HEY CRA...YOU'RE GETTING SUED BY LA COUNTY OVER YOUR SHADY BULLSH*T -- AND WHAT'S UP WITH THE $12.5 MILLION BOND IN BOYLE HEIGHTS?
In March 1st, 2007, $12.5 million bond was issued against tax increment money leveradged against East Adalante Project area; without ANY notification of the stakeholders within the Adalante project area.
Stakeholders not notifyed include: El Sereno Chamber of Commerce, Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce, LA 32 Neighborhood Council, Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council, and the one stateholder who SHOULD have been notifyed, but wasn't -- The Eastside Adalante Project Area Committee! YA'LL THOUGHT ZUMA DOGG WOULDN'T FIND OUT YOU DID AS MUCH COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS HELEN KELLER!
And the main reason for the failure of notification is to "dupe" and disenfranchise the stakeholders within the Project Area Committee. (CAUSE THEY WERE AND ARE, Y'ALL!)
They want to take money from Adalante and use it for outside projects, outside the Adalante region. EX: $2.2 million used in Eagle Rock senior housing development at the expense of the Adalante Project area residents and stakeholders.
ALSO: FROM TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -- LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUES THOSE SHADY, GENTRIFYING, COMMUNITY-ROBBING, PUBLIC FUND MILKING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/LOS ANGELES (aka: CRA/LA). HOW MUCH MORE F*CKING MONEY ARE THESE SHADY CITY AGENGIES GONNA KEEP COSTING US IN PREVENTABLE LAWSUITS.
Please click "READ MORE" -- and anyone in the area, please comment on this shady non-sense that allows to go on
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA
AGENDA FOR MAY 17, 2007
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. ACTIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $12.5 MILLION
OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS OR NOTES, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, FOR THE
ADELANTE EASTSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (Councilmembers Reyes,
Huizar – CD #1, #14)
Presenters: Steve Valenzuela / Joe Nocella
12. (A) ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding one (1) matter of anticipated litigation.
(B) REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 in order for the Board to grant authority to its negotiators regarding the price and terms of purchase of the real property at the Southeast corner of 94th Street and Broadway. Agency Negotiators: Ricardo Noguera, Al Santillanes. Buyer: West Angeles South Broadway Estates, LLC.
(C) PENDING LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding County of Los Angeles v. CRA (L.A. Superior Court No. BC277539 and L.A. Superior Court No. BC276472) and County of Los Angeles v. CRA (L.A. Superior Court No. BC288497).
(D) PENDING LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding In Plain Sight Media v. CRA (U.S. District Court No. CV 07-1739SJO).
(E) PENDING LITIGATION: this Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding Today’s IV dba Westin Bonaventure Hotel) v. CRA, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC367288).
Stakeholders not notifyed include: El Sereno Chamber of Commerce, Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce, LA 32 Neighborhood Council, Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council, and the one stateholder who SHOULD have been notifyed, but wasn't -- The Eastside Adalante Project Area Committee! YA'LL THOUGHT ZUMA DOGG WOULDN'T FIND OUT YOU DID AS MUCH COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS HELEN KELLER!
And the main reason for the failure of notification is to "dupe" and disenfranchise the stakeholders within the Project Area Committee. (CAUSE THEY WERE AND ARE, Y'ALL!)
They want to take money from Adalante and use it for outside projects, outside the Adalante region. EX: $2.2 million used in Eagle Rock senior housing development at the expense of the Adalante Project area residents and stakeholders.
ALSO: FROM TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -- LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUES THOSE SHADY, GENTRIFYING, COMMUNITY-ROBBING, PUBLIC FUND MILKING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/LOS ANGELES (aka: CRA/LA). HOW MUCH MORE F*CKING MONEY ARE THESE SHADY CITY AGENGIES GONNA KEEP COSTING US IN PREVENTABLE LAWSUITS.
Please click "READ MORE" -- and anyone in the area, please comment on this shady non-sense that allows to go on
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA
AGENDA FOR MAY 17, 2007
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. ACTIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $12.5 MILLION
OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS OR NOTES, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, FOR THE
ADELANTE EASTSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (Councilmembers Reyes,
Huizar – CD #1, #14)
Presenters: Steve Valenzuela / Joe Nocella
12. (A) ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding one (1) matter of anticipated litigation.
(B) REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 in order for the Board to grant authority to its negotiators regarding the price and terms of purchase of the real property at the Southeast corner of 94th Street and Broadway. Agency Negotiators: Ricardo Noguera, Al Santillanes. Buyer: West Angeles South Broadway Estates, LLC.
(C) PENDING LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding County of Los Angeles v. CRA (L.A. Superior Court No. BC277539 and L.A. Superior Court No. BC276472) and County of Los Angeles v. CRA (L.A. Superior Court No. BC288497).
(D) PENDING LITIGATION: This Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding In Plain Sight Media v. CRA (U.S. District Court No. CV 07-1739SJO).
(E) PENDING LITIGATION: this Closed Session is being held pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 in order for the Board to confer with its legal counsel regarding Today’s IV dba Westin Bonaventure Hotel) v. CRA, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC367288).
Labels: CRA
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 5/15/2007 06:46:00 PM
9 Comments:
Anyone can FILE a lawsuit; if there is as much shade as ZD claims in LA, we don't need air conditioners!!! Remember, suits are just ALLEGATIONS; they need to be proven.
Think of all the energy we will save.
Thank you ZD for another brilliant post! How do you do it?
Very interesting. Good work, ZD.
I wonder whether of the "watch dogs" in the local papers will catch this and report on it. I'm guessing not.
What's the name of that motionless dog on "Scrubs?" That's the kind of watch dogs we have in the local media.
Keep an eye on the influence that the USC people have on the board of Adelante. This in part of their expansion goals in the Valley Blvd. corridor. They been buy up any avalible real state around their Medical school Campus.
9:05pm,
The County of Los Angeles sues the CRA and Council has closed door session on it: Sorry if I'm reporting on trivial stuff.
Inspector Zuma does it again.
Read this bullshit these council members have done to this city.
...A recent court ruling also has prohibited the transfer of $30 million from the Department of Water and Power's water revenue fund this year. And last week the city lost a court battle over a utility users tax that could cost $167 million next calendar year unless the decision is overturned. Meanwhile, a second court case could cost the city an additional $103 million.
In the potential $167 million loss, the state Court of Appeal said the city erred in increasing a cell phone users tax in 2003 without getting voter approval under Proposition 218. Miller said the council could ask for a public vote but the earliest that could occur would be in 2009.
City Council has been raiding the DWP fund for years. No way council would put cell phone tax vote on ballot. They would lose that battle big time.
every new project area gets sued by the county.
The whole point of the redevelopment agency now a days is to keep the tax increment in the project areas or even other project areas.
The County is suing because they always sue to get a larger piece of the pie , they have been doing this for years. And the other entity that sues is the school district.
You can blame this game on the part of prop 13 that sends all of our freaking tax dollars directly to the state.
Walter , this is one of the reasons our city council holds homeowners in the same esteem as renters, the property owners pay bookoo money in taxes , but because it doesn't stream directly into the local municipalities and is sent back to them in the form of backfill from Sacramento , they really do not have a tangible way to feel beholden to the local taxpayers.
Prop 13 is not what is destroying the city , nor is the part where we have to vote on a tax increase , but the part that sends our sales tax and property taxes to the State directly and the Sales tax is the biggest chunk of change the cities get to keep for the general fund, after the bulk of it is sent to the state. If it wasn't for DWP making money , god knows what the city could count on for revenue.
SO this shadiness has been going on for years. The County gets to spend more money on things , yet they are always trying to raid the City's redevelopment agencies for more money.
FROM ZD's INBOX: (zumadogg@gmail.com)
I'm convinced the CRA is the center of all income redistribution from the city's hard-working taxpayers (on the one hand), to the big contributors (on the other).
Those bonds provide not just the cash directly to developers, but work for all the attorneys, investment bankers and stock brokers who prepare and sell the debt -- the "shady service sector," to borrow your adjective.
let's not forget the union laborers who also benefit from building and building and building.
As far as I am concerned the CRA is still just a public works project creator , that keep the money distributed within the region.
unfortunately , yes ,the lawyers and brokers and others have learned to milk this system.
And all of the people screaming gentrification and density , I say to you look at the fine print of Prop 13.
That back fill from the state is never guaranteed . Sales tax revenue is.
Walter 10:14 I understand a local free publication known as the VOICE had an article in a recent issue of that paper.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home