Here is the transcript of the discussion by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors today regarding suing the state if it takes budget actions that have been described to us relating to gas taxes and redevelopment projects. This is the preliminary transcript taken from closed captioning (real time), so it is still raw -- we won't get the certified transcript for several days.
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky:
MOTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO INTRODUCE A 1 MOTION AND MAKE A
2 FINDING THAT THE INFORMATION CAME TO OUR ATTENTION AFTER THE
3 POSTING OF THE AGENDA. AND IT RELATES TO -- WELL, LAST NIGHT
4 THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS REACHED
5 AGREEMENT ON CLOSING A $26 BILLION STATE BUDGET DEFICIT. AMONG
6 OTHER THINGS, THIS BUDGET IS BALANCED ON THE BACKS OF LOCAL
7 GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY CALIFORNIA'S COUNTIES. THIS INCLUDES A
8 STATE PROPOSAL TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY $2 BILLION FROM LOCAL
9 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND POSSIBLY BILLIONS MORE IN ORDER TO
10 FILL ITS BUDGET GAP. MOREOVER, THE BUDGET DEAL PROPOSES TO
11 EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES BY AS MUCH AS 40
12 YEARS WITHOUT MAKING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDING OF BLIGHT.
13 EXTENDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHOUT A FINDING OF BLIGHT
14 IS A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF LAW AND OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
15 REDEVELOPMENT. UNDER THE LAW, COUNTIES AND CITIES ARE
16 PERMITTED TO USE THE TOOL OF REDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO
17 ELIMINATE BLIGHT BY CAPTURING THE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT THAT
18 IS GENERATED IN PROJECT AREAS AS A RESULT OF REDEVELOPMENT
19 EFFORTS AND REINVESTING THEM IN THOSE SAME AREAS. HOWEVER, THE
20 CONSTITUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW PROVIDE THAT ONCE THE
21 COST OF CURING BLIGHT IN A PARTICULAR AREA IS PAID OFF, ABSENT
22 THE NEW FINDING OF BLIGHT, THE TAX INCREMENT IS TO BE RETURNED
23 TO THE LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTIONS. IT IS THIS LEGAL COMPACT
24 THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ARE
25 PROPOSING TO ABROGATE. THE COST OF THIS SCHEME TO LOS ANGELES
July 21, 2009
26
COUNTY GOVERNMENT ALONE OVER THE NEXT 30 1 YEARS COULD BE AS
2 HIGH AS $24 BILLION, WITH THE NET PRESENT VALUE OF 8.2 BILLION
3 AND WE NOW HAVE FIGURES THAT SHOW THAT THE 40-YEAR COST OF
4 THIS WOULD BE $10 BILLION AT NET PRESENT COST. IT SHOULD BE
5 NOTED THAT THE EXTENSION SCHEME EVEN HURTS STATE REVENUES
6 BECAUSE IT BORROWS FROM FUTURE SCHOOL FUNDING SOURCES, AS
7 WELL. IN ADDITION, IT'S APPARENT THAT THE STATE MAY BE
8 PREPARING TO TAKE AS MUCH AS $1.7 BILLION IN HIGHWAY USER TAX
9 ACCOUNT FUNDS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. THESE ARE FUNDS AT
10 WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DEPEND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
11 MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTIONS.
12 THE TRANSFER OF HUTA FUNDS, THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, WOULD
13 COST LOS ANGELES COUNTY APPROXIMATELY $109 MILLION THIS YEAR
14 AND 82 MILLION NEXT YEAR. IT IS THE COUNTY'S OWN TAXPAYERS WHO
15 HELPED GENERATE THESE FUNDS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
16 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE
17 THE TARGET OF SUCH A HEIST. FOR THE STATE TO BALANCE ITS
18 BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE STATE RESIDENTS MOST IN NEED OF
19 HELP AND THE COUNTIES THAT SERVE THEM, IT'S FISCALLY RECKLESS
20 AND MORALLY BANKRUPT. STATE SPENDING AND SIGNIFICANT TAX GIVE21
AWAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, HAVE BROUGHT US TO THIS PRESSIE
