Roski's quote was directed at AEG's stadium plan, claiming it would cost over a billion in taxpayer subsidies. However that was not fact, rather it was just a man angry he is going to be beat to the punch lashing out at his tormentor.

Sorry, my original phrasing was unclear - I just rewrote it.

Wouldn't now be the time to take the bum's rush approach?

"Ladies and gentlmen, if we don't do this RIGHT NOW, we'll never be able to."

At one point, the powers-that-be in Sac were also considering using redevelopment funds for the new Kings arena, er, sorry, sports and entertainment facility that the Maloofs would control 100% of the time/rail platform as well. So I think it's likely we'll get the bum's rush to get this all done before July 1, too.

I am not shocked about Jerry Brown and RDA's. He will tax and cut everything possible, except education spending, no matter how painful the results will be. On education, he actually called "Education a "Civil Right", which even goes beyond the rhetoric of the Teacher's Union.
If he is successful, you will see every sports team in California go right to the back of the line, when it comes to the funding of new or even upgraded sports facilities (Even behind the Tampa Bay Rays & New York Islanders), and perhaps worse, you may even see more and more businesses (Such as the Hollywood Studios), shift operations right out of the State. This was hinted at by Warner Brothers, during the last election.
The RDA issue's future (Which goes way beyond sports), will be determined by Senate & Assembly Democrats in Southern California (Particularly in the LA, Hollywood & Burbank areas (The home of the Big Studios)). Its outcome, will give everyone a good idea where the future of PRIVATE business will be when it comes to California. If they give in to Brown, then they will essentially give the finger to PRIVATE job expansion in the State.

Indeed. The legislature won't go for it (not if they want to get reelected). The state unquestionably needs to make cuts, but no one has the cajones to stand up and say out loud where the cuts need to be from (welfare and pensions) also for fear of not getting reelected.

Dan, I certainly hope you are right. But I am really worried about the future of California, when I see clowns like Brown, Quan, and that AWFUL Attorney General who I choose not to mention the name of (Who falls to the left of Mercury), actually get elected. When it comes to RDF's, if it is just the power of the Teacher's Union and environmentalists, that can be overcame IF the Legislators become worried about actually being defeated in elections (While knowing the Pelosi no longer has the power to bail out their bad decisions). If on the other hand, they are true anti-business Socialists, then they will actually drink the Brown Kool-Aid (Like Democrats did for Pelosi on a number of issues), not caring if Warner Brothers shifts operations to Florida, and Silicon Valley shifts their technology dollars to New York and North Carolina. If that occurs, you will see a sports-team REVERSE Gold-rush out of the State, starting with the Kings, A's & Raiders (San Antonio anyone?).

Actually David Brown, I think RDAs are an example of crony "soviet" style capitalism. I was ambivalent about Brown's election (I voted for neither him nor Whitman); however I think his RDA proposal is a great first step. Here in Santa Clara it may help the city from a financial calamity.
I think sports teams should be able to operate without the subsidies of a RDA (which are to me socialism towards ball players and owners).

Jay, in a theoretical sense RDA's are not morally right. However, the "Real World" is not Berkeley or Stanford. If you look at a project of just about any type, there are about five steps involved from initial idea to completion. 1: Idea. 2: Design Phase. 3: Contract. 4: Construction. 5: Finished Product. There are quite a few things that can derail the project along the line, they include stuff like: Financing, Regulatory Review, Legal Challenges, Cost Overruns, Zoning Changes, Strikes & Lockouts, Environmental Issues (That almost stopped the renovation of Cal Stadium), Protests, Changes of Goverment, and countless others. You can debate the merits of a project (Like the Niners Stadium), and if people don't like it, that is what we have elections for. But if you get rid of RDA's, "You throw the baby out with the bath water", creating a hostile climate for business (See how much non-Goverment construction and job creation Berkeley has? See the chilling effect on restaurants that banning "Happy Meals" will have in San Francisco?). Would I like to invest in either one of those cities? Unless you give me reasons why I should (Instead of taking them away), I would not.

