If you said no you may be a Twentynine Palms or Sacramento city official, a city manager, a law firm raking in the dough from bond ventures, or from the League of California Cities.
Should the public have a voice and a vote before a city incurs a bond debt?
Should cities be required to obtain a public vote before spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to revamp downtown areas?
If you said yes to both questions, you are likely a red-blooded American and a freedom-loving taxpayers who continues to believe in the democratic process.
Both city officials in Sacramento and Twentynine Palms have manages to stiff arm the public in attempts to keep them at arms length.
They do it because they can. However, the public in Sacramento is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
The City of Sacramento may be forced to obtain a public vote before taking out a $250 million bond to build an entertainment and sports arena at the Downtown Plaza to revamp the cityscape.
This is exactly what the City of Twentynine Palms should have done. Seek a public vote on a measure to decide if the public wanted to execute a 30-year Bond debt to build expensive things and revamp the downtown area with unnecessary and duplicated things.
An attorney in Sacramento working with a citizen group calling for a public vote said — “The city needs to think long and hard and provide a robust debate before it invests significant resources into a project that evidence overwhelmingly shows will not provide economic benefit to the city.”
Sacramental City officials want to execute a debt bond in order to use public finds to build things, very expensive things. Things that cost taxpayer a lot of money, and take a very long time to pay it back. Sacramento officials want to build a entertainment and sports arena to house NBA franchise in Sacramento.
Given the hullabaloo over the the 29 Palms daunting expenditures of taxpayers’s money — “over $577,321.10 of tax dollars which as of today has built or bought nothing” — the 29 Palms City Hall establishment ought to contemplate holding public meetings seeking taxpayers input before spending any any more on administrative costs and attorney on a projects that essentially no longer has a funding source.
The cost of obtaining a public vote in Twentynine Palms was and still is small in comparison to spending “more than $577,321.10 of tax dollars which as of today has built or bought nothing” ( Steve Spear) for administrative costs, consulting fees and legal fees to a law firm with many conflicts of interest.
In spite of 29 Palms city officials predilection for closed meetings and doing things away from the public eye, it’s time for a talk and time for meetings with the public before any more money is spent for attorneys fees, fighting the state or — should money fall from the sky — resuming the very costly Project Phoenix to revamp the downtown area.
Back in Sacramento, Lawyers for the citizen group said they will “back off” its call for a referendum to stop it if the council voluntarily puts a subsidy to a public vote. Many taxpayers are’t very happy with Mayor Kevin Johnson’s push to bond against future city downtown parking revenue and possibly selling some nearby city land for private development.
The Twentynine palms bond commitment is a $31 million pay back range over a 30-year period, while the term sheet for Sacramento is expected to contain a city commitment in the $250 million range.
Note the League of California Cities supports a bill that stiff arms public input on revitalizing cities with public funds. Senate Bill 214 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, removes voter approval altogether. Link here to read article
While the city entered into debt for $31 million and frivolously spent another $577,321.10 for naught, it was done because they can — purposely without a vote or public input.
Any move forward to that end simply has to be done with public discussions and a public vote should funding be secured in furtherance of revamping the downtown Project Phoenix area.
COMMENTARY
Just a side note to your article. The Bill never was enacted. It died September 2012. You are correct the League did support the Bill and here is the legislative summary.
Summary: Existing law authorizes a legislative body, as defined, to create an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities, upon voter approval. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. This bill would revise and recast the provisions governing infrastructure financing districts. The bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for creation of the district and for bond issuance and authorize the legislative body to create the district, subject to specified procedures. The bill would instead authorize a newly created public financing authority, consisting of 5 members, 3 of whom are members of the city council or board of supervisors that established the district, and 2 of whom are members of the public, to adopt the infrastructure financing plan, subject to approval by the legislative body, and issue bonds by majority vote of the authority by resolution. The bill would authorize a public financing authority to enter into joint powers agreements with affected taxing entities with regard to nontaxing authority or powers only. The bill would authorize a district to finance specified actions and projects and prohibit the district from providing financial assistance to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer, as defined. The bill would create a public accountability committee, as specified, to review the actions of the public financing authority.
As you can read above, the Bill would have created, not stiff armed, a public dominated accountability committee.
I did not see a “public dominated” accountability committee. Rather it was proposed that three out of the five members of the particular board be selected from either the council or board of supervisors only two would be “members of the public” and that a majority vote would have prevailed in regards to the sale of bonds.
What Ben is trying to say is that any sale of any bonds should have, and in the event of new legislation, should always be left to a vote of the people by ballot not by commission.
So that would be the “Oversight Committee to Oversee the Oversight Committee to Oversee the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency”?
@ Carey: We have seen how the oversight public accountability committees work in 29 Palms. What is missing but needed is direct public input and voters approval.
It is their money, and they need a final input and a vote for these tens of millions of dollars projects that redesign downtown areas on borrowed bonds.
So, therefore, I contend that the public was indeed stiff-armed when they are intentionally shut out: First by old rda laws, and later by overzealous city officials who could have — but did not — seek public approval or direct input. They did it because they could. The public be damned.
We have seen this in 29 with the $31 million dollar bond and the absurd revamping of the downtown area with a duplicate Community Center and an unnecessary duplicate playhouse.
The public was stiffed-armed and taken advantage of; it continues to exist today while the city council to continue to spending money fighting the state ($200,000 was the latest)on projects that have no funding source.
That is the essence.
Here ye! Here ye! Same crap, different name (RDA/Successor/Oversight). Pissing away tax dollars everyday on crony deals while needed public safety needs go unmet.
What oversight public accountability committee?
Who was on it and when?
He is talking about the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency/City Council.
Carey, Observe this Factoid:
Your last sentence draws reference to “… a public dominated accountability committee. Take a look at the Successor Agency and the Oversight Board — both of which were initiated to wind down the old rda and PP.
Contrary, both are WINDING IT UP so tight the springs may snap.
Another Factoid: During the same period there was another yet similar bill that would have resurrected Project Phoenix from the ashes.
Pérez’s Assembly Bill 2144 was basically the same but it requires voter approval, while Senate Bill 214 by Sen. Lois Wolk, removes voter approval altogether.
– Dan Walters http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/07/4796017/dan-walters-california-redevelopment.html
The League of California chose to stiff arm the public and unwisely endorsed the bill that left the public out in the cold. The League works against the public.
It’s taxpayer’s money, that’s being blown here. So this outcome begs a question. Do any of the city officials responsible really care? The answer is probably not. Elected officials and city hall bureaucrats are able to gamble with taxpayer money with impunity… until we figure out some way to hold these officials and bureaucrats accountable, they will continue to gamble with taxpayer money.
It’s a matter of doing the right thing — the public needs to vote on these matters. Cost-wise, the cost of a city election is very small compared to spending “$577,321.10 of tax dollars which as of today has built or bought nothing.” Need we mention the $31 million debt bond again?
Another factoid: City officials do NOT have to do the right thing and defer to the public. They are so defiant and arrogant, they continue to ignore and violate California laws and judicial decisions. They do it because they can, and the public be dammed.
“To do the right thing you need the right people.”
Branson, we are obliviously talking about two different things. I was not talking about the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency/City Council. I was talking about what SB 214 would have created, a public dominated accountability committee.
The League of California does not stiff arm the public and unwisely endorses just any bill. I challenge you to do some homework first. Look at their website. The League involves many aspects of a community that includes the public so that they are not out in the cold.
Carey, I have checked the League’s website; I have done my homework.
You cannot overcome the fact that League supported a bill that would have stripped taxpayers of a vote and direct input concerning “Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts — pumping life into PP.
With all due respect — and you have earned it — you seem to be comfortable with what’s going on at city hall. Do you plan a run at city council in November?