22 PRESS PIECE. IT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF COUNTIES THAT HELP THE
23 DISABLED, THE ILL, THE IMPOVERISHED, AND IT IS ILLEGAL. LOCAL
24 GOVERNMENTS ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR HAVING DONE A FAR MORE
25 RESPONSIBLE JOB IN MANAGING ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS THAN THE STATE.
July 21, 2009
27
SUPERVISOR KNABE AND I ARE JOINING IN THIS MOTION, 1 AND WE MOVE
2 THAT THE COUNTY COUNSEL BE DIRECTED TO FILE A LEGAL CHALLENGE
3 TO ANY ACTION THAT EXTENDS THE STATE'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
4 WITHOUT MEETING ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL
5 REQUIREMENTS. WE FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COUNTY COUNSEL BE
6 DIRECTED TO FILE A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE WITHHOLDING OF THE
7 HIGHWAY USER TAX ACCOUNT FUNDS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT IF AND
8 WHEN THE FINAL BUDGET DEAL INCLUDES THE WITHHOLDING OF THESE
9 FUNDS AND IF IT DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT LEGAL
10 GROUNDS TO DO SO. AND WE FURTHER MOVE THAT THESE LEGAL FILINGS
11 BE MADE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THESE BY THE
12 LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR. THAT'S THE URGENCY OF THIS. WE
13 DON'T WANT TO BE LATE IN FILING THIS ACTION. SO THAT'S MY
14 MOTION AND THE FINDINGS.
15
16 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, MR. YAROSLAVSKY. I'LL SECOND
17 THAT. THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HAVE OBVIOUSLY IS THE MOTION
18 THAT WE PUT TOGETHER ADDRESSES MANY OF THE ISSUES, BUT ANOTHER
19 CONCERN INSIDE OF ALL THIS IS THE POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF THE
20 BUDGET WITH THESE PROVISIONS, BUT ALSO A POISON PILL OF SOME
21 SORT INSIDE THERE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE PROVISIONS OF PROP 1
22 A OR THE TAKING OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS THAT BASICALLY MAKES
23 US LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS FOR PURSUING. SO WE'RE WATCHING THIS
24 VERY CLOSELY. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS YET. AND
25 WHATEVER THE BIG 5 HAS COME UP WITH HAS TO GO THROUGH BOTH
July 21, 2009
28
HOUSES. SO WE WILL BE VERY VIGILANT IN THAT 1 BUT JUST WANT TO
2 BE PREPARED. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY. THE CHAIR WILL
3 SECOND. SUPERVISOR MOLINA?
4
5 SUP. MOLINA: THERE IS A PROBLEM TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OPENLY.
6 AND I GUESS I'D LIKE SOME INFORMATION BECAUSE I WANT TO
7 UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. NOTHING ANY OF US MAY
8 OR MAY NOT KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I GUESS THAT THEY ARE
9 WAITING FOR US TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT? IS THAT PART OF THE GAME
10 HERE?
11
12 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: NOT UNTIL ADOPTED, UNTIL THE GOVERNOR
13 SIGNS IT, BUT, YES, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE POISON PILL IS IN
14 THERE.
15
16 SPEAKER: WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE DETAILS YET IN BLACK AND
17 WHITE, BUT THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD ARE: YES, WE WOULD -- THEY
18 ANTICIPATE US FILING A LAWSUIT.
19
20 SUP. MOLINA: LET ME UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY
21 UNDERSTAND THE SCHEME THAT'S GOING ON TO THEIR BENEFIT.
22 BECAUSE WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS THAT THEY WOULD LEGALLY PERMIT
23 THE PRESENT CITIES THAT HAVE THESE KINDS OF REDEVELOPMENT
24 ARRANGEMENTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, MOUs OR
25 ARRANGEMENTS, TO EXTEND THEIR PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH THEY
July 21, 2009
29
CARRY OUT REDEVELOPMENT IN THE BLIGHTED 1 AREAS, IS THAT
2 CORRECT?
3
4 ATTY. MOUTRIE: THAT'S CORRECT.
5
6 SPEAKER:COUNSEL COUNSEL THAT'. THESE ARE CALLED PLANS AND THEY
7 ARE IN A LOCAL CITY.
8
9 SUP. MOLINA: AND WHAT THAT DOES IS CONTINUES TO WITHHOLD
10 REVENUE FOR US.
11
12 SPEAKER: VERY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE RETURN.
13
14 SUP. MOLINA: RIGHT. WITH THE NEXT SO MANY YEARS. DOES IT
15 EXPAND THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE OTHER PORTIONS OF THESE
16 PLANS, TO INCLUDE OTHER THAN NONBLIGHTED AREAS? AS MANY OF THE
17 CITIES ARE NOW TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO GO AROUND BLIGHT. I
18 MEAN, SOME OF THE CITIES HAVE INCLUDED THEIR ENTIRE CITY TO BE
19 PART OF THE PLAN SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A LONGER PERIOD OF
20 TIME.
21
22 SPEAKER: NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS FOCUSED ON EXISTING
23 PROJECTS.
24
July 21, 2009
30
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: BUT THE FINDING OF BLIGHT 1 DOES NOT NEED TO
2 BE MADE IN THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING AREA.
3
4 SPEAKER: EXISTING LAW.
5
6 SUP. MOLINA: SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE REDEVELOPED THE ENTIRE
7 AREA AND STILL CONSIDER IT "MORE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE"
8 EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE BLIGHTED.
9
10 SPEAKER: PRECISELY. THERE ARE MANY AREAS WHERE THE BLIGHT IS
11 CURED. AND THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT IN PRESENT LAW TO SHOW
12 THAT THAT IS AREA WAS STILL BLIGHTED IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE
13 TIME. SO THIS IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSES TO OVERRIDE.
14
15 SUP. MOLINA: SO IN THAT SCENARIO, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
16 STATE GETS TO HELP THIS DEFICIT.
17
18 SPEAKER: WE DON'T, AGAIN, HAVE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE, BUT THE
19 ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE AGENCY WHICH CHOOSES TO EXTEND ITS
20 PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TYPICALLY BOND AGAINST THAT RIGHT
21 AND TURN OVER SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE STATE, WHETHER IN A
22 LUMP SUM OR THROUGH PROGRESS PAYMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
23 SO, IN EFFECT, TO SHARE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES THAT THE
24 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO DIVERT FROM
25 CITIES, COUNTIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
July 21, 2009
31
1
2 SUP. MOLINA: SO, THEN, IS THIS A VOLUNTARY KIND OF THING THAT
3 CRAS COULD DO? AND THAT IS TO BOND ADDITIONAL FUTURE YEARS?
4 AND THEN WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS TAKE THAT MONEY AND GIVE IT TO
5 THE STATE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS EXTENSION? IS THAT
6 THE TRADE?
7
8 SPEAKER: THAT'S OUR ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WILL BE PART OF THE
9 DEAL. THAT IS WHAT WE EXPECT. WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THE
10 DETAILS.
11
12 SUP. MOLINA: AND SO WHEN WE FILE THIS POTENTIAL SUIT, WHICH I
13 AGREE WE SHOULD, IS IT BASED ON WHAT ASPECT? OF THE CURRENT
14 CRA LAW THAT YOU MUST HAVE A BLIGHTED AREA? THAT THESE PLANS
15 NEED TO BE APPROVED "BY THE COUNTY"? ARE THEY TOSSING OUT ALL
16 ASPECTS OF REDEVELOPMENT LAWS? IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING?
17
18 SPEAKER: THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
19 INCONSISTENT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WHICH AUTHORIZES
20 REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH DECLARES THAT WHEN YOU
21 HAVE PAID OFF THE COST OF CURING BLIGHT, THE FUNDS THAT WERE
22 USED FOR THAT PURPOSE RETURN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THAT'S A
23 PRINCIPLE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN IN LITIGATION AND SUCCESSFULLY
24 LITIGATED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES LAST
25 YEAR. SECONDLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THESE EXTENSIONS ARE A CLEAR
July 21, 2009
32
VIOLATION OF PROPOSITION 1 A, THE PROTECTION 1 OF LOCAL
2 GOVERNMENT REVENUES ACT. SO WE THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO FAIRLY
3 STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT
4 OVERRIDE BY THIS SCHEME.
5
6 SUP. MOLINA: AND IN THE PRESENT PROPOSAL, AND I'M NOT SURE OF
7 ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSAL, DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE
8 RIGHT NOW A BORROWING AGAINST 1 A, WHICH IS PERMITTED? IT DOES
9 NOT?
10
11 SPEAKER: I DON'T HAVE THAT DETAIL. I'M SORRY. I TAKE THAT
12 BACK. AS WE UNDERSTAND THIS STRUCTURE --
13
14 SUP. MOLINA: BECAUSE THEY'RE PERMITTED TO BORROW, CORRECT?
15
16 SPEAKER: THE PROP 1 A CONTAINS A PERMITTED BORROWING. OUR
17 UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAPPEN TO
18 CHALLENGE THIS SCHEME SUCCESSFULLY, IT WOULD THEN TRIGGER A
19 PROPOSITION 1 A BORROWING.
20
21 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THAT'S THE POISON PILL I'M TALKING
22 ABOUT.
23
24 SUP. MOLINA: THIS IS JUST A TAKING.
25
July 21, 2009
33
SPEAKER: IT'S 1 A COVER FOR --
2
3 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: AND MAKE US LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS. BY
4 SUING, IT TRIGGERS THE TAKING OF PROP 1 A AND THE HUTA FUNDS,
5 AND WE'RE IN ESSENCE, BECAUSE WE SUED, THEY CAN SAY -- THE
6 COUNTY, IT WON'T JUST BE US, BUT THEY CAN SAY THE COUNT DIZ
7 THIS. IT'S THEIR COVER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH
8 THE ISSUE.
9
10 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THERE'S SOME LEGISLATORS, GLORIA, IF I CAN
11 JUST INTERJECT, THERE ARE SOME LEGISLATORS WHO DON'T WANT TO
12 BE RECORDED AS HAVING TO TAKE LOCAL FUNDS USING PROP A, AND
13 THIS IS THE SCHEME THEY HAVE DEVISED. THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING
14 TO GET CHALLENGED. THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE. AND SO
15 THEY TIED THIS POISON PILL, THAT IF THEY DO LOSE THE LAWSUIT
16 ON THE REDEVELOPMENT, IT TRIGGERS THE PROP 1 A BORROWING. AND
17 SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO DON'T WANT TO BE RECORDED AS
18 VOTING FOR IT CAN SAY WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
19 ABSOLUTELY.
20
21 SUP. MOLINA: IT TRIGGERS A BORROWING MECHANISM FROM 1 A, OR
22 TAKING?
23
24 SPEAKER: BORROWING. THEY MUST REPAY THOSE FUNDS EVENTUALLY TO
25 COUNTIES.
July 21, 2009
34
1
2 SUP. MOLINA: SO IS THAT CONDITIONED IN THIS PRO POOZ POSAL, DO
3 YOU THINK?
4
5 SPEAKER: YES, THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. YAROSLAVSKYIANS AND I
6 WAS ON THE PHONE UNTIL MIDNIGHT LAST NIGHT WITH FOLKS WHO WERE
7 KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT THIS PACKAGE IS. AND THE TRIGGER
8 LANGUAGE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE IN THERE.
9
10 SUP. MOLINA: AND IN THIS PROCESS, WE'VE -- RIGHT NOW, THERE
11 ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT GET MADE WHOLE, RIGHT? IS IT JUST THE
12 SCHOOLS? THERE WILL BE OTHER AREAS THAT WILL BE HURT BY IT
13 BESIDE THE COUNTY, RIGHT?
14
15 SPEAKER: CORRECT. CERTAIN SPECIAL DISTRICTS. IT'S PRINCIPALLY
16 COUNTIES, STRICTLY SPEAKING, LOCAL CITIES WILL SEE DIMINISHED
17 DOLLARS. BUT OF COURSE THOSE ARE TYPICALLY THE SPONSORS OF
18 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, SO THERE'S A BENEFIT THAT THEY MAY TIE
19 UP THEIR FUNDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE IN
20 CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO IT'S A COMPLICATED COST BENEFIT.
21
22 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BUT THE EXTENSION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
23 AGENCY ALSO WOULD BE A TAKING FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
24
25 SPEAKER: IT WOULD.
July 21, 2009
35
1
2 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: IT WOULDN'T BE EXEMPTED.
