Alameda Point: All the protections in place
So to get back to last week’s Measure B meeting of the City Council and School Board. I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith), last Tuesday’s meeting will be included in the list of places where City Staff stepped away from their legally required neutrality and fell head first into advocacy by presenting inaccurate (or more specifically, incomplete) information to the City Council, the School Board and the citizens of Alameda.
High on that list is the less-than-tight rope walk that staff did in ignoring the controls that the City Council holds over this project after the vote, including the ability to keep the project from moving forward. I checked in with an expert on redevelopment law, former Assistant City Manager David Brandt, who re-confirmed to me that it’s the DDA that controls what happens to the development and not the DA.
The city’s presentation ignored this even in the face of direct questions from Boardmember Spencer about SunCal’s ability to transfer the land with no say from the City. The City said “yes,” but that’s not true.
The DA allows for the transfer of the development rights, but the land transfer will be handled in the DDA, where the ARRA (aka City Council) can, as they have in other land agreements, make sure that they have oversight in what happens to the land, including approvals of transfers.
Look the dirty little secret of this initiative is that it does not cut the City out of the process moving forward. The only way that could happen, again confirmed with David Brandt, who knows this process inside and out, is if the city sends a cardboard box in to negotiate with SunCal.
On February 3, the City Council (those who aren’t against everything) will have an opportunity to put their money where their mouths have been. Either the initiative passes, whereby the council needs to take control of this process and get it done, or it fails and the council needs to back up their “support for the plan” by using the final 5 months of the ENA to negotiate a deal.
Popularity: 1% [?]
dave
January 13th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro
dlm
January 13th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
David Brandt may not be the best person to quote (for SunCal’s purposes). Here’s what he said as quoted in East Bay Express article:
http://alamedapointinfo.com/stories/east-bay-express-changing-rules-alameda-point
“Brandt characterizes the scope of the initiative differently. “If you’re going to do it, might as well grab everything you can,” he said.
Of particular concern to Brandt are the financial provisions included in the development agreement, especially the $200 million cap on the developer’s obligation to pay for public benefits. That obligation is contingent upon the city providing funding through redevelopment mechanisms overseen by agencies not party to a development agreement. Brandt said the approach is novel. “I don’t know that the way that they’ve drafted it is per se illegal,” he said, “but I’ve never seen it done before.”
In addition, the details of the public benefits that SunCal must provide are unusually vague, says Brandt. “Typically, in a negotiated agreement, you would have it much more buttoned-down on both sides so that everybody knew what the obligations were. And the money part wouldn’t necessarily be in the development agreement.” Instead, those financial details would be spelled out in a separate “disposition and development agreement” — a document that also would cover the nitty-gritty specifics of timeframe, funding, performance guarantees, and the actual land acquisition and is expected to be negotiated by SunCal and the city’s redevelopment agency after the election. But with such language up for a public vote, the financial details would become binding upon passage of the initiative, and Brandt said the city’s redevelopment agency would have to negotiate a disposition and development agreement “under the sort of shadow of this whole initiative”
And here’s a link for other Express articles (and a site w/ loads of info as well):
http://alamedapointinfo.com/search/node/east%20bay%20express
John Knox White
January 13th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
And yet, just last week, he said that while it’s not perfect, he feels that if the initiative passes, the city has all the protections it needs in the DDA process, including the ability to negotiate on the caps.
You’ve trotted out that old article numerous times and presented it as meaningful in contexts that it’s not relevant.
Would he have rather the caps not be in the DA? yep. Is it a deal killer I asked him? “no” was his response.
Liz Williams
March 5th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
What an astonishing waste of time this website is. I’m sorry to be so harsh, but good God, man: Find another dead horse to beat.
Sun Cal lost the election. Overwhelmingly. Time to move on.
John Knox White
March 5th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Liz, I’d recommend not reading it then. By the way, the post was written nearly two months ago, week’s before the election.
Have a great weekend.