Injection of Redevelopment
Posted in the Claremont Forum
#1 Feb 28, 2009
Why would anyone want to recall Anthony Adams he just gave Glendora, California USA $2.6 Million Dollars because he held out his vote for California's State budget, if any doubt is still there after reading this please use http address below and read for yourself page 9 is where you will find the insert for Glendora - Redevelopment monies.
#2 Mar 1, 2009
There was a speaker using the name of MARK SMITH a GLENDORA RESIDENT, that means HE or anyone living in his house and registered to vote in California can NOT, repeat CAN NOT vote in WEST COVINA elections!
SMITH was described in the S.G.V. EXAMINER January 15 - 21, 2009 Page B7 As being grubby and dirty looking and like he could be homeless with long hair and a pony tale and close to 50 years old which fit the man (Mark SMITH) who spoke at the council meeting
SMITH with nothing better to do with his time other than make up LIES and SLANDEROUS remarks while speaking during Public Comment period of WEST COVINA City Council Meetings.
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL
November 18, 2008
MARK SMITH, Glendora resident, asked for support for Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez as the next West Covina Mayor
#3 Mar 1, 2009
Anthony Adam held the key vote (only) to pass California's State Budget (a little late also).
In order to secure his much needed vote for final passage a insert was added to the Budget:
Opening Glendora's Box. Beginning with the 2008-09 fiscal yer, the tax increment limit for Glenodra Community Redevelopmnet Agency's Project Area No. 3 is increased to the greater of either $2.6 million or the gross tax increment it received during 2007-08. That amount may grow each year by the greater of two percent or the average percentage increase in the increment growth in the Agency's other project areas. The 2006-07 tax increment limit for Glendora Redevelopment Agency Project Area No. 3 is just under $2.1 Million.
So while Anthony Adam's held out his vote the days weeks passed as millions of California citizens futures balanced on Glendore receiveing "bail out money" from thier legal obligations and current Law Suit with Los Angeles County v. Glendora Redevelopment Agency, et al.
This is truly sad that for so may millions a very select few in Glendora gained millions of Californians were subjected to misery and fear for their own future.
#4 Nov 14, 2011
The corrupt Redevelopment Agencies decided to rip off the taxpayers.
To keep in business they took out bonds they did not need,to assure that the State would get nothing if they are taken over.
We paid dearly for this corruption.
#5 Dec 29, 2011
Now the budget limitations of LOCAL Police Departments, Libraries, Schools, Fire Departments etc. will be lessend while the RDA that eminent domain private properties, feed funds to fat cat politically connected developers will have to build their structures, the old fashioned way, through the time honored American FREE ENTERPRISE system.
And yes, our 10 Commandments will once again be respected which includes THOU SHALT NOT STEAL THEY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
#6 Jan 3, 2012
What Happens Next:
Moving beyond the technical issues, the real question is what happens to redevelopment obligations and assets.
This will be the subject of considerable discussion in upcoming weeks, but here are a few, bright-line rules people should know.
1) For obligations incurred prior to January 1, 2011, the obligations remain valid and binding.
2) For deals under negotiation when the Supreme Court stay was issued, the redevelopment agencies have no power to consummate the deals.
3) Remaining redevelopment assets will be sold.
4) If the agency transferred any assets to its city/county or another public agency after January 2, 2011, the transfer is potentially subject to ABX1 26's "claw back" provisions.
#7 Jan 3, 2012
The League and Cities went on a raging fit by seeking justice for appeal to the California State Supreme Court, which didn't render in their favor and the Justices sided with the state, which has the full authority to terminate the RDAs.
#9 Jan 23, 2012
If our California state government revives redevelopment, it should be substantially reformed. Allow eminent domain of non-owner-occupied (i.e., commercial, industrial and rental) properties only; don't evict people from their own homes.
#10 Feb 1, 2012
All good things must come to an end, or at least that is what people say.
But what about bad things?
Do they come to an end as well?
Well, if you're talking about Redevelopment Agencies such as Glendora's CRA, the answer is apparently yes.
And not only is it coming to an end, but it is also coming to an end today.
February 1st, 2012.
#11 Nov 19, 2012
On September 24, 2012 the League of California Cities filed a complaint against the state and other defendants, challenging AB 1484, the redevelopment budget trailer bill.
The lawsuit was filed in Sacramento Superior Court and has been assigned to Judge Michael Kenney.
The lawsuit challenges AB 1484 on constitutional and other grounds.
In particular, the lawsuit asserts that the sales tax and property tax clawback provisions violate both Proposition 1A and Prop. 22.
The League anticipates that a hearing date will be held in April 2013 with a decision possibly being issued by next July, 2013.
Add your comments below
|UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10)||43 min||Bruin For Life||27,349|
|CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10)||2 hr||Hello||5,067|
|Dirty tricks GOP (Feb '14)||4 hr||blockers||9|
|CA cities finances open book 2014||8 hr||open book city||1|
|Join the klan to what||8 hr||little town||3|
|CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10)||8 hr||pies||15,993|
|CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10)||8 hr||ploppers||200,936|
Find what you want!
Search Claremont Forum Now