3
4 SPEAKER: ON THE CONTRARY. IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS TO
5 STATE FUNDING OVER THE -- IN THE FUTURE YEARS, WHEN THIS
6 SCHOOL FUNDING WOULD OTHERWISE BE RESTORED. SO, YES, LOCAL
7 SCHOOL FUNDING WILL BE PREJUDICED.
8
9 SUP. MOLINA: WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BEING A POLITICIAN
10 MYSELF, IS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL VALUE TO ANYBODY
11 TO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY THAT MAKES NO SENSE, THAT HAS A LARGER
12 IMPACT IN THE LONG RUN THAN THE SIMPLE BORROWING MECHANISM
13 THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO THAT'S THE PART THAT I DON'T -- I
14 THOUGHT THIS WAS IN ADDITION TO A BORROWING MECHANISM. IN
15 OTHER WORDS, SO MUCH OF THE BUDGET WAS GOING TO BE CONTAINED
16 ON BORROWING SO MUCH FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE
17 SAYING -- AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. SO RIGHT
18 NOW, THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE A BORROWING? IT
19 DOES?
20
21 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: NO. JUST A TAKING. NOT A BORROWING.
22
23 SUP. MOLINA: SO THAT'S WHAT THEY SUBSTITUTED FOR THIS. THANK
24 YOU.
25
July 21, 2009
36
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: BUT ONCE WE FILED A 1 LAWSUIT AND WE'RE
2 SUCCESSFUL, THEN IT WILL SWITCH TO THE BORROWING.
3
4 SUP. MOLINA: I UNDERSTAND. AND WHY NOT JUST DO IT CLEANER? I
5 DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME GOING ON AND WHAT VALUE THAT HAS TO
6 ANY POLITICIAN. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS -- AND I HAVE ONE OF THE
7 CITIES THAT CREATED REDEVELOPMENT LAWS, CITY OF INDUSTRY. AND
8 AS WE ALL KNOW, THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UTILIZING THE WHOLE
9 CITY AS A REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. AND THEY HAVE NOT WANTED TO
10 FOLLOW THE RULES FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME,
11 UNFORTUNATELY. AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS -- IT'S BAD
12 ENOUGH THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THINGS DONE IN SACRAMENTO. BUT
13 WHEN YOU UNDERTAKE KIND OF CORRUPT MECHANISMS LIKE THIS, IT
14 REALLY UNDERMINES IT ALL. AND IT PUTS US -- INSTEAD OF
15 BORROWING WOULD HAVE BEEN A SENSIBLE SOLUTION. I MEAN WE WOULD
16 HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOUGH FOR US. AND
17 WE ARE PROBABLY IN THE END OF THE DAY GOING TO GO THERE. BUT
18 WHY GO THROUGH THIS KIND OF MECHANISM? IT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY
19 KIND OF POLITICAL COVER FOR ANYBODY THAT I COULD POSSIBLY
20 UNDERSTAND OTHER THAN FEEDING INTO A SYSTEM THAT CAN BE VERY,
21 VERY CORRUPTING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FOR CITIES. I MEAN, SOME
22 OF THESE CITIES UNDERTAKE UNBELIEVABLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
23 THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD IN THE FUTURE THAT DON'T MAKE THE MONEY
24 THAT THEY THINK ARE GOING TO MAKE, THAT DON'T EVEN REMOVE THE
25 BLIGHT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THEY CREATE MORE BLIGHT ALONG
July 21, 2009
37
THE WAY. THEN I THINK THAT THAT, 1 IF NOTHING ELSE,
2 REDEVELOPMENT LAWS SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED IN MANY AREAS
3 INSTEAD OF LOOSENED UP LIKE THIS. I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
4 A REAL DISADVANTAGE IN THE LONG RUN SHOULD THE COURTS PERMIT
5 THIS TO HAPPEN. WELL, I THINK IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION
6 THAT WE'RE IN. BUT YOU THINK THEY'D BE MAKING BETTER DECISIONS
7 THAN THAT.
8
9 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: I THINK THEY WERE HOPING THAT WE DIDN'T
10 DISCOVER THE POISON PILL UNTIL AFTERWARDS, UNTIL THE
11 LEGISLATION WAS SIGNED AND THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED AND SIGNED
12 BY THE GOVERNOR. AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DISCUSSION AHEAD OF TIME,
13 I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. YOU THOUGHT THAT THEY'D BE A LITTLE
14 MORE UP FRONT ON HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE WE
15 ALL KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN A STATE OF DISARRAY UP THERE. BUT
16 THEY'RE HURTING, AS WELL, TOO. AND WE'VE SAID FROM THE VERY
17 BEGINNING WE DON'T MIND BEING A PARTNER, BUT LOOK AT THINGS
18 LEGITIMATELY. MAYBE THERE'S THINGS THEY CAN PASS THROUGH THAT
19 WE CAN DO DIRECTLY AND CUT BACK ON THE SIZE AND SCOPE AND COST
20 OF STATE GOVERNMENT.
21
22 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND THE CITY OF INDUSTRY IS BEHIND PART OF
23 THIS EXTENSION OF THE CITY OF INDUSTRY PROPOSAL. I THINK WE
24 ALL KNOW.
25
July 21, 2009
38
SUP. MOLINA: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY 1 COULD COULD DOUGH.
2 THE CITY OF INDUSTRY IS ALREADY GOING TO BE PROVIDING ALL THE
3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, POTENTIALLY FOR THE STADIUM. OTHER THAN
4 OUT-AND-OUT FINANCING IT.
5
6 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS
7 HAS GONE BAY BEYOND WHAT THE CITY OF INDUSTRY WANTED. IT'S WAY
8 BEYOND WHAT THE CITY OF INDUSTRY. THEY WERE JUST LOOKING FOR
9 STRICTLY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME.
10
11 SUP. MOLINA: SOMETHING SIMPLE.
12
13 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: YEAH.
14
15 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THEY GOT MORE THAN THEY BARGAINED FOR.
16
17 SUP. ANTONOVICH: QUESTION, MR. FUJIOKA? HOW DOES THIS IMPACT
18 THE FIRE DISTRICTS' FUNDS? BECAUSE THEIR FUNDING IS FROM A
19 SPECIAL DISTRICT.
20
21 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: IT WILL HAVE A DEFINITE IMPACT ON OUR FIRE
22 DISTRICTS TO THE EXTENT WE DON'T HAVE THAT DETAIL RIGHT NOW.
23 ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE
24 GOVERNOR OF THE BIG FIVE IS THAT THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN
25 ESSENTIALLY EMBARGOED. AND SO UNTIL WE GET THE DETAIL FROM
July 21, 2009
39
SACRAMENTO -- BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE SOME 1 OF THE LEGISLATORS
2 EVEN HAVE --
3
4 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT UNTIL THIS MORNING.
5
6 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING EVERY POSSIBLE RESOURCE
7 WE HAVE TO GET THE INFORMATION. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT HAS BEEN
8 EMBARGOED. BUT GIVEN THAT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT LIVES ON
9 PROPERTY TAXES, IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT
10 IMPACT.
11
12 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BUT I HEARD YESTERDAY, WITH SOME FOLKS
13 THAT HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT UP THERE, THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING THE
14 HAULS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT MAY GET A LITTLE BIT
15 BETTER DEAL THAN THE REST OF US. WE'LL SEE.
16
17 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WE STILL NEED THAT DETAIL.
18
19 SUP. ANTONOVICH: WHAT IS THEIR TIMELINE TO ALLOW THOSE
20 IMPACTED BY THEIR DECISIONS THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE
21 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO THE VOTE?
22
23 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WE THINK INFORMATION WILL COME OUT IF NOT LATE
24 TODAY, EARLY TOMORROW. THE VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR AT LEAST, TO
25 THE EXTENT WE KNOW, SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY. AND SO OUR STAFF
July 21, 2009
40
IN SACRAMENTO AND STAFF HERE -- AND 1 I'M SURE FROM YOUR
2 RESPECTIVE OFFICES, WE'RE CALLING EVERY CONTACT WE HAVE TO GET
3 INFORMATION. AND WE'VE BEEN CALLING CONSTANTLY THROUGHOUT
4 TODAY. AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOMETHING BY TONIGHT. VERY
5 FRUSTRATING. THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BUDGET THAT HAVE
6 EQUALLY STRONG IMPACTS TO US. AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM,
7 I'LL TALK ABOUT IT.
8
9 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION,
10 BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD THROUGH THIS MORNING, THAT THE
11 REDEVELOPMENT PIECE AND THE EXTENSION TO 40 YEARS AND THE
12 TRIGGER LANGUAGE IS PART OF THE PACKAGE.
13
14 C.E.O. FUJIOKA: YES. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
15
16 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO I MOVE IT.
17
18 SUP. KNABE, CHAIRMAN: BEEN MOVED BY SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY.
19 THE CHAIR WILL SECOND. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
20
21 SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: PICK UP ITEM NO. 4, MR. ANTONOVICH'S MOTION
22 WITH ME.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment