Somewhere way back in the murky past some nitwit City Council had a bright idea for raising some easy money. They would take various City properties, unencumbered and fully paid for, and sell them to the Sierra Madre Community Redevelopment Agency. Which, since that cash was fronted property taxes courtesy of Sacramento, technically means that some of our City's finest real estate treasures would then belong to the State of California. But no matter, because everyone knows that CRAs will be with us always, and nothing bad ever happens here, anyway. It's like found money, man. Don't harsh on it.I believe that is how people talked back in the 1970s.
So this free cash was then apparently used to build our current City Hall, plus the structure next door that houses the Police and Fire Departments. A building which would then, of course, also belong to the CRA. But again, all we'd have to pay is a little bit in bond service, plus some other negligible incidentals. So what is there to sweat about?
Move ahead around 40 years or so to this golden moment in time, and the one thing that everyone said would never happen, just happened. The State of California is now calling in all of its redevelopment markers, which means that everything belonging to CRAs such as ours now belongs to them. And since it is technically their property, secured by a vast treasure in state property taxes, they want it all back. They desperately need the dough.
Over on Bill Coburn's site, where many of this City's current embarrassments are to be found, you can access a City of Sierra Madre Community Redevelopment Agency Agenda Report, dated May 24, 2011 (click here). And what this fine document states is the solons of our governance, who then comprised the full Gang of 4 City Council, planned to transfer all of this CRA controlled property from that Agency and back to the City of Sierra Madre. And just as easy as winkin' and blinkin' all those properties would once again belong to the City. Safe and sound.
And why would they be going through this dubious exercise? Because Sacramento was threatening to fire its Redevelopment Agencies all across the state, in the process reclaiming that which is technically theirs. Which includes all properties owned by the CRA, including Sierra Madre's City Hall. And our City Council, by transferring CRA owned properties back to the City, hoped to somehow protect them from the unpleasant prospect of being sold later by the state to the highest bidder. Or so they believed.
You can see that the City of Sierra Madre currently does not own its own City Hall by running a report on its assigned Los Angeles County Assessor ID number, which is 5768-020-905. It shows a recording date of May 23, 1975, with the dollar value registered as $0. That's right, a goose egg of no monetary value. All the CRA owned properties do, actually. And why is that? Because none of them belongs to the City of Sierra Madre, they belong to the CRA.
But did the City Council, wearing their Community Redevelopment Agency hats, safely transfer all of that property back to the City last May? Maybe not. Here's the problem. When the California Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the state's CRA rake back, they did not recognize May 24 as being a valid date for such protective transfers. The date they included in their decision was 1/2/2011, or nearly 5 months earlier than Sierra Madre's attempt to shelter itself from the storm.
Which means that the preventative transfer Mayor Buchanan put so much faith in was late, and therefore not at all useful. According to that State Supreme Court decision, City Hall, the Fire and Police Stations, plus a number of other properties in town, now belong to the state and not us. And apparently Sacramento, hoping to raise as much revenue as possible, is planning on selling all of them in the open market.
And whoever told Buchanan, Mosca and those other folks that they could run this little title switch operation and somehow keep CRA properties from being sucked into the black hole that is Sacramento's financial operation, was either clueless or taking these poor fools for a ride. If they had been doing their job properly they would have done this in 2010, when there was still time. But I guess they were too busy inventing tall tales about the reasons for raising our water rates to have noticed what was really going down.
Below are the Sierra Madre CRA properties that are likely to go on the block this year. Maybe if the new owners are nice they will let the City rent some of that space. And if not, then I guess going forward City Council meetings could be held at the band shell in Memorial Park. Except when it rains, of course.
Assessor Parcel Number 5767-021-900 - 186 W. Highland (the "Old Church")
Assessor Parcel Number 5767-039-900 - 70-84 Esperanza
Assessor Parcel Number 5767-023-901 - Portion of the Mariposa Parking Lot
Assessor Parcel Number 5768-020-905 - 242 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard ("City Hall")
Assessor Parcel Number 5768-020-910 - City Hall Parking Lot
Assessor Parcel Number 5768-020-909 - 232 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard ("Fire/Police Facilities")
Assessor Parcel Number 5768-020-906 - 242 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard ("City Hall")
I have no idea of exactly how these properties are to be sold. Maybe the people over at Podley will get the gig. It is hard to say. But whether the deed will be done at auction, or through the usual methods, it should be quite an event for this town. And an object lesson in the consequences of turning a city over to people who haven't got a clue.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com
First comment maybe, that is the way to crush the mellow proud of you.
ReplyDeleteTwo simple definitions of illegal transfer of assets to avoid seizure and/or prosecution
ReplyDeleteAnything you do to remove your assets from the reach of your creditors after a lawsuit is filed is likely to be a "fraudulent conveyance." That means the courts can and will seek to obtain repossession from the transferee. One specialist in the field says that if you are in a high risk profession or occupation, you must keep some assets (or insurance) available to your creditors or the courts can recover any assets you transfer to relatives or protected entities.
The law recognizes that persons are generally entitled to transfer their assets to whomever they wish and for whatever reason. The most common means of transfer are wills, trusts, and gifts. Increasingly, however, persons are transferring property and money in order to qualify for government-funded nursing care or to avoid paying creditors or the Internal Revenue Service. State and federal laws prohibit transfers that defraud creditors, however. If a creditor can show that a transfer was made in bad faith and for the purpose of avoiding a lawful debt, the transfer will be voided.
6:40, I don't get what you're saying. Could you repost in English?
ReplyDeleteThe Esperanza property is the senior housing! Surely that big development has to stay as senior housing, and not revert to what the market will bear, right? They wouldn't have built such a densely populated structure without a deed restriction to keep it for seniors....
There are discs of every meeting that the Gang of 4 held discussing how to dodge the state's move to get the RDAs abolished. Bad faith efforts to use and play a shell game with money and property? You betcha.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should pool our resources and buy City Hall. I'd like to open a flower shop. Council Chambers, equipped with the proper lighting, would make a nice greenhouse.
ReplyDelete"Encumber!" - Josh Moran
ReplyDeleteThat's one way to downsize city hall.
ReplyDeleteHow about the half a million dollar, $500,000, Enid Joffee pocket park? That is just owned outright because we paid for it out of the general fund?
ReplyDelete7:04, a taking by the state might be the only way city hall will ever be downsized.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what has gone on in the rest of the country for the last decade, our city staff has always steadily expanded.
maybe the pocket park is where the new city hall can go. maybe some big tents, like an occupy encampment.
ReplyDeleteCity councils knowingly misused Community Redevelopment Agency monies.
ReplyDeleteKnowingly.
Eyes wide open.
I hope Sierra Madre comes through this latest consequence of Buchanan's bad leadership.
Appropriately downsized City Hall could be run out of one of the back rooms at the Pantorium.
ReplyDelete6:56 That is a coded response to the editor, see in the story where the line don't harsh on it is? Crushing the mellow, is from a comment I saw here, I guess it could be defined as wiping the smile off their faces, or throwing a wrench into the machinery cogs. I meant crushing the mellow of the smug CRA's and encumberers. To your demand to speak english, I could reply "you are crushing my mellow" or making me feel bad. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteSure glad I sent Pa over to Cal-Oaks Pharmacy for the neck braces last week. Our necks are so sore from shaking our heads while reading The Tattler, I don't know what we'd do without them. What IS this town coming to!?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Billy will let the council meet in a corner of the new wine tasting room...
ReplyDeleteWay back when Don Watts was on the City Council, he complained bitterly, that the Doyle Council had the City transfer ownership of most of the city owned properties to the CRA as a way to leverage development financing, and felt it was a dangerous and stupid move.
ReplyDeleteI guess people thought he was just joking at the time....
I, for one, wish he was back as a councilman.
If memory serves me, Don and Kurt both asked if City hall was owned by the cRA and were told by elaine "No."
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for the next city council that will have to deal with all the fall out. We better elect some smart people. John, Nancy and Josh need to resign in shame.
ReplyDeleteElaine works in an alternative reality.
ReplyDelete8:50, I do believe you are right. Would be nice to get that bit of tape up on Neuroblast, if he'd be so kind. Anybody got an approximate idea when that was?
ReplyDeleteSo.."Chickens Do Come Home to Roost"!
ReplyDeleteYes, they do. And immediately start to lay eggs.
ReplyDeleteLast bunch of CRA encumberances included the new toilets behind the city hall and the new playground equipment at Memorial Park. Other expenditres of CRA on this list were equally not, I repeat, not "blighted" as per the definition of the initial goals of the CRA program.
ReplyDeleteNo Kidding.Time for an Forensic Audit!All that money!All that temptation!Shenanigans Galore!wow!!
ReplyDeleteIn addition to all the things falling through the cracks in Sierra Madre note in today's LA Times the Shakespearian shenanigans going on in Anaheim. Seems the Planing Department attempting to cover up questionable activities with Developers isssued an order to "delete incriminating emails" from City computers or risk being fired. The City Attorney chimed in with "the order did not violate State Law". And the City Manager was quoted as" not being very happy with the email paper trail".
ReplyDeleteLooks like everyone at City Hall in Anaheim is now "under the bus".
At least they own their bus ...
ReplyDeleteFrom the California Planning & Development Report:
ReplyDelete"The city prepares a debt and obligation schedule, which is reviewed by an auditor selected by the auditor-controller, as well as an administrative budget. The Oversight Board approved both. The Oversight Board is also charged with disposing of RDA assets. Government buildings get turned over to the appropriate government agency. The proceeds of other asset sales are divided among the taxing agencies proportionally."
Braccck, brack, braack, what is all this chicken talk? Chickens with inquiring minds want to know.
ReplyDeleteDid you folks see the Monrovia, Metro story in the paper today. I wonder where that leaves Mr. Brokate, is he still in the line of fire?
I bet all the cities involved in that Gold line deal wish they never heard of Metro, let alone tried to deal with them. I notice the local papers did not give Mr. Sutton any coverage. Time to throw the bus under the bus.
Let me guess. The city attorney for Anaheim comes from the firm of Colontuono and Levin.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is how many cities will the state come after to see what has gone on since 1/2/11. If the search for dishonest use of CRA funds is thorough, we're cooked.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Sacramento going to do with a bunch of old municipal buildings? Except rent them back to the cities that work in them? Sell them for landfill?
ReplyDeleteSo much good use could be made of those buildings if there were some creative problem solving put towards it. I am not cynical at the moment, because this elimination of such a politely accepted kind of fraud is heartening.
ReplyDeleteThe absence of CRA money will also improve worker productuvity in City Halls all over California. There will be a lot fewer phone calls from developers to take.
ReplyDeleteTrue 3:19, but on the other hand, this could be a boon for those 'builders of community', your local friendly realtors.
ReplyDeleteI imagine there's more than one of those in our very own town who after a brief moment to say 'That's a shame for Sierra Madre' got busy on making notes about those assessor parcel numbers and brainstorming for prospective clients.
Ooohh. Good point. City Hall Condo Estates.
ReplyDeleteLook for the California Realtors Association's new handbook on the hottest part of the market:
ReplyDeleteHow to Sell Defunct Community Redevelopment Agency Properties
You too can turn the end of redevelopment into pure profit!
Maybe Sacramento can hire that crazy guy with the green question marks all over his suit. Remember him? He has these books that tell people about all the cool stuff you can get from government for free.
ReplyDeleteMight be a dumb question, but what about that $650,000 that Sierra Madre gave to the state as a buy-back-in? Is that money gone for good, or can it now be a We're sorry kind of make up gift to the state?
ReplyDeleteRealistically, the state will not want to leave a community without someone to put out fires, and have a city hall that can administer water bills.
I think it was CRA money, 4:05. So it is gone with the wind.
ReplyDeleteHard decisions for a windbag.
ReplyDeleteOk--have read the May 2011 Aguilar report on the CRA land/buildings transfer, have hashed the memory back and forth with hubby and we have a suggestion: either Cliff notes or CRA for Dummies--needed real soon so we can get a better grasp on this shell game.
ReplyDeleteIf we just rent the City Hall from the state will they have to step up for the $$$ to replace the roof and maintain the building? Like the USPS does - a triple net 20-year lease for its Post Offices? We could save a bunch of money!
ReplyDeleteRDA Timeline: Hatchet to Fall Feb. 1
ReplyDeleteBy Josh Stephens on 6 January 2012 - 9:27am
CaliforniaRedevelopment
The California Supreme Court’s decision to strike down AB 1x 27 and uphold AB 1x 26 sets off a frantic timeline by which redevelopment agencies essentially must preside over their own funerals while “successor agencies” take control of their assets and contracts.
State senators Alex Padilla and Luis Alejo have reportedly introduced Senate Bill 659, which would extend the deadline for agencies' dissolution for several months. Though it will be heard soon in the Senate Local Government Committee, its chances of success remain unclear.
Baring legislative action, the working timeline includes the following benchmarks:
January 13
Counties that do not wish to serve as “successor agencies” and instead want to pass those duties on to the state must notify the County Auditor-Controller.
February 1
Redevelopment agencies are officially dissolved.
Successor agencies have the option of retaining RDAs’ affordable housing functions or passing those functions off to local housing authorities or, in some cases, to the State Housing Authority.
Each successor agency must review its respective RDA’s interim enforceable obligation payment schedule (EOPS), which outline the RDA's contracts and obligations. Successor agencies may modify their EOPS and may thereafter only make payments outlined in the EOPS.
March 1
Each successor agency must adopt a permanent Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), which succeeds the EOPS. Each County Auditor-Controller will allocate property tax increment to pay obligations enumerated in the ROPS.
April 1
Successor agencies report to the state on whether the amount of tax increment identified by the County Auditor-Controller is sufficient to fund ROPS obligations for the next six-month fiscal period.
April 15
Successor agencies submit their respective ROPSs to the State Dept. of Finance and State Controller for approval.
May 1
Oversight boards are formed and must file membership with the Dept. of Finance. Successor agencies henceforth must pay obligations in the approved ROPS; no other obligations may be paid.
May 16 and onward
County Auditor-Controllers transfer funds to the successor agencies' Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund for payment of obligations described in the ROPS.
In other words, you rotten dishonest city "representatives" have made your cities lose the ability to control their own redevelopment. Call your developer pals and give them a big thanks.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, Nancy can explain all this.
ReplyDeleteEncumber!
ReplyDelete5:06, many of the developers who have brought such chaos to California are long gone and probably don't stay in touch with their old marks on city councils, e.g. Greg Galletly.
ReplyDeleteThink he's still got a relationship with any organization Rob Stockly is connected to?
I'd ask if anyone thinks things can get any worse, but the thought of it was too scary to contemplate.
ReplyDeletei don't know tatts, there is another story, i think jerry wants them to pay to play,
ReplyDeleteBrown: Funding Redevelopment Requires Offsetting Cuts
By Bill Fulton and Josh Stephens on 5 January 2012 - 8:16pm
California BudgetJerry BrownRedevelopment
In a hastily called press conference to roll out the 2012-2013 budget on Thursday afternoon, Gov. Jerry Brown said he would consider funding redevelopment only if the Legislature brings him offsetting cuts.
The California Redevelopment Association is seeking legislation that would postpone the elimination of RDAs beyond the February 1 date set by the state Supreme Court last week. In response to a reporter's question about whether Brown would support an extension "for a few months," Brown said:
"Our position is the Supreme Court has invalidated AB 1x 27 and we’re left with AB 1x 26 and that’s the way it stands. I know that people have concerns about ecoonomic development and housing, and I’ll be glad to hear whatever thoughts people can bring forward. But, remember, we cut out redevelopment not because I dislike redevelopment – I don’t exactly – but we are short of money, and we’re just saying core services trump the redevelopment program. And if people want to add back spending, we’re going to have to find that substitute, because if we’re gonna finance redevelopment, we’ve got to get the money from somebody."
it's no surprise that Buchanan's employer, SoCal Edison gives him virtually unlimited free time from his job, given the decisions and hairbrain ideas he's put forth and the rambling monotone dronzzzzzz speeches - it's better he's out of the office
ReplyDelete