Town Square

Future of Danville's redevelopment agency unclear

Original post made on Jul 2, 2011

Assembly bills X1 26 and X1 27 could effectively wipe out Danville's redevelopment agency (RDA), which saw revenues of $1.6 million in the 2010-11 fiscal year. Under X1 26, RDA will be prohibited from several actions, including incurring debt, making loans and adopting or amending redevelopment plans. Those agencies that do not comply with X1 26 will be dissolved on Oct. 1.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 1, 2011, 4:35 PM


Like this comment
Posted by Earl Richards
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 2, 2011 at 2:59 am

If the RDA funds are not saved, then, the funds will probably end-up, either directly or indirectly, into an offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands, owned by a bunch of Goldman Sachs/Wall Street dirtbags.

Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 2, 2011 at 7:16 pm

Dear Editor,

Redevelopment funding, in general, needs more explanation of its intended usage and why communities merit such funds. The history of redevelopment funding is clouded and defies application to redevelopment. The story provided from press releases is lacking in definition of purpose, history and results.

Alamo is fully aware of misuse of our local parcel taxes to benefit Danville specifications for development. Alamo does not use Hap Magee Ranch Park but our parcel taxes support Danville's usage.

As you look into the scope of development and redevelopment you will find questionable usages of state and other regional funds in Danville.

This story deserves more than a press release.

Like this comment
Posted by Rufous
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 4, 2011 at 3:01 pm

The municipalities should not be in the business of real estate development. Private enterprise is best suited to take risk and meet real estate demand. Public funds should not be used to build anything; shopping centers or "affordable housing" projects. These same funds in the hands of private enterprise would produce many times the financial returns to the local community afforded through the municipality. This is another California specific fiasco.

Like this comment
Posted by Building owner
a resident of Danville
on Jul 5, 2011 at 11:33 am

Greedy landlords? I own a commercial building in downtown Danville and now subsidize the rents of my tenants whose incomes are down by paying building costs that were once covered by their rents. As noted, this is the way the market works. Guess what? With the town now in the commercial real estate business, you and I as taxpayers will be subsidizing the businesses the town brings in to rent in their new building by renting at below their (our) cost in order to get some kind of income which is better than no income. Like it or not, now you too have become a "greedy landlord" and will be subsidizing with your tax dollars what the market ought to be allowed to control but what instead, the town with its limitless coffers, can manipulate. Furthermore, the town will give itself permission to sidestep the building requirements all private developers must abide by. They will allow themselves to overlook parking requirements, build to the lot line, do whatever is necessary to satisfy their immediate building needs to the detriment of the surroundings. Look at the Veterans Hall. If you want a different mix of shops, ask the town to devote its resources to do something other than compete with the taxpayers who already have invested in making the downtown work.

Like this comment
Posted by Ron Thompson
a resident of Stone Valley Middle School
on Jul 5, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Building I guess you like the evaporation of RDA funds, me too, not sure what your point seems the days of you competing with the Town are over...but I must say, to your point, let the market dynamics unfold. To all speculators who thought they could simply make money by flipping properties and charging outrageous rents to our fine merchants I hope you guys get a haircut, as you said "let the market work"....Quizno's is vacant and they are a canary in a coalmine...

Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Jul 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm

@ Building Owner-
I'm not sure exactly how much per square foot you can get (in the 2.75 to 3.50 range I'm guessing?) and I realize it depends on the size & amenities or your space, but Ron's not entirely wrong in that there are few poor commercial landlords - and plenty of them were or are speculators.
When I've used the phrase "greedy landlord" in this forum, as I have done more than once in the past, I have specific entities in mind. For example, AMG Management, who own the Livery. These fine capitalists have left spaces vacant for YEARS at a time rather than lowering their rates, and I cannot see how this isn't an example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. But I am not implying that this is the case with you, Building owner, and I may agree with your point about competition from the City of Danville. It will depend on what they decide to rent the few run-down spaces for I suppose. Keep your chin up though; none of us want to see high vacancy rates downtown. I had not even realized Quizno's was gone.

Like this comment
Posted by jrenee
a resident of Danville
on Jul 8, 2011 at 7:50 am

I don't necessarily know all the details about RDA, but I do know that we have known for the past year or so that these funds were at risk in most communities - why is it that other communties 'made some changes' in how the funds were designated (no not to the Cayman Islands)so that the 'Gov't' could not take this money?

Maybe we need elected officials who understand more about what is going on the world outside of beautiful Danville.

Like this comment
Posted by BusinessOwner
a resident of Danville
on Jul 11, 2011 at 8:48 am

AMG Management = [Removed]