tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394711926853801811.post8837992800360356312..comments2024-03-27T23:29:04.889-07:00Comments on The Emeryville Tattler: 'Transit' Center Project Mysteriously Missing from Emeryville Capital Improvement Presentation Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394711926853801811.post-57976074532037485402014-03-03T10:01:31.542-08:002014-03-03T10:01:31.542-08:00Thanks as always for your observations. How can d...Thanks as always for your observations. How can developers such as Rich Robbins, Wareham, continue to get largesse? Many of Robbins projects have been disastrous; think of the Terraces where residents spent years living in long-term hotels because his buildings were not livable. In fact take a look at the list of new housing already undergoing renovation in the city. Residents continue to get shoddy housing and poorly executed office space regardless of how much they pay for it. It's time for Atkin, Brinkman and Davis to stop voting for these favored sons and start thinking about the residents' needs. The deal baby deal days for the developers must end! Remember to hold these three accountable at election time: Brinkman runs for reelection this year. We must stop the 3-2 votes for large companies and developers. Look for candidates who fight for the rights of residents and make this a resident friendly city.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8394711926853801811.post-69208041257006209412014-03-03T09:19:08.272-08:002014-03-03T09:19:08.272-08:00"...when Sacramento declared Redevelopment Ag..."...when Sacramento declared Redevelopment Agencies illegal state-wide last year."<br /><br /><br />No one in Sacramento declared redevelopment agencies illegal. What the California Supreme Court ruled in 'California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos' was that the Legislature's abolishment of redevelopment in ABx1-26 was permitted but that the Legislature’s reestablishment of redevelopment in ABx1-27 under a scenario where redevelopment agencies would make payments to the state to be allowed to continue operation was not permitted. <br /><br />In a bit of Orwellian logic, the Court determined that since the voters had overwhelmingly supported Proposition 22 which protected redevelopment agencies from State raids, that the Legislature could not reenact redevelopment under this exact scenario. Thereby leaving the Legislature’s abolishment of Redevelopment in place, but leaving the Legislature powerless to reenact it, while at the same time raiding the system. <br /><br />It was not the intent of the Legislature to eliminate Redevelopment nor the intent of the voters who overwhelmingly supported it in 2010. However, the Court nonetheless ruled that these two factors had inadvertently conspired to eliminate billions of dollars of investment each year in our communities (not to mention over one billion dollars each year generated for affordable housing – funding which has yet to be replaced.)<br /><br />Also, this didn't happen last year. 'California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos' was decided in December 2011, but that's a minor point. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com