Carson opens the meeting on set matters, says theres three set matters and they're lengthy. There's a Covid 19 and ARPA update first. I'm sure nothing A's fans give a crap about. They have a 6pm redistricting meeting that they have to legally start on time, caveat
Nicholas Moss with Covid updates. 81 currently hospitalized with Covid in ALCO, 30 in ICU. Moss says there's been 138 deaths from July 1 to Oct 12, he says this is lower than last summer. Metrics improving, but there's concern about a winter wave.
Moss on Covid goals.
Moss says that 84% of ALCO residents are fully vaccinated, 89% have first shot.
Booster recs from ALCO Heath, by demographic and vaccine option
Hell, J&J booster recommended 2 months after vax? What the hell, was it even a real vax or just fruit juice?
Mix and match is okay on boosters
Moss says fed is considering 5-11 vaccine approval today. He says it will likely be live next week
Moss says that ALCO undertook a door to door program on vaccine. They knocked on 60k doors, and had 13k convos, says 10% increase in vaccines due to that
Moss says that Monoclonal antibody treatment is available for Covid positive people [Roots sent us a post card, and its available with their clinic]
First caller on the issue is an anti-vaxer from Fremont area. But she stresses this isn't about pro-vax, it's about constitutional god-given rights, the word slippery slope just slippery sloped out
Another anti-vaxer, calls Covid 19 a bio-warfare toxin, vaccine pre-planned genetic modification shot. She's reading an entire tract. Everyone has three minutes to speak, jesus take the wheel
She called Alameda County, Auschwitz County.
Valle says that he was offended by the comment, as he's a relative of an Auschwitz survivor. Next caller is thankfully not anti-vax but is commenting on anti-vaxers. I can easily see us spending the next half hour in this anti-vax hell, tho.
Honestly, I haven't sat through an ALCO health briefing in about 6 months. Wonder if this is typical. Ah, relief, it's over. Now on to update on ARPA.
For those of you, like me, who did not follow ARPA allocations at County level, here you go. Handy slide.
They're still on ARPA, mostly discussing community grant process.
Frankly surprised callers aren't zoom bombing with Howard Terminal takes during the other items.
This is the guy who is reporting on issues concerning the residents of the City of Oakland. Seriously, one thing to be less interested, another to be so disinterested you claim you are falling asleep. It's ARPA funding, critical to County health, and Covid report. I can't imagine
An anti-vaxer called in to the ARPA item. She refused to stop when Carson clued her in that it was another item.
They are on to the Howard Terminal item. Here's the non-binding, symbolic legislation…
Valle, one of the BOS who was instrumental in getting the item on to the agenda, speaks first on the item. He says he spoke to Hayward, UC, and Newark mayors who are all in favor of moving forward with a non-binding resolution to do analysis needed BEFORE decision moving forward
Valle says that a Hayward council member told him they'd want to be sure that the community benefits, including affordable housing, is in place before moving forward.
Valle is stressed the idea that the ALCO BOS need this vote so that they can do a proper analysis on the Howard Terminal item. That's not the case.
Valle says he's reading another constituent's opposition to Howard Terminal, opposes a luxury development that also happens to be a ball park is bad idea, shouldn't be funded with public dollars.
Valle says his intent on the letter pushing the vote was to move the ball forward on exploring risks/benefits of project. He says that they've never had a third party analysis and need one. Valle says that Oakland needs investment one way or another.
Valle says HT holds promise but "I'm not sure what that promise is" but worth exploring for potential econ benefit. He says he would feel more comfortable if A's would pay for necessary analysis at county level. He reveals that Kaval is on the line.
Valle says he wants to approach the issue with less emotion, but feels personally burned by Warriors and Raiders. But he says its good potential for a city aching for economic development. Valle says embarcadero area needs revitalization.
BOS Haubert says he's received both supportive and non-supportive comments on HT. He says that he also wants to move item forward for similar reasons as Valle.
Interesting that both Haubert are all being very careful not to sound too excited yet. But they don't represent any part of Oakland. Chan, Carson and Miley do.
Haubert says he'd like to see timeline to getting "to finality" on issue. He says that many of the decisions to be made on land use, transit/transpo, affordable housing are in the hands of the City. He says he'd like to stay out of those City decisions, focus on ALCO decision
Haubert also says they need to express support for the working port. He says he wants to find a path forward to allow project to succeed, while recognizing the project is not up to them to approve. He says if BOS say they're not interested A's will leave
Miley asks what a non-binding willingness resolution would mean legally, rhetorically. He asks if the County has a policy on IFD's. He says County should do an analysis if its beneficial to ALCO. He says he's uncomf without an analysis of that kind.
Miley says that if a non-binding resolution doesn't commit BOS to anything then it might be fine while they do the analysis.
Seems like this could be short, I dunno.
Miley says he's a bit resentful of Oakland asking ALCO to get back in the sports biz, a common refrain of his. He says that if County says the non-binding resolution doesn't commit to anything, he'd be open to passing it to analyze the project for ALCO
Miley says he'd want to condition non-binding willingness on the outcome of the EIR & other enviro outcomes. He also says, if cities want to weigh in, are they willing to weigh in with their dollars as well. Miley says he knows Oakland's challenges and city has made bad decisions
Miley says that if County Counsel says non-binding willingness doesn't bind the County into a track, he's open. But he admits, he frankly does not know what the language of the resolution actually does.
Carson is reading the resolution, and "23 whereases".
Carson introduces Kaval to give a presentation and overview [oh god, again?]. Serious Eddie Haskell vibes follow.
Kaval says that Schaaf will do the second half of the presentation.
If you are on the fence about listening to Kaval give his shinola presenation one last time, and then, not sure if you can handle Schaaf's brand of sleaze, I want you to think about how wonderful life is and soldier on.
I wonder if there's a touring test I could use here
Kaval says "we're at a critical juncture" where they have to know the public policy part. He again says he's extremely "running out of time" at Coliseum line. They can get a new lease when this is over in 24.
Kaval's boilerplate has had to whittle down its community benefits to match City's 60 year prospectus. It's now 400, not 800. Of course, he never says that it's the entire lifetime of your zoomer kid away.
Kaval reiterated his claim that A's are under pressure from MLB. As to Valle's question about funding analysis, he says A's are very open "I can have my legal team work with yours"
Chan is up now.
Chan prefaces her comments by saying she doesn't want them to sound negative. She says that when the A's came to County about the Coliseum deal, BOS had no idea IFD would come up. Now, there's not movement on the Coliseum site. Kaval moved to interrupt her, but she continued
Chan asks Kaval how final the affordable housing negotiation with City is. She wants to know how much say they'd have over whatever negotiation has happened. She also asks what portion of 411 MM of "community benefits" A's are paying for.
Kaval says that Coliseum was always supposed to be a separate development. He seemed to imply that if they don't get HT, they won't move on that, unless I misheard.
Kaval says that the negotiations are ongoing [smh]. Kaval says that all the community benefits are coming from the project [the four pillars, lol]. He says that its all being funded by A's, combining A's dollars, and the project itself making money.
Chan says that the community benefits come from the building of the project. Kaval reiterates his claim that union work and sea level rise mitigation is a community benefit "without the project there are none"
Chan says that the funding would be coming from ALCO, the public coffers, and that's why the City is coming to BOS for funding. Kaval says that it still is coming from the project, she seems to relent on that.
Kaval seems to be telling Chan that County will be able to "weigh in" on the negotiations with City.
Kaval says that they've signed on to the MAPLA, the Port project labor agreement for projects [the MAPLA stresses county level/regional local hire, not Oakland based, worth noting]
Chan and others are constantly trying to get Kaval to commiserate with them about how crappy it is that the City is here with a rattling cup.
Chan says that City docs say that the A's had asked County to participate and stresses that's not the way it happened.
Schaaf was set to give the second half of the presentation on Howard, but BOS is deep in the weeds expositing at Kaval.
Worth noting also, that the BOS has to break at 6pm to do a mandated redistricting meeting that they can't put off or delay. And they still have the whole rest of the meeting.
Carson calls out Kaval on his claims that the City voted on "their version of the term sheet" and that he also claimed "...we remain apart with the City on economic terms". Asks what the outstanding issues are with City negotiations.
Kaval says "we do remain apart" on some of those key provisions. Then gives lists of basically the entire infrastructure, County's IFD participation, community benefits, affordable housing and some provisions around transportation. "These are open items trying for progress on
Carson asks what the overall guesstimated costs of the project. Kaval says 6 billion in private capital and could be more depending on what they build and timing.
Carson again reads Kaval's words back to him. "we had another way to fund this project without county" [clearly talking about the JLS IFD]. Carson asks him what these other ways are, Kaval mentions the JLS IFD
Kaval says that there wasn't support for the JLS IFD, he says that instead there was a path to the County. Kaval says they're trying to be flexible, but "we had a way without the county"
It has to be said Kaval also is being disingenuous here, because he must know the JLS IFD may have failed due to participation of residents and business owners in the decision. It was even less solid than this method with county
Carson is going through all the BOS challenges with economic and health impacts due to Covid this year, and says in the meantime they're being forced to redirect their attention, outside their "statutory responsibility" and made to be the main cog in the deal
Carson says that there's multiple ways the project could be financed and "I'll talk about those later".
Carson says that if they're going to invest so much money, they should have a complete overview from Oakalnd on the financials. County Admin says that they've only received the analysis of the County's financing part, but not the overall financing plan for the project
Carson says that there's a long laundry list that they're being asked to take a step out there and give tens of millions in revenue that would go to health and safety.
Miley is dropping out a bit and hard to follow. But what I'm hearing is that the County cities lobbying is meaningless without money. He also says they don't have enough analysis, but if the resolution is just non-binding willingness, then he can support that.
Haubert asks Kaval about Schaaf's claims about public financing authority should the IFD proceed. He wants to be sure that the County would be on the authority.
Kaval says he believes that's accurate [it's accurate]
Schaaf now giving her presentation along with Molly Maybrun. She starts by saying why HT is better used as ballpark than current use
Schaaf says that the County will see 16 MM per year through Howard Terminal. Some of this is blah, blah, blah and I love you fam, I won't put you through this.
Schaaf's breakdown on how the project is being funded. It's 6 billion, she says the increment only comes from the project and it means that A's are paying for everything [except off site infrastructure, we'll see if she gets there]
After saying A's will pay for everything, Schaafs says the City will take out a bond to pay for all 350MM [and likely more] off site. She says they'll pledge all revenues, parking, business tax, utility, everything to service "a debt...150 MM limited obligation bond"
Schaaf stressed that a "limited obligation bond" is only from the tax increases from the project. Schaaf claimed "no recourse to GPF". She says that "we have potential state funding...aggresively pursuing fed dollars"
To be clear, those aren't IFD funds, they're the potential "revenue" that the City has bragged will come to the City. From there, the City also had to pay for increased costs caused to city infra and services. She didn't say how that would work. Regardless, it's GPF money.
Schaaf says that A's will build 15% affordable housing on site, but does not mention what level of affordability it will be. It's far lower than the community ask of 30 to 35%
Schaaf's claim about the County's share. One time 67.8 MM, and 5.4 MM per year in revenues. There's no breakdown on the 67.8 sources
Schaaf says this is not the Raiders deal, this is responsible. She says that JLS IFD would have been a subsidy from tax revenues not generated from the project [its a bit of whittling here, because the "revenues" for off-site are from various funds that should go directly to GPF]
Chan asks about where the 67 MM comes from. Maybrun says that it would be generated from the construction period which would last 10 ten years. [There's a lot of long duration funds coming in that they lump together with yearly income]
Maybrun clarifies that the 67 MM would come from sales tax on construction materials. Chan says that she doesn't understand, given that many of those sales would come from outside ALCO. Maybrun says there is a set of assumptions about where materials would be bought [👀]
Chan persists on assumptions for the funds. Maybrun is kind of in the weeds. They don't often get asked about the underlying assumptions for these claims. She wants to bring in other staffers.
