A report card on Fremont RDA coming soon. The report card will be written by people who are paid by the same agency they are supposed to be critical of. . . . . how does this work ???
http://www.tricityvoice.com/articlefiledisplay.php?issue=2009-08-05&file=Edit... Defining.txt
Editorial: Defining an amendment
In simple terms, an amendment modifies an existing law, ordinance, contract or motion. The existing framework may be changed in a multitude of ways and at times, amendments can completely change the initial intent and structure of the original document. Political processes are famous for this type of subterfuge in which a proposal's title bears little resemblance to the final submission.
Real estate experts know that it is often less expensive to "remodel" than completely raze an existing building and rebuild. At times, an addition is far more extensive than the original structure. In effect, it is new construction in disguise. Why the subterfuge? It is a matter of economics since plans, permits and inspections cost a lot of money. Whenever these can be avoided or reduced through remodeling, an incentive exists to simply "amend" what already exists.
The same idea can be true for political entities. It is much easier to amend an existing law or agency than create a new one. In recognition of the burden placed on an original document and its relevancy after years of societal change and amendments, cities are asked to create new General Plans at regular intervals. Since this is the primary blueprint of growth and organization, it makes sense to do this. Without the requirement however, the Plan can become cumbersome, inadequate and woefully out of date.
The same concept can be applied to redevelopment agencies. These are formed for specific reasons yet often lose track of their goals as time passes. Original targets of blight may be redefined or simply ignored as money is diverted for other purposes. Without a basic examination and restatement of progress toward the central reason for the redevelopment agency the same objectives may be left in place without any progress; the agency may continue to exist and even expand without paying attention to its original intent.
Fremont's Redevelopment Agency is currently working toward an amendment to increase the capitalization of debt to $1.5 billion. This is not a whim since the amount of money is huge and the existence of the agency is at stake. Over the last two years, a team of consultants have been working to "prepare the necessary documentation required for the Plan Amendment." This group includes attorneys, financial consultants and an environmental consultant. Recently, the agency board (i.e. city council) approved an additional $72,600 to extend an existing service agreement with Seifel Consulting, Inc.
A staff report notes that "The proposed Amendment No. 2 will bring the total amount of the original contract, executed in 2002, to $457,600. This is a significant sum, but I guess when reeling in another $1.1 Billion for the agency, what is a measly half million dollars? The only problem with this rationale is that we, the people, our children, grandchildren and so on will be paying the tab through future taxes. If money is spent wisely, this may be acceptable but is that the case?
The State of California has become much more attentive to the massive amount of debt represented by redevelopment agencies. Fremont's entry into the billion dollar league is certainly something worth examining. The State Controller's Office has asked for comprehensive financial reporting from all state redevelopment agencies. Economic uncertainty also adds to the mix. With these additional complexities, Seifel "had to provide an updated analysis of physical and economic blighting conditions remaining in the redevelopment districts."
A Preliminary Report is scheduled to be released later this summer leading to a Final Report to be distributed by the end of 2009. It is these reports that should be of high interest to Fremont citizens. Upon examination, will they reveal significant progress toward eliminating blight or restatement of original targets that were not accomplished with the first round of funds? What will be defined as blight and how much of these funds will be used to actually do something rather than study it?
Can an amendment simply disguise the same old structure and, if so, is it worth the cost? Redevelopment reports due this year will tell the tale.
Home
Pages: 1
Fremont Redevelopment Agency (Read 2620 times)