Jay, in a theoretical sense RDA's are not morally right. However, the "Real World" is not Berkeley or Stanford. If you look at a project of just about any type, there are about five steps involved from initial idea to completion. 1: Idea. 2: Design Phase. 3: Contract. 4: Construction. 5: Finished Product. There are quite a few things that can derail the project along the line, they include stuff like: Financing, Regulatory Review, Legal Challenges, Cost Overruns, Zoning Changes, Strikes & Lockouts, Environmental Issues (That almost stopped the renovation of Cal Stadium), Protests, Changes of Goverment, and countless others. You can debate the merits of a project (Like the Niners Stadium), and if people don't like it, that is what we have elections for. But if you get rid of RDA's, "You throw the baby out with the bath water", creating a hostile climate for business (See how much non-Goverment construction and job creation Berkeley has? See the chilling effect on restaurants that banning "Happy Meals" will have in San Francisco?). Would I like to invest in either one of those cities? Unless you give me reasons why I should (Instead of taking them away), I would not.

Here is an interesting little tidbit for Jay and all of the people who hate RDA's. The lack of NEW sports-related projects, that have actually broke ground. There are nine under current construction, and seven of them will be finished this year (Only the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, NY, and Miami Ballpark, in Miami, Fl will be finished in the future). This is of course, just sports. Think of all the other projects (Many badly needed and worthy, and NOT sports related (The Federal Courthouse in Nashville is just one example. Note this: Nashville is currently number two on the list of ready to build courthouses but needs $200 million to start the work)), that are simply not getting off the ground, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. We need to encourage development, not hinder it, and getting rid of RDA's will do just that.

Well, our state controller, John Chiang, has now ordered an audit of 18 of the state's RDAs, including some of the largest, such as San Jose and LA. We'll see what he says regarding the benefit of RDAs.

In our city of Santa Clara, the city council is also the redevelopment agency. There is no separate body of individuals making decisions, and no system of checks and balances. This is also the case in other cities.

Here's what his news release said:

�The heated debate over whether RDAs are the engines of local economic and job growth or are simply scams providing windfalls to political cronies at the expense of public services has largely been based on anecdotal evidence,� Chiang said in a news release. �As lawmakers deliberate the Governor�s proposal to close RDAs and divert those funds to local schools and public safety agencies, I believe it is important to provide factual, empirical information about how these agencies perform and what they bring to the communities they serve.�

Actually, David, K-12 education in California has borne the brunt of cuts the past few years, that's why Gov. Brown didn't cut K-12 yet this year (although if he doesn't get what he wants in terms of taxes this coming June, K-12 could be cut again). And education has been cut drastically this year at the community college and CSU/UC system level. Our district had a massive layoff of K-12 teachers last year and increased class sizes from 20 to 1 to 30 to 1 in K-3 and 9th grade English and math.
Meanwhile, the Santa Clara and San Jose RDAs bleed our school district of 25% of its budget - $35 million - each year. Go to the San Jose Mercury News website and do a search on the San Jose RDA to see how well managed it is - you'll find that it's not well managed and it has huge financial problems.

David,

By citing in your last post a Federal Courthouse in Nashville as a good RDA project, you are tacitly admitting that sports related projects are of dubious value.

That's kind of my point...

I'm not saying that all RDA projects everywhere in the county are pure waste. It just seems to me that there needs to be far more oversight of bureaucracies that give the impression of their principal Raison d'etre their own self preservation.

Think about the amount RDAs drain from schools in Santa Clara. If this wasn't happening the SCUSD wouldn't have to beg for parcel taxes and we could maintain smaller class sizes.

Encouraging development is a noble idea, but the RDA's are about the worst possible way to do so. They're in the pocket of private developers, and projects are often picked on profitability and not what's best for the community. For example, the LA County RDA tried to ram through a bill last session (with future LA mayoral candidate Felipe Fuentes riding shotgun) that would have expanded the definition of blight to include such ridiculous parameters such as the local obesity rate, essentially making any part of the county open to eminent domain. Gox. Schwarzenegger let it die on his desk, much to the dismay of the developers.

CA faces many financial issues, but the pension problems have more to do with future unfunded liabilities than current costs. Several of the state's largest unions, including the firefighters and state troopers, have made big concessions. Even the Peace Officer Association, notorious for blocking reform, is willing to play ball. It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Moreover, the state is exactly in the middle of the pack in terms of money spent on state employees/state GDP. It's impossible to balance the budget on the backs of the state employees - there's simply not enough money there.

Currently, no other state faces a bigger gap between federal money paid out and money received back in the state (in fact, if CA were on a 1:1 ratio of federal dollars given/received, it'd have enough money to cover its shortfall). The proposition system has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to run roughshod over the Assembly and to have voters pass their pet projects - less than half of yearly discretionary spending is controlled by the legislature. For instance, the "3 strikes law," passed in the mid-90's, is why spending on prisons is larger than on education in the state, despite having done nothing to reduce crime.

Finally, enough with this "private business is leaving CA" crap. Movie studios are the same as sports teams - they rattle their sabres and threaten to leave if they don't have their handout. Problem is, states that have subsidized filmmaking (Louisiana and Michigan in particular) have lost hundreds of millions - even though they attract studios, they're not enough to offset the cost of the tax subsidies. Not to mention, CA doesn't place creative restrictions on what studios can produce (such as the aforementioned states or Florida) and isn't affected by inclement weather - the talk of moving the entire industry are hollow threats.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your rantings. Everyone knows that when you CAPS certain POINTS, it makes them STRONGER. It certainly doesn't make you come across as an ignorant nitwit.

One of the biggest problems with the California entire education system are all of the illegal aliens, who suck up not only hundreds of $$$$$$$$ from taxpayers (See LA), but make it much more difficult for kids in impoverished areas (Compton, East LA, etc), to get a quality education, because of overcrowding, gang violence, etc. If you did not have those problems, there would be enough $$$$$$$ for a quality education for those who want it. The way that liberals choose to handle that problem, is create "Sanctuary Cities" (Like in San Francisco), while raising taxes, and hurting business and the middle class, to support those people who have no business being here.
As far as businesses, studios and teams leaving, it eventually will happen if they have to operate in an environment where they cannot effectively make a profit, and compete against other firms. Guys like Brown and others who are anti-business, don't give a damm if the company is named Oakland A's, Sacramento Kings, Warner Brothers, or Intel, if they are not public sector or "green", they are not for them (Which is why they want to get rid of ALL RDA's, not just those that would benefit the Chargers, A's, Raiders or Niners).

This whole thing about "business climate" reminds me of the articles a few weeks back from the Chicago Tribune about how businesses were going to flee Illinois for Wisconsin because of the new (temporary) higher tax rates. One was especially weird because it was about a dry cleaners - I was under the impression that they were in Illinois because Illinoisans needed clean clothes, and don't especially want to send out to a neighboring state. Likewise, I suspect that most California businesses are there because there's a big whopping market to cater to - a restaurant in San Francisco isn't going to move to Reno just because the regulations are looser there.

I happen to agree that a restaurant will not move from Frisco to Reno, because of regulations alone. But other factors, such as projected customer base, tourists, crime, taxes & wages have to also be considered when deciding if you want to create a new business, or even expand your current operation.
Taking this back into the sports realm, if I am a team like the Oakland A's, why would I want to play in a dump such as the Coliseum (Sharing it with the Raiders#, while the defending World Series Champions are right across the Bay in Spanking AT&T Park. If I can't go to San Jose #Or even remain in Oakland in some kind of an improved facility), why should I remain in California? The answer is they should either move or be colsolidated.

I happen to agree that a restaurant will not move from Frisco to Reno, because of regulations alone. But other factors, such as projected customer base, tourists, crime, taxes & wages have to also be considered when deciding if you want to create a new business, or even expand your current operation.
Taking this back into the sports realm, if I am a team like the Oakland A's, why would I want to play in a dump such as the Coliseum (Sharing it with the Raiders#, while the defending World Series Champions are right across the Bay in Spanking AT&T Park. If I can't go to San Jose #Or even remain in Oakland in some kind of an improved facility), why should I remain in California? The answer is they should either move or be colsolidated.

You'd want to stay in the Coliseum in order to have access to the Bay Area market, even if you're second fiddle. It's not like there are a lot of big markets outside California sitting empty. Or that MLB is going to throw a lot of money at Wolff to make the team go away. (If contraction would even survive the inevitable antitrust suits, which is doubtful.)

It seems apparent to me that the curtain is finally being pulled back, OZ like, on RDAs. Naturally, there is going to be squealing; below is a letter from Santa Clara's mayor and city manager addressed to Governor Brown.

Our city council and professional staff have been absolutely fixated on getting the 49ers their stadium for the past four years. This is beyond obvious. However, note in the letter that there is no mention of a stadium-only affordable housing.

The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Brown:
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara,
we express our Opposition to provisions in your January 10, 2011 Budget Proposal which
proposes to eliminate redevelopment agencies in California. Eliminating this program in cities
across the State not only violates the will of the people, but will have grave consequences on
California's economy. It will have an extremely negative affect on the City of Santa Clara's
economic development as well as affordable housing projects.
Last November, California voters approved Proposition 22, once again reaffirming the message
they have sent to California again and again: local funds should remain local and pay for services
and programs in their own communities. In doing so, they prohibited the state from requiring a
community development agency to remit property tax to or for the benefit of the state or any
jurisdiction directly or indirectly.
Redevelopment is an essential tool for the State's economic recovery historically and over the
long term. Redevelopment is a tool for building and improving communities. In doing so, it
spurs job growth and taxes and is the most significant provider of infrastructure, urban
development and affordable housing to meet local needs compared to any other tools available in
the state.
The City of Santa Clara recognizes that this represents one of the toughest State budget proposals
in history. Our city is also facing very tough budget times. We are trying to maintain local
service levels with reduced staffing and other resources because it is important to the community
and to our long term economic vitality. However, taking local funding � particularly funding that
creates such a great number of jobs, fuels economic growth, develops affordable housing and
rebuilds communities � is imprudent.
We strongly encourage you to consider the constitutional and economic implications of
attempting to eliminate redevelopment. We look forward to working with you to find solutions
that will address the state's fiscal problems while also supporting cities economic growth.
Sincerely,
Jamie L. Matthews Jennifer Sparacino
Mayor/Chairman City Manager/Executive Director

There is no question that the San Francisco/Oakland market is large, but numbers alone can be quite deceiving. You have to look at such factors as fan base, attendance, ratings & merchandising. For example: In baseball the Pittsburgh Pirates are a small market team dwarfed by teams like the New York Yankees. On the other hand, the Penguins (In the same Pittsburgh market as the Pirates), are a large market team, when compared to the New York Islanders. As far as going out of business is concerned, I do not see how any team (Or business) can be forced to remain in business, if it chooses to go out of business (Unless the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically says they cannot). If I am the A's ownership and I believe my choice is spending the next 20 years in "Mount Davis", lucky to draw 15,000 people a game (Essentially remaining an orphan franchise (Like they have for the past Century)), or simply folding up, selling my assets and going out of business, I would choose the latter.

"The City of Santa Clara recognizes that this represents one of the toughest State budget proposals in history. Our city is also facing very tough budget times. We are trying to maintain localservice levels with reduced staffing and other resources because it is important to the community and to our long term economic vitality."

If Santa Clara is having such difficult financial times, what makes them believe they can afford to own a stadium?