Carson saying "if it seems to good to be true, it's probably too good to be true" he says the County has to look at the numbers themselves.
Here's more on California law on "limited obligation bonds". They are bonds where the repayment is set only from specified revenue, in this case, according to Schaaf, literally all of the taxes outside of the EIFD, that will come from HT, hotel, gas tax, utility consumption.
Worth the fuck noting, the "limited obligation bonds" strategy would appear to require a ballot measure. That means first a council vote to submit it to ballot, then a ballot measure for popular vote on public debt.
There's an ongoing back and forth about the turning basin. It's a very old convo by now, and I'm not devoting time to it.
Carson asks Schaaf what she wants from BOS today. She says they want BOS to state willingness to sign on to the IFD for Howard Terminal [keep up dude]
County Counsel says that what she heard from Mayor is a willingness of an intention. But she didn't hear "non-binding". Schaaf interrupts and says she was referring to the language of the resolution which contains the term "non-binding"
Schaaf appears to be attempting to add language into the resolution but it would still be non-binding, per Counsel. Counsel says that a non-binding resolution has no obligation to further. She says that there is no non-binding term sheet between Oakland and A's, anyway.
Counsel says that so much is uncertain that if BOS did anything but non-binding, they could be liable for legal action later by City of Oakland if they backed out or wanted to change things.
Leo Ma of Century Urban says that the 5.4 MM they've been discussing that comes to ALCO are sales taxes that go to Measure A, which funds healthcare.
Carson grilling the Century Urban guy for his due diligence on underlying assumptions. Ma admitted that he didn't know when the measures that are being discussed on the County side for the revenue sunset.
It's interesting. First time I've heard any discussion about the underlying assumptions behind the big figures we keep seeing. And it appears, they're not super-solid.
Maybrun repeats the "finale EIR" before the end of the year timeline. Regardless means that there will likely not be a council vote or hearing on them this year.
There's some level of performative question and answer from BOS, things they've already asked and know the answers to. But some of this is new, most importantly the underlying assumptions for revenues.
Carson asks about the alternatives to the City's financing model for off-site infrastructure that Kaval mentioned. Maybrun opens by saying that the project is not feasible using private capital
Maybrun says A's brought up only one other solution for financing, the on and off site IFD, contrary to what Kaval mentioned. The idea of project-sourced funds seems to have gone from strictly the "but for property tax" in EIFD to any taxes that can be ascribed to the project.
Maybrun says limited obligation bond takes the "other" but-for-taxes generated by this project. It's very slight of handy. [I think the main issue is they have a better chance of getting LOB over an EIFD in JLS, as Maybrun mentioned the ACE hardware in area would be in the EIFD]
Maybrun says that the LOB is a viable path. NOw we are talking about the other "but-for taxes". Before "but for taxes" were exclusively used to speak about the EIFD property taxes.
Maybrun brings up the Century Urban memo that describes the limited obligation bonds. Here it is. And screenshot of relevant part, re Limited Obligation Bonds…
Maybrun says that Real Estate Transfer Taxes for the project wouldn't be used for the limited obligation bond because they're too unstable.
Century Urban says that the EIFD bonds would produce 422 MM over ten years, starting in 2028, with last set of bonds being issued in 2040.
Maybrun is talking about the affordable housing plan with A's building 15% unspecified level of affordable. But Kaval just said about an hour ago they weren't agreement on this with city.
Carson reads the City's Housing Element Progress Report, notes that Oakland has gone beyond market rate construction targets but hasn't met their AH, an old story. He says residents of West Oakland have hammered his office on issue of affordability.
Carson says that as soon as County was being put into position of considering the EIFD, home prices in West Oakland increased, his constituents told him. He says that that area has lost thousands of Black residents
Chan wonders if the County can contribute over a shorter time frame, not 45 years. Maybrun keeps saying that the A's can't build Howard without some form of public investment, it's slightly off message.
Chan finally asked what proportion of affordable housing on-site would be between 30 to 50% of AMI. Maybrun says "to be perfectