redevelopment projects, including an overhaul of its storm drain system.

"I've heard stories that they have actually walked through these storm drains underground and the metal casing is gone," the mayor said. "All we have is a circle of dirt. This stuff needs to be addressed. We need redevelopment."

Reach Darrell R. Santschi at 951-368-9484 or dsantschi@PE.com

Joyce Power's Use of Youth to Support RDA Debt Financing Scheme

Joyce Powers is quoted below showing how she thinks the further use of the RDA Scheme of Financing should be defended, exploit the youth and spread fear. To say that a ball park would "Never" be built without RDA Funds, is an error. In good economic times grants are available for parks. Those grants do not create massive debt loads. Those grants can't be skimmed off to pay for excessive city management costs. If grants are not available, a bond measure with specific financing and use of funds could be passed by the citizens. What she and the supporters of the RDA Scheme want is to restrict the control by the citizens, and keep their inflated personal incomes at the expense of the state and taxpayers. Don't let your children be used this way. Bond funds can't be tapped by the state. When every you see the Political Action Committee Name League of California Cities, think, "Promoters of the Use of Eminent Domain for Private Developers", think "More Debt the Better economics", Think, of inflated cost of city management and operations. Joyce Powers is exactly the reason the RDA's must go. IF the RDA's were run prudently and efficiently in the past their abuses may not have strapped the State Government, the bond markets, and the tax payers. Citizens may have had equal rights with developers favored by the RDA/City dealings.

Cities unite to fight state

Leaders speak up for redevelopment

Jim Steinberg, Staff Writer

Posted: 02/14/2011 09:01:46 PM PST

Strategies are taking shape for a two- county group that's lobbying to save redevelopment funding in the Inland Empire.

Letters from children, resolutions from cities, testimonials on Facebook were all part of strategies advanced by the group that began shortly after Gov. Jerry Brown announced his plan to abolish redevelopment agencies.

More than 50 municipal leaders and redevelopment professionals from San Bernardino and Riverside counties met at Fontana City Hall on Monday afternoon for the third meeting of the Inland Southern California Redevelopment Association.

A quarter of the state's redevelopment activity occurs in the Inland Empire, group officials said.

"This is not just a mayor's fight. It's an everybody fight," said Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren. "This is our economic engine."

Last week, Fontana and Montclair joined a growing number of cities passing resolutions opposed to Brown's proposal to ax redevelopment funding.

Colton is likely to add its name to that part of the campaign at this evening's City Council meeting, said Councilman Vincent Yzaguirre, who attended the RDA event.

But Monday's meeting focused on broadening the fight well beyond resolutions.

"Focus on your elected representatives" in the Legislature, Warren told the group.

While the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities are working to counter Brown's proposal, an organization of Inland

---

Advertisement

---

Empire communities and governmental bodies is essential to preserving the region's best interests, said Robert D. Field, the assistant executive officer of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency, who is credited with getting the group started.

John Dutrey, a Montclair council member and an early participant in the regional RDA, warned that the governor has already met with redevelopment representatives from the state's 10 most populous cities and there will soon be another meeting with financial specialists from those agencies.

"People are afraid that the 10 cities will attempt to compromise with the governor, and that may not benefit the rest of us, including the Inland Empire," said Dutrey, who is also Rialto's housing program manager.

He said he would be in Sacramento today to testify about the importance of RDA funding in creating affordable housing.

"Let people know projects won't happen going forward," Field said.

He suggested testimonials about the success of RDA projects on Facebook.

"Use social networks. President Obama showed how powerful they can be," Field said.

"Part of the problem is that people don't understand the importance of RDAs. ... It's not an easy set of laws to understand," said Debbie Brazill, a deputy city manager in Fontana.

Warren suggested getting the clergy involved to spread the word to their congregations.

Joyce Powers, the community and economic development director for Grand Terrace, said she picked up some ideas from Monday's meeting - her first.

One might be to photograph potential players at a Little League field under construction and paid for with RDA funding.

She said it would be good to get the word out that this type of project might not happen again.

* * * * * * *

Notice of Canceled Meeting

City of Grand Terrace

Planning Commission

The Planning Commission Meeting Scheduled to be held on Thursday, February 17, 2011 has been canceled. The next meeting is scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

* * * * * * *

This Needs Public Attention...

This is Important. What is the PLAN to Fix this problem or has CJUSD just built a new Administration Facility in Grand Terrace?

The blog warned about this problem long ago... Proves the suggestion that building a School on or near a former Industrial Site, is not a good idea.

Funding for Roads but not Homes

At the end of January, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that provides funding to ten California counties, including San Bernardino County, to repair roads, storm drains or other public improvements damaged in the flooding. San Bernardino County sustained an estimated $93 million worth of damage. The Homes were not covered by FEMA because fewer than 800 were destroyed.

Budget Revisions Start To Show In Agenda

The City Council Agenda and Staff Reports for the February 8, 2011 City Council Meeting is now available on-line.

Click below for Packet

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/38/02082011%20Council%20Packet.PDF

* * * * * * *
This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx [http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/list.aspx]

BUDGET PARK STATER'S AND MORE OH MY

The agenda and council packet 150 pages long contains some interesting reading.

The first thing that came to my attention is that the Park Workshop was referred to as justification for continued support for the park development. Given that a "Workshop" is being the basis of forming a conclusion perhaps there should be minutes on the record of such workshops. There may be people who do not attend workshops that intend to speak at the Council Meeting during On the Record time, are these people going to be heard in full measure after a council member has declared being convened that the public supports the park's development? Some how all meetings on the topic should be compiled prior to a council member saying there is full public support for a project. Drawing a conclusion early or making such statements are hard to reverse.

The request for an independent appraiser has just been released, yet the budget for the property is in the 800,000.00 area. Is there any land in Terra Loma area that could be purchased and a park built to serve a truly isolated segment of our community.

The second thing that came to my attention is that Debra Hurst has not been given the information she requested. TRANSPARENCY FOLKS..

The third thing is that the hard work of Staff has found a billable item that the City General Fund paid for that can be justified as RDA Expense. Good Going Staff. That helps to fill in the hole that was left behind by bad accountability practices of the past.

The fourth thing is that the Staff has provided more information on the issue of Gov. Brown's plan to end the RDA's and the city's reality in that situation.

Folks the staff is seeing the writing on the wall, and are working to get their heads, and hearts behind that potential reality. City Manager Betsy Adams, should be commended for her efforts to comb through the morass left behind. To be additional challenged with the RDA's immediate demise no doubt adds to the challenge tremendously. Other than Fire, Water, Police, and Trash Contracts. If there isn't money to pay for it, those city services are all subject to cuts if they don't pay for themselves.

The city employee benefits plan was included in this agenda packet. Is it time to go shopping for benefits that fit the budget better? Some of us normal people have had to increase our payments to our insurance costs.

Read These:


This Came In From the Email:

Here is some timely information on RDA's. Karen Renfro, author of the documents, is an long-time advocate for the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies.

1. Of the documents the first page has important information concerning the Governor's proposal with a financial snapshot of RDA assets and liabilities and the fact that the GOVERNOR IS NOT PROPOSING TO PUT AN END TO RDA'S, JUST AN END TO HOW THEY CURRENTLY OPERATE. THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES ARE PROVIDING A METHOD TO GAIN $1.7 BILLION TO FUND CORE SERVICES LIKE PUBLIC PROTECTION AND SCHOOLS. THE SUN NEWSPAPER REPORTED TODAY THAT LAYOFFS TO POLICE WILL BE AVOIDED DUE TO POLICE UNION CONCESSIONS. SCHOOLS ARE DELIBERATING SERIOUS CUTS.

2. The Governor is proposing successor agencies. How they will take shape will be known in about three weeks according to the press and Betsy Adams, GT City Manager,(see the current city council packet for the 02/08/2011 city council meeting)

3. RDA Bonds which are paid by property tax increment revenues are not voted on by the taxpayers. Successor agencies will be required to gain voter approval before any project can incur debt.

There is great debate as to whether RDA property tax increment is a tax. Many agree it is a tax because it siphons money away from other entities that provide needed revenues to allow the state to back fill the funding obligation it has to fund schools.

RDA's have operated with little oversight. State Controller, John Chiang, had the responsibility to collect RDA reports and provide basic information on the activities of RDA's but not their effectiveness.

Thirteen RDA's are currently being audited to quantify their overall effectiveness. Of particular interest to the debate will be if RDA's justifiably create jobs and new sources of tax revenues directly attributable to the project funded. A study, " Subsidizing Redevelopment in California," by Michael Dardia, (Public Policy Institute, San Francisco, 1998) concluded that RDA's property tax diversions to be a net loss.

Respectfully submitted, Blog reader

Crimes & Arrest Feb 2011

This information is available on line in bits and pieces, at http://www.localcrimenews.com/city/1315/Grand-Terrace-crime-news.html Readers have responded to the question do they want this type of post to return to the blog. Yes was the majority reply. So folks. This post will be updated and a new post will start each month. Note, these are arrests and crime reports. Not Convictions. The case follow up information can be found on the San Bernardino Superior Court's web page at http://www.sbcounty.gov/courts/genInfo/openaccess.htm

NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS REQUEST FOR BID # GTB 11-02 CITY PROJECT NO. 12.703 LIGHTING RETROFIT OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.

For more information please visit http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/bids.aspx

Gutierrez, Charles (M/H) of Grand Terrace
Reported On 03/01/11 in San Bernardino County
For Driving Under the Influence
MVC23152(B) DUI Alchole WBAC>.08

Gutierrez, Charles (M/H) of Grand Terrace
Reported On 03/01/11 in San Bernardino County
For Driving Under the Influence
MVC23152(B) DUI Alchole WBAC>.08
The above was reported twice?

Madelin, Ivan (M/H) of Grand Terrace
22275 McClarren St, Verified Address
Reported On 02/27/11 in San Bernardino County
For Driving Offenses
M VC 14601.1 Drive While License Suspended

Markley, Mark (M/W) of Grand Terrace
12196 Country Club Ln, Verified Address
Reported On 02/26/11 in San Bernardino County
For Dangerous Drugs
F HS 11379(A) Transport A Controlled Substance

Granillo, Delia (F/H) of Grand Terrace
22746 Arliss Dr Verified Address
Reported On 02/25/2011 in San Bernardino County
For Dangerous Drugs
F HS11377(A) Posses a Controlled Substance

Bruton, Jesssica (F/W) of Grand Terrace
22111 Newport Ave Spc 127 , Verified Address
Reported On 02/23/11 in San Bernardino County
For Dangerous Drugs
F Hs 11377(A) Possess A Controlled Substance

Paredes, Oscar (M/H) of Grand Terrace
11981 La Crosse Ave Verified Address
Reported On 02/23/11 in San Bernardino County
For Dangerous Drugs
F HS 11377(A) Possess A Controlled Substance

Padilla, Alejandro (M/H) of Grand Terrace
Reported On: 02/22/11 in San Bernardino County
For Driving Under the Influence
M VC 23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

Hill, Garrhet (M/W) of Grand Terrace
22540 Canal Cir
Reported On : 02/21/11 in San Bernardino County
For Unknown
272(A)(1)

Avila, Dino (M/H) of Grand Terrace
11750 Mount Vernon Ave # N187
Reported On: 02/21/11 in San Bernardino County
For Unknown
272(A)(1)

Matus, Richard (M/H) of Grand Terrace
11750 Mount Vernon Ave # n187
Reported on 02/21/11 in San Bernardino County
For Unknown
272(A)(1)

22049 Newport Ave
Reported On 02/20/11 in San Bernardino County
For Assault
F PC273.5(A) Inflict Corporal Injury On Spouse/Cohabitant

22491 De Berry St # M163
Reported On: 02/18/11 in San Bernardino County
For: Narcotics
F HS11352(A) Transport/Sell Narcotic Controlled Substance


Armendariz, Andrew (M/H) of Grand Terrace

11833 Mt. Vernon Ave, Grand Terrace (Verified Address)
Reported On 02/17/11 in San Bernardino County SD
Felony Theft
F PC 487(A) Grand Theft

Gonzales, Philip (M/H) of grand Terrace
11910 Pascal Ave, Grand Terrace (Verified Address)
Reported On 02/16/11 in San Bernardino County SD
For Other Felonies
F PC 3056 Violation Parole: Felony

Cuellar, Aaron (M/?) of Grand Terrace
22655 Raven Way Grand Terrace, (Verified Address)
Reported on 02/13/11 in Riverside County
For Felony Theft
F PC 487(A) Grand Theft Bail, $5000.00

Arroyo, Francisco (M/H) of Grand Terrace
22196 Carhart Ave, Grand Terrace (Verified Address)
Reported on 02/13/11 in San Bernardino County SD
For Vandalism
M PC 594.2(A) Possession of tools to commit vandalism or Graffitti

Yglesias, Vanessa (F/H) of Grand Terrace
Address Not Verified
Reported on 02/10/11 in San Bernardino County SD
For DUI
M VC23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

Martin Bryan (M/H) of Grand Terrace

22111 Newport Ave Apt 69 Not Verified Address

Reported On 02/08/11 in San Bernardino County SD

For Driving Offenses

M VC 14601.1 (A) Drive While License Suspended

Dagnino, Corinna (F/W) of Grand Terrace

22789 Palm Ave Apt E

Reported on 02/07/11 in San Bernardino County SD

For Dangerous Drugs

F HS 11377(A) Possess A Controlled Substance

Roldan, Analiz (F/H) of Grand Terrace (Address Not Verified)

Reported on 02/05/2011 in San Bernardino County CHP

For Driving Under the Influence

M VC 23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

M VC 23152(B) DUI Alcohol W/BAC > .08

Anagnostopoulos, Peter (M/W) of Grand Terrace Verified Address

Reported on 02/04/11 in San Bernardino County SD

For Driving under the Influence

M VC 23152(A) DUI Alcohol/Drugs

Rivera, Daniel M (M/H) of Grand Terrace Age 22

Reported On 02/04/11 in Los Angeles County Baldwin Park CHP

for Driving Under the Influence

M VC 23152(A/B) DUI Alcohol WBAC > .08

Ramirez, Henry (M/H) of Grand Terrace
22558 Robin Way Verified Address
Reported On: 02/03/11 in San Bernardino County SD
For: Selected Traffic Violations
M VC 40508(A) Fail To Appear

Marshall, Ambrose (M/H) of Grand Terrace
12542 Warbler Ave (Verified Address)
Reported on 02/02/11 in San Bernardino County SD
For Vandalism
M PC 594.2(A) Possession of Tools to commit Vandalism or Graffitti


From http://www.SpotCrime.com/ca/grand+terrace
02/17/2011 12:00 AM Theft 123xx Pascal Ave
Bad Check Offense

02/17/2011 12:00 Am Vandalism 221xx Carhart Ave
Vandalism (Graffitti) Felony over $5000.00

02/16/2011 8:41 PM OTHER Barton Rd/Mt. Vernon Ave
Weapon Laws, Felony

02/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft De Soto St/Mirado Ave
Auto Burglary

2/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft 223xx De Soto St
Auto Burglary

2/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft 224xx De Soto St
Auto Burglary

2/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft 127xx Royal Ave
Auto Burglary

2/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft 221xx Raven Way
Auto Burglary Attempt

02/16/2011 12:00 AM Theft 2211 Ladera St
Auto Burglary

2/15/2011 5:16 AM Theft 224xx De Berry St
Grand Theft Auto

2/15/2011 12:00 AM Theft 118xx Mt. Vernon Ave
Grand Theft Auto

2/15/2011 12:00 Am Theft Barton Rd/ Michigan
Petty Theft Under 50.00

02/15/2011 4:50 PM Theft 118xx Mt. Vernon Ave
Grand Theft Auto

02/13/2011 12:00 AM Vandalism Canal St / Carhart Ave
Vandalism Less than $1000

02/12/2011 12:00 AM Burglary 225xx Raven Way
Residential - Unknown Time, Entry by Force

02/12/2011 12:00 AM Theft 127xx Vivenda Ave
Auto Burglary

02/11/2011 12:00 AM Theft Oriole Ave / Pico St
Petty Theft Under $50.00

02/07/2011 12:00AM Theft 118xx Mt. Vernon Ave

Auto Burglary

02/07/2011 7:44 AM Theft 118xx Mt. Vernon Ave

Auto Burglary

02/06/2011 8:37 PM Other De Berry St/ Mt. Vernon Ave

Weapons Laws, Felony

02/04/2011 5:16 PM Theft 117xx Mt. Vernon Ave

02/04/2011 12:00AM Theft 117xx Mt. Vernon Ave
GT Auto

02/04/2011 12:00 Am Burglary 127xxSanburg Ct.
Residential-Unknown Time, Entry No Force

02/03/2011 12:00 AM Arrest 223xx Barton Rd
DUI-Alchohol, Drugs (MISD)

02/03/2011 12:00 AM Theft 227xx Lark St
Fraud, Identity Theft

02/02/2011 12:00 Am Vandalism Canal St/ Newport Ave
Vandalism less than $1,000

02/01/2011 12:00 AM Theft 118xx Mt. Vernon Ave
GTA Auto

City Council/Planning Commision Meeting Still ON

A Joint Public Workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. in the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers. The full notice is now available on-line.

Planning Commision Meeting Canceled.

FROM Email InBox on 2/1/11 Notice Recieved... Notice Issued Jan 27,2011

The Planning Commission Meeting Scheduled to be held on Thursday, February 3, 2011 has been Canceled. The Notice of Canceled Meeting is available on the Website.

Click Below for Notice.

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/archives/45/Notice%20of%20Canceled%20Meeting%2002032011.PDF

Grand Terrace RD Still A Problem CAUTION

From the Email InBox:

The north end of GT road is sort of hazardous. Came around corner, no signs, but is one lane traffic. Ran over a few low-coes to dodge on-coming traffic. No signs nor flagmen.

I think the City is ignoring the State issued booklet at regarding safety.

Ther book was called W.A.T.C.H. booket available via Los Angeles. Stood for something like Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Can only remember that portion of the booklet title, as Sacto recommended that every city and county adopt such, instead of the whole Caltrans design manual, or it would becme a state law.

That was years ago. Because of Poor Safety Practices I had to dodge the grasspickers near to the school on Barton recently. I know that the City of Loma Linda has one booklet fixed to each auto before it leaves their shop area. They call in the Sherriff's department for a ticket, no warnings, if people drive without proper caution.

We haven't had an accident YET!! should not be the justification for lax safety practices.


GRAMPS ADDS:

WHEN DRIVING ON GRAND TERRACE ROAD BETWEEN VIVIENDA AND NEWPORT USE EXTRA CAUTION.

Fill existing buildings and commercial spaces first..

Enterprise Zones should be part of the solution for California. This blog has suggested that all homes in GT be issued a Home Business License and have the citizens be encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to work from their homes. A GT Enterprise Support Group can aid in educating Home Business Operators to keep their business records appropriately and insure that taxes are collected and paid in a proper way.

Enterprise Zones often have more flexible zoning and code regulations for land use. It allows for piece meal development and encourages inovation not duplication. What we see in GT are plans for development that focus on Retail, and basically more of the same type of business that are currently closing or struggling to exist in this economy.

Enterprise Zones do not feed money directly into the City's Budget the way the RDA had in the past. This will force an adjustment in thinking on what is good for a community. It will bring the focus on the job for the citizen, not the percent of cost the city can recover or claim to pay city employees.

The reality is we have to deal with a new way of doing business and governance.

Enterpirse Zone's Maybe RDA's Not on our Dime

A state wide Enterprise Zone would be a good idea. Enterprise Zones function better than Redevelopment Agencies. Often they remove or waive excessive city and county fees that strangle start up businesses from locating in California. How to finance the EZ's administration would need to be detailed. In the states with the lowest unemployment, folks earn less, but, living cost for housing is often much less. So a lower income is sufficient. Until we in California have housing that can be obtained at a reasonable price and employers can find land at a reasonable price, California's economy will continue to be non competitive. Yes, your property values need to drop significantly before we are competitive with Texas or elsewhere.

Make whole state enterprise zone

George Runner

Posted: 01/30/2011 09:32:08 PM PST

The budget recently proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown contains difficult, but much-needed spending cuts. It more or less seeks to balance revenues with expenses - a challenging task for a state confronting a $25.4 billion budget gap.

That being said, Brown's budget is foolish. Why? Because it does nothing to improve California's dismal jobs climate. Instead it would make California even less competitive in the battle for jobs.

For six straight years, California has ranked dead last in an annual survey asking CEOs which state is the best for business. A growing number of businesses are fleeing the state or choosing to expand elsewhere. It should come as no surprise that California's double-digit unemployment rate continues to be among the worst in the nation. We are losing the battle for jobs.

As jobs go, so go state revenues. But most policymakers and academics in Sacramento don't seem to understand that in order to have revenues, we need a healthy, vibrant economy that creates well-paying jobs for Californians. Tax hikes only serve to worsen California's long-term budget woes. Voters instinctively understand this, which is why they've rejected every proposed tax increase on the state's ballot since 2004.

As the newest elected member of the Board of Equalization, a state entity that collects more than $48 billion annually in taxes and fees and handles tax appeals relating to enterprise zones, among other matters, I'm particularly concerned about the governor's proposal to eliminate enterprise zones.

Enterprise zones are one of California's only remaining public policy measures specifically aimed at attracting and retaining jobs. These zones - there are currently 42 statewide - target economically distressed areas of the state with special state and local incentives to encourage business investment and promote the creation of new jobs. Since 1984 these tax incentives have been attracting new investment and allowing private sector market forces to revive local economies and create jobs.

It makes no sense to eliminate these vital economic development zones - we should be expanding them instead. Better yet, we should make all of California an enterprise zone. After all, the entire state is now economically distressed.

Making the whole state an enterprise zone would boost California's economic competitiveness, which has languished in recent years as a result of ever mounting regulations, taxes and fees. It's a tough sell to attract employers when the only thing good about our climate is the weather.

A statewide zone would also do much to silence the critics who view job creation as a zero sum game; these folks think any job created by an enterprise zone is a job stolen from elsewhere in the state.

They're wrong, but let's remove all doubt. Let's enact a budget that makes all of California competitive. Then let's steal some jobs back from Texas. If the governor wants bipartisanship, this is a cause that should unite Republicans, Democrats and anyone else who claims to care about the more than 2million Californians who need a job.

Budgets reflect priorities. California's greatest need right now is for private sector jobs. Our future will be bright as soon as the governor and Legislature make it their priority to attract those jobs rather than drive them away.

George Runner represents the 2nd District of the state Board of Equalization, which includes Bloomington, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Rialto and half of San Bernardino.For more information, visit www.boe.ca.gov/Runner.

City Interest or Staff Interest is the Question

The City's of California that are funded in a significant part by the Redevelopment Agency Scheme are reluctant to define how they can exist without the siphoning of funds from the states coffers. Citizens and Taxpayers need to ask why when facing this possibility are we as citizens not being asked to prepare for the new realities of sustainable or approaching sustainable city financing and services.

Yes services will have to be cut. Citizens or citizen groups may need to rally and provide some of the services themselves. For example. The base ball parks that are for the most part exclusively used by the baseball teams may need a parents group that will organize the mowing of the fields and clean up of the park can be a team effort and part of the practice routine.

The Dog park can be constructed by getting material from CraigsList and labor from Citizen Dog Owners. It is up to the Mayor and City Council of Grand Terrace to request, that such a budget and operational plan be prepared. The Staff will never prepare such a budget or operational plan without being required to do so. Some may even prefer to resign than to submit a budget that would reflect the reality of a pay cut in the 50 percent level or a layoff and shift of service providers back to the County.

A budget with Zero Planning Department, Zero Code Enforcement, and Zero RDA should be written along with the operational plan that would reflect any reduction in staff of the Maintenance Department. Perhaps these services can be obtained either by volunteer effort or by contracted service agreements that would not carry high retirement obligations. Yes this is tough but many of our citizens the taxpayers have faced the same income reductions and loss of retirement value. There is no reason why the governing class should enjoy higher than average incomes and retirements and security than the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.

Code Enforcement and Planning can return to the San Bernardino County Agency that is competent and fair in those fields. Building Fees can be reduced to the levels of the county and this would increase the likelihood that development will take place in a fair and natural course to fit the economic and social needs of the community.

The Staff of Grand Terrace are reluctant to prepare this kind of budget or social reality because it also reflects the reality they want to avoid. Their salaries and retirements need to be slashed by up to 50 percent. It is their Gravy Train that is being reduced in reality. Ask yourselves what Blight has been removed and Redeveloped, vs the Cost of City Employees and their Retirements over the past 30 years of the system being used and abused to finance high salaries and retirement funds for City Management. It is time for it to stop. It is time for the City Council and Mayor to demand Financial Reform and Accountability to what the City can afford and let's work within the available funds that the city is truly entitled. Get off the Extra the RDA Scheme leverages and the Debt bonds and interest that cause the infaltion of property values that result in the inflated business cost that prohibit new business innovation from taking root.

Let's Be Prepaired Like Good Scouts

The good old Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared", should be practiced by our Mayor and City Council. The Citizens and the City Employees should be fully informed of the What IF, IF the RDA is no longer in existence to fund past RDA Actions and Employee Salary and Benefits.

Rather than begging for the RDA's continued abuse of the California Tax Payers and the function of the State Government, there should be a concerted effort by our City Council and those of the other cities to be in the workings of the policy making. Who will acquire land that is owned by RDA's? Under what conditions or progress would a property be sold to offset RDA/State Debt, what would be built out according to plans underway? This is where the Cities with RDA's should be in the trenches resolving between the State and Local RDA's.

Cities have abused the funds, inflated salary and staff and future retirement obligations. All because the League of California Cities a PAC paid for by Large Developers, convinced and trained the City Council Members and Mayors of California to believe that the RDA's are the only way to support a city. The interest paid on the debt, the tax waivers and fee waivers used as inducements all inflate the cost of the RDA. Other agencies suffer from the diverted tax dollars from their budgets, while they have to struggle to function in the inflated economy.

The cost of the RDA's to Non RDA Cities and Agencies are all inflationary and have contributed to the high cost of being in business in California. It is all out of hand, even right here in Grand Terrace. It is time that this City Council face the reality that the RDA will end, and they need to work to make that transition as smooth as possible, rather than trying to hide their eyes in the sand and pretend that the need to get off the RDA addiction is a reality, if not now in the near future.

Objections to RDA not Only from GT Gadflies

The Choir Against the RDA Funding Scheme has added voices. Many Citizens of GT have raised concern about how RDA Funds were used and abused in GT and some have said it was time to end the RDA long before the plans of Governor Brown were disclosed. Perhaps it will be difficult, but just perhaps it is the ethical, and right thing to do. Here are some Non GT Voices of the Choir. Perhaps the readers who discount the comments and concerns of the GT Citizens may get their insight from these other sources.

Daniel Borenstein: Brown is right to disband redevelopment agencies
By Daniel Borenstein
Staff columnist Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/22/2011 09:00:00 PM PST

THE SCREAMS from cities about Gov. Jerry Brown's plans to disband about 400 redevelopment agencies across the state are shameful and hypocritical.

While city officials claim the state is trying to raid their funds, it's actually the cities, using their redevelopment agencies, that have been siphoning billions of dollars from badly needed government services and spending the money on projects that often have little to do with cleaning up blight.

The redevelopment scam, which has turned into a windfall for developers, bond marketers, planning consultants and professional sports teams, has racked up $88 billion in public debt statewide -- without voter approval. It should have been ended decades ago. Kudos to the governor for finally taking it on.

What was presented to voters in the 1950s as a plan to finance new construction in some of the worst slums in the state has morphed into a scheme to indirectly subsidize city budgets. In the East Bay, communities like Oakland, Clayton, San Pablo, Pittsburg, Hercules, Pinole and Emeryville are hogging huge sums of property tax money that should be shared with the county, special districts and schools.

Communities like San Diego and Los Angeles have used the money to fund sports complexes, while Santa Clara is planning to do the same. In Hercules, millions of dollars of redevelopment funds went to consultants who have almost no construction to show for it, Advertisement and to a company owned by the city manager's daughters that, among other things, provided mortgage loans for city employees and a member of the firm.

Indeed, an analysis released in September by a watchdog office of the state Senate found redevelopment agencies around the state that used their money primarily to pay salaries and administrative costs. Worse, a Los Angeles Times investigation published in October found that, "at least 120 municipalities -- nearly one in three with active redevelopment agencies -- spent a combined $700 million in housing funds from 2000 to 2008 without constructing a single new unit ... . Nor did most of them add to the housing stock by rehabilitating existing units.

While advocates claim that redevelopment agencies help bolster the California economy, the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst's Office reported last week that "there is no reliable evidence that redevelopment projects attract businesses to the state or increase overall economic development in California. The presence of a redevelopment area might shift development from one location to another, but does not significantly increase economic activity statewide.

To be sure, redevelopment has helped produce low- and moderate-income housing in many communities, but at a tremendous cost. If the goal is more affordable housing, a more efficient way must be found. Redevelopment agencies as they are currently constructed and funded are not the answer.

Throughout California, property taxes are usually split among schools, counties, special districts and cities. But when a city forms a redevelopment agency, it can capture all the tax growth from that designated blighted area. Gradually, they have to start sharing some of it again with the other local governments. But most of that money goes to the redevelopment agency and can be leveraged to fund improvements within the area and offset city costs for projects there.

Without the redevelopment agencies, advocates claim, there would be little increase in property values and taxes in those areas. It's a bogus argument. According to a 1998 study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, about half of tax increases in redevelopment areas would have happened anyhow.

Thus, redevelopment agencies are collecting money that would have otherwise gone for other critical government services.

Currently, redevelopment agencies capture nearly 12 percent of property tax revenues across the state, or about $5 billion a year.

The single biggest chunk of that money, about $2 billion, would have otherwise gone to schools. But since the state is responsible for funding schools, it's the state that loses that money. That's why the governor is so concerned about redevelopment agencies. With California facing huge cuts in social and health services and the higher education system, it makes no sense for the state to continue subsidizing redevelopment.

Counties are the next big losers, at about $1.4 billion a year -- money that would otherwise go to help provide social services, health care and public protection. Cities lose about $1 billion, but don't look for them to complain because they run most of the redevelopment agencies and subsidize their budgets with some of the money.

Indeed, since the passage of Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax-cutting initiative, cities have rapidly increased their use of redevelopment agencies to grab a bigger portion of the pie.

In 1982-83, redevelopment agencies received 3.6 percent of property tax revenues statewide. Today's it's 11.9 percent.

The distribution is wildly uneven. In Contra Costa and Alameda counties, about 12 percent and 13 percent, respectively, of property tax revenues went to redevelopment agencies in 2008-09, according to the state Controller's Office. Santa Clara and San Mateo counties were below average at 9 percent and 10 percent. But, in San Bernardino County, redevelopment agencies siphoned off 31 percent, followed by Riverside County at 27 percent.

Within Contra Costa, San Pablo's redevelopment agency this year will grab 77 percent of the property taxes collected in that city. Other hogs are Pittsburg (67 percent); Pinole (50 percent); Hercules (37 percent) and Clayton (30 percent). In Alameda County, Union City grabs 25 percent, Oakland siphons off 26 percent and Emeryville captures 77 percent.

With the promised streams of tax revenues as security, redevelopment agencies have borrowed money for their projects. As of 2008-09, they had run up a collective $88 billion in debt, including $35 billion in bonds.

It's an easy way for a local agency to borrow money. Unlike bonds for parkland, school construction or, say, a marina improvement, redevelopment bonds don't require voter approval.

It's time to put an end to all this. Money must be set aside to pay off the debts. But, beyond that, the property tax money should go elsewhere.

Brown is right: California cannot afford its redevelopment agencies.

Daniel Borenstein is a staff columnist and editorial writer.

Reach him at 925-943-8248 or dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com.

AND

Montebello's redevelopment loan draws ire from critics
By Bethania Palma Markus, Staff Writer
Posted: 10/03/2010 05:26:23 PM PDT

As Montebello struggles to balance its budget, the city has turned to a big, if somewhat obscure, source of credit - its own redevelopment agency.

Created in the 1940s, redevelopment agencies allow a city to capture property tax and divert it into an account to fix up blighted areas.

Montebello has created a novel use for its agency - using it to fight blight that hasn't happened yet.

When the city recently transferred $19.3 million from its redevelopment agency to its general operating fund, Interim City Manager Peter Cosentini said Montebello would cease to function without the infusion.

"We wouldn't be able to pay our bills and our people and when you get into that position blight will become rampant," he said. "Clearly the agency benefited from it."

The California Health and Safety Code prohibits "paying for employee or contractual services of any local governmental agency," other than for redevelopment purposes.

"I don't feel it's legal," said Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Brea.

Norby and other redevelopment agency critics argue the agencies' powers are abused by local governments, who they say use the money to do favors for developers and play shell games with public money.

Montebello's justification for using the money was "unheard of," Pasadena-based attorney Chris Sutton said.

The only thing likely to stop Montebello would be a judge's order, which would be triggered by a lawsuit, he said.
Advertisement

"This process is kind of under the radar and until someone gets a court of appeals opinion or the Attorney General's office intervenes they're going to keep doing it," Sutton said. "It's a problem."

To form a redevelopment area, cities must make a finding of blight. Once the existence of blight is established, the city is able to siphon off property tax into an account that is usually controlled by the City Council.

Sutton said cities often skirt the rules.

Pasadena has used redevelopment money to pay police and firefighter pensions while Los Angeles has used funds from its Bunker Hill redevelopment zone for projects outside the project area, he said.

Statewide, redevelopment agencies divert billions of dollars in property tax yearly that would otherwise go to counties, schools and special districts, experts said.

While California is broken up into 58 counties and 478 cities, there were 425 redevelopment agencies as of 2008, according to data from the state controller's office.

In 2008-09, Los Angeles County lost 13.7 percent of property tax revenues that would otherwise go to the county general fund, totalling $428 million.

In 10 years the county lost $2.7 billion to redevelopment agencies, according to county documents.

"There is a concern because it seems to be an ever-growing share of local revenues," said Tom Tyrrell, an attorney for L.A. County. "It's a fiscal stress and there are people who believe it's a very damaging one in light of the already-restricted state of local finance."

If used correctly, redevelopment can benefit communities, said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.

San Diego used redevelopment money to build Petco Park where the Padres play, sparking millions in subsequent investment, she said. The city also used the funds to revitalize a slum in 10 years, she said, bringing in a library, swim center and police station.

"Redevelopment can be a really effective tool for revitalizing urban neighborhoods and community districts but there needs to be greater accountability and greater transparency in the process," Kehoe said. "Sometimes that money is spent elsewhere and it becomes a slush fund that locals can use for projects they can't fund any other way."

Legislators have passed laws increasing oversight on the agencies, but many experts agreed that regulating them is a cat-and-mouse game.

"There are some people who think there should be some sort of state department of redevelopment or administrative appeals mechanism, but those proposals haven't gotten very far because of cost and (the prospect of) establishing a new bureaucracy," said Peter Detwiler, staff director for the Senate Local Government Committee.

Many complain that redevelopment projects tend to benefit large retail chains, lawyers and property appraisers more than residents in the project areas.

Local governments spend millions of taxpayer dollars enticing big-box businesses and auto dealerships to move into their jurisdictions - sometimes at the expense of smaller businesses, Norby said.

"Local government will naturally pick sales tax generators because it's the sales tax that helps their general fund," Norby said. "So we wind up subsidizing these big-box retailers and shopping centers that sell us all this cheap stuff from abroad rather than developing good-paying jobs and our manufacturing base."

A 1998 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found most redevelopment agencies surveyed weren't as successful in increasing property values as they claimed.

And while the public invests in redevelopment, there's no guarantee the projects will flourish.

"It's the worst kind of public partnership in that it privatizes profit while making risk public," Norby said. "If there's private demand for these things, they'll be built anyway, and if there isn't then they have no business going up."

bethania.palma@sgvn.com

626-962-8811, ext. 2108

Read more: Montebello's redevelopment loan draws ire from critics - Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_16244262?source=email#ixzz1CPLXRukf

AND

"Six decades is long enough
After 60 years of abuses, it's time to abolish the 425 redevelopment agencies and the redevelopment law that gave special powers to cities and counties to eradicate blight. Blight is whatever they say it is.
They can take private property and give or sell it to another party. They divert property taxes away from schools, fire, police, parks and libraries. The state has to backfill payment to schools to make up for monies that counties don't have, and taxpayers receive new or increased fees, taxes or assessments.

The Legislature has permitted redevelopment agencies to engage in flood control, housing for low-income families, construction of sports arenas and operating amusement parks. Should our property taxes go to subsidize corporate welfare? Property taxes should go to pay for services for the people: schools, fire and police protection, parks and libraries.

– Karen Klinger, Arden Arcade"

Letters to the editor - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

source: Sacramento Connect

Apartments Planned in the Canal Triangle

Attend this meeting to see the plans. This is a small area for 23 apartments, cars, and a bit of green space. It depends all on design and so forth. There is no rush to judgement on this plan. The location abuts Large 2 Story Apartments and faces the freeway. From what we know now this is a good idea to provide affordable housing for non seniors in GT.

It would be nice to know what the rents would be. What operational controls would be upon the residents? Will the owners provide site security? Laundry? Utilities?

Will the sewage line cross the canal or tap into the apartment's line? Will the construction incorporate Solar PV cells or roof shingles to offset the power costs for the residents and grid demand. Will the apartments have low flow toilets, and all units designed for ADA tenants? What restriction on number of people per apartment? When and if RDA funds or assistance is used it is appropriate to ask these questions. How many fees will be waived by the City Council and at what cost? Will there be ramps from 3 floor to ground to evacuate the people in the event of fire? What kind of construction materials will be used? Will there be an exclusion that prohibits people over the age of 62 from moving in these apartments?

If these questions are all answered well then the apartments are welcome in GT.