New mayor Schwab on top of the world

New mayor Schwab on top of the world

There are 39 comments on the Chico Enterprise-Record story from Dec 3, 2008, titled New mayor Schwab on top of the world. In it, Chico Enterprise-Record reports that:

Nonprofit manager and sustainability advocate Ann Schwab took up the city's gavel as mayor Tuesday night after the Chico City Council welcomed one face and said goodbye to another.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chico Enterprise-Record.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

Chico, CA

#24 Dec 4, 2008
Randall Stone wrote:
Redevelopment Law allows a local community to keep their property tax dollars local, rather than going to the State.
That is a flat out lie. Property tax dollars never ever leave the county in which they are collected. The State receives no local property tax dollars ever. It is beyond ignorance to say so. It is an incontrovertible fact and to say otherwise is a deliberate lie.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#27 Dec 4, 2008
You are both wrong.

Dale: Redevelopment does not add to the property tax liability. It should be fairly easy to recognize that Proposition 13 which is part of the State Constitution very clearly does not permit the increase of property TAXES. If for no other reason, you should recognize that what you are saying is very clearly not the case JUST THROUGH THE EXISTENCE OF PROP 13. You can argue otherwise over and over again. But the simple fact is (for many reasons), the existence of the redevelopment agency does not increase property taxes. This is not only the case, but would be inconsistent with Prop 13 and in violation of the state consitution. Sorry, but you are wrong for many reasons. RDA funds DO come out of tax payers' incomes...of course, and I didn't say otherwise. I said RDA funds come from PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (which is by taxpayers obviously) and are withheld by a local municipality and kept from going to the state.

Paradise Lost: Sorry, you are wrong too. The state receives a good portion of property tax revenues as does the county (which is almost an organization of the state).

But even more important is the offset by minimum school funding as required by the state. So if property tax revenues are being diverted by the RDA and minimum funding levels are required from the state for schools, the amount that the RDA diverts is refunded by the state. That should be fairly obvious and is one reason why the state doesn't like RDAs...because it costs them money.

It is also evident that most school districts prior to the adoption of statutory pass-throughs specifically exempted themselves from RDA revenue sharing agreements because the deal was better from the state.

So you are wrong Paradise Lost. Property Tax dollars DO leave the county, both directly and indirectly. I think you meant to say it is an "INcontrovertable fact." And you are correct. It is an incontrovertable fact that property taxes go to the State. And in fiscal crisis, the State takes both these as well as RDA funds (as Arnold did). To assume otherwise is to deny the very obvious details of municipal financing. You have grossly oversimplified your understanding of State and local financing. And of course that is the problem here. Both of you have lacked the understanding of public finance and have not examined the actual functions of public finance. There's no spin here. You simply lack the information and are trying to simplify things in your head while ignoring the very obvious (and simple) laws of the state. Read into it a bit more. This is also why there are whole fields of education (both economics and public policy) that relate to these intricacies.

I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just trying to help you understand the laws. We can insert opinion in a further discussion. But what you have listed here is simply not the case and I'm hoping to help you understand the functions of redevelopment.

Since: Dec 08

Chico, CA

#28 Dec 4, 2008
Redevelopment is a scam that lets local government borrow against and thereby spend future property tax. 50% of the money goes to debt service and 20% goes to low income housing.

The state of CA doesn't actually take any of the redevelopment money. The State under AB 8 decides how property taxes are distributed to agencies within every county. The redevelopment money Chico is losing is actually in the form of a check written from the agency to CUSD.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#29 Dec 4, 2008
pypr wrote:
Redevelopment is a scam that lets local government borrow against and thereby spend future property tax. 50% of the money goes to debt service and 20% goes to low income housing.
The state of CA doesn't actually take any of the redevelopment money. The State under AB 8 decides how property taxes are distributed to agencies within every county. The redevelopment money Chico is losing is actually in the form of a check written from the agency to CUSD.
Again, your figures are confused. There is a 20% SET-ASIDE for low income housing. But there's not 50% debt service set-aside. You have confused these figures.

And check out last month's Sac Bee and Chico ER. You will see that Arnold took $1.9 million from Chico's RDA. The California Redevelopment Association has filed suit against the state for the grab. Again, you have tried to oversimplify in your head. This is simply not the case. Now we can argue whether redevelopment is smart, or effective, or appropriate...and that is fair and a reasonable discussion. But it is clear your knowledge of how the CRL is written and implemented is grossly inaccurate.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#30 Dec 4, 2008
It just sounds sexy for you to say things like "debt service" and "borrow against" which is *true* to a point. But it misses the characteristics of the law and become catch phrases because they are "true" to some extent.

Basically what you are trying to simplify is like simplifying the following statement:

Taxpayers pay taxes so that tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) can be offset. While that might be partially "true" (say 0.005% true) it misses the reason for the payment of taxes. It is logically true on the surface but is grossly incorrect. Taxes are not paid solely or even substantially so that the EITC can be provided to other taxpayers. To say otherwise is grossly oversimplifying for the benefit of a single point you are trying to make.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#31 Dec 4, 2008
Randall Stone wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, your figures are confused. There is a 20% SET-ASIDE for low income housing. But there's not 50% debt service set-aside.
You are just stupid. No one said that the 50% of redevelopment dollars that goes to debt service is a "set aside".

Ask some one at the city who they write the check to for the take away. They write it to CUSD just like the last time.

I can not be bothered to further address your straw man augments.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#32 Dec 4, 2008
Randall Stone wrote:
Sorry, you are wrong too. The state receives a good portion of property tax revenues as does the county (which is almost an organization of the state).
There is a simple test for the truth. Don't just say "the state receives a good portion". What percent of the property tax dollar do you contend the state receives? What could be more simple to answer?

The people at the County can give you the property tax dollar split percentages when you give up looking for the State's nonexistent percentages. The County receives less that 10%.
Noticed

Renton, WA

#33 Dec 4, 2008
pypr wrote:
50% of the money goes to debt service
You said it, not Randall.

Take some time to educate yourself before you throw out accusations and false statements.
stephens1949

United States

#34 Dec 4, 2008
Thanks Randall, for what I am not sure, but thank you very much,
and thank you to pypr.
I know it is simple, that is what our new mayor needs to know, taxes are RDA and RDA equal taxes, that people compete for in an unhealthy competition of spend it all to get more of it or loose it. A good example of this is the insanity of over spraying the pubic with toxic chemicals to control insects in Chico's neighborhoods. The Butte County Mosquito Vectors Control fogging people use RDA money by spending it to "stock up" on deadly chemicals that they must eventually use up "to get more" RDA. RDA funding promotes inappropriate behavior here and in school and probably every where it is appropriated, including housing and art. RDA is corruption. Government manipulated and criminal. Over taxation at its best.
Noticed

Renton, WA

#35 Dec 5, 2008
So you would rather we ditch the nice parks and the roads... maybe let a few bridges fall down. At least we'd be richer before this place turned into Stockton!
stephens1949

Chico, CA

#36 Dec 5, 2008
Noticed wrote:
So you would rather we ditch the nice parks and the roads... maybe let a few bridges fall down. At least we'd be richer before this place turned into Stockton!
I read another stupid comment in these post just recently. It read like this,"Answer yes or no, Have you stopped beating your wife lately?"
I hope you do not take my response to you personally, I do not take yous in that manner.
I am not suggesting anything reasonable be ditched. I am suggesting our new mayor use great discretion when thinking of competing with other cities, such as was mentioned in other posts,"Compton" for example, W
when RDA money is being considered as a funding source. For I have no respect for the way its intent has created its own abuse. Its abuse is our abuse. RDA's has an immoral connotation attached to it justified or not and that is "Spend it or loose it" to some one else. To me that is sickening, sickening to us all. RDA taxes consequently are demobilizing.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#37 Dec 5, 2008
stephens1949 wrote:
<quoted text>I read another stupid comment in these post just recently. It read like this,"Answer yes or no, Have you stopped beating your wife lately?"
I hope you do not take my response to you personally, I do not take yous in that manner.
I am not suggesting anything reasonable be ditched. I am suggesting our new mayor use great discretion when thinking of competing with other cities, such as was mentioned in other posts,"Compton" for example, W
when RDA money is being considered as a funding source. For I have no respect for the way its intent has created its own abuse. Its abuse is our abuse. RDA's has an immoral connotation attached to it justified or not and that is "Spend it or loose it" to some one else. To me that is sickening, sickening to us all. RDA taxes consequently are demobilizing.
Vector control does not have anything to do with RDA. Vector control is not permitted to use RDA funds for its mission and objectives. To do so would invite the FBI into the county for an investigation of corruption. Again, I think you are confused about the use and purposes of redevelopment.

But you are right about one thing. You can either keep property taxes local or you can have them go to other communities in the state (say, Oroville). Then those communities can clean up their blight while we in Chico pay for their cleanup. Our schools, police, fire, and everything else stay the same. The only difference is that the money we pay in property taxes goes to some other community or the state. That's the only option. Personally, I'd like to clean up the blight in Chico with Chico property taxes rather than clean up Oroville. Or at least I'd like to fix the blight in Chico *first* before I clean up Oroville, Compton, San Jose, etc.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#38 Dec 11, 2008
Vector control receives a check for operations from redevelopment agencies. Go figure.

We are waiting Stone. What percent of the property tax dollar do you contend the state receives? What could be more simple to answer?

Since property taxes do not leave the county Stone, what percent of the property tax dollar do you contend goes to "other communities"?
stephens1949

Firebaugh, CA

#39 Dec 11, 2008
Ok all I can share is 'HEAR SAY' and what I have heard repeatedly said is that, the Butte County Mosquito Vectors Control Districts new command post north of Chico is being setup and built with Redevelopment funds. As of yet I have not heard it 'repeated' that they are stocking up on toxic chemicals in order to use up their RDA allocation of funds, so as to not loose the opportunity to get more RDA MONEY. I am sick from past chemical exposure and I'am hoping someone else well enough can research out the truth.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#40 Dec 11, 2008
pypr wrote:
Vector control receives a check for operations from redevelopment agencies. Go figure.
We are waiting Stone. What percent of the property tax dollar do you contend the state receives? What could be more simple to answer?
Since property taxes do not leave the county Stone, what percent of the property tax dollar do you contend goes to "other communities"?
As you should know, it is a little bit more complex that just stating the dollar amount. It is a statutory formula that functions with all kinds of exeptions and payoffs from other accounts. And you know this, which is why you would try to have it detailed in such a quip. It is a waste of my time and yours.

I'll leave you with this gem:

This is from the December 8, 2008 issue of the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

"The legislative analyst said in 2005 that redevelopment costs the state at least hundreds of millions of dollars each year. But the actual price tag could easily fall in the billion-dollar range annually."

Or maybe you missed the story last week in the Sac Bee regarding RDA funds diversion from state coffers.

Ooops. Please don't waste *my* time with your petty and silly antics. This should be for the grown ups only. If you'd like to discuss the pros and cons, fine. But to argue that the world is not round is just stupid.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#41 Dec 11, 2008
stephens1949 wrote:
Ok all I can share is 'HEAR SAY' and what I have heard repeatedly said is that, the Butte County Mosquito Vectors Control Districts new command post north of Chico is being setup and built with Redevelopment funds. As of yet I have not heard it 'repeated' that they are stocking up on toxic chemicals in order to use up their RDA allocation of funds, so as to not loose the opportunity to get more RDA MONEY. I am sick from past chemical exposure and I'am hoping someone else well enough can research out the truth.
Okay, you are probably correct about the building construction. I hadn't seen the report or request. But that is a capital improvement and is part of the 20% capital improvements set-aside for RDA funds (as I mentioned in an earlier post).

This same set-aside is being used to pay for the new police station in Chico as well. And it was used to pay the bill on the burn dump (it would have paid for the cleanup itself but ended up paying for legal fees sans cleanup to the tune of the same dollar amount).

So yeah, I guess in a round about way the Vector Control department being an organization arm of the Health Department, can ***as the health dept.*** get a new building through capital improvements RDA set-aside. But the reason they aren't stocking up on chemicals is because that wouldn't be a capital improvement, now would it? That's operating costs...and well....that would be illegal and the state would take back.

"Oh, but I thought pypr said the state doesn't take property taxes." Sure they don't.

Show me your MMP card, piper.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#42 Dec 12, 2008
Randall Stone wrote:
<quoted text>
As you should know, it is a little bit more complex that just stating the dollar amount. It is a statutory formula that functions with all kinds of exceptions and payoffs from other accounts. And you know this, which is why you would try to have it detailed in such a quip.
It is an easy formula known for each county. Last time I looked at Butte County's property tax split it was: Schools 60%[50% plus 10% ERAF shift], cities 15%, redevelopment agencies 15%, Butte County 7% and special districts 3%[vector control, CARD, ect]. The current numbers may be slightly different, however it is a zero sum game. As redevelopment grows the share received by the county, cities and special districts is diminished. The State revives nothing.

You can get updated numbers from the county. It is simple to confirm that the State does not recive local property tax.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#43 Dec 12, 2008
[QUOTE who="Randall Stone/]So yeah, I guess in a round about way the Vector Control department being an organization arm of the Health Department, can ***as the health dept.*** get a new building through capital improvements RDA set-aside. But the reason they aren't stocking up on chemicals is because that wouldn't be a capital improvement, now would it? That's operating costs...and well....that would be illegal and the state would take back.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong figuring. The check that vector control receives from redevelopment agencies is a pass through. Do know what that means? They can spend those funds on operations. The State cannot take the money "back", it never had it.

I don't have a card but I am a member of MORR.

Since: Dec 08

United States

#44 Dec 12, 2008
[QUOTE who="Randall Stone
I'll leave you with this gem:
This is from the December 8, 2008 issue of the Riverside Press-Enterprise.
"The legislative analyst said in 2005 that redevelopment costs the state at least hundreds of millions of dollars each year. But the actual price tag could easily fall in the billion-dollar range annually."
Or maybe you missed the story last week in the Sac Bee regarding RDA funds diversion from state coffers.[/QUOTE]

Stone's logic is faulty. By using an article about one of the problems with RDA he highlights his ignorance.

All property tax stays in the county. Property tax distribution is a zero sum game. RDAs divert property taxes from schools. The State is required to fund the schools to a minimum level. So the State has to back fill the amount of property tax that the RDAs divert from the schools up to the minimum level. That is why the legislative analyst said in 2005 that redevelopment costs the state at least hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Get it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Nine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fitchburg council raises fine for violating sto... Feb '15 Donny Brook 5
News Nine-year-old Lily releases album (Jan '11) Jan '13 MrFlames 6
News 2 shot dead outside Indianapolis night club (Jun '12) Aug '12 Alonzo X 23
News Troy, MO Latest To Ban Bath Salts Used As Drug (Jan '11) Sep '11 Phoenix 13
News Bath salts a dirty business (Jun '11) Jun '11 buddha blazer 27
News Worth wants Werner (Apr '11) Apr '11 Thank You 1
News Nine-year-old G'burg boy the new Prince of Pop? (Mar '11) Mar '11 Colorado Chick 45
More from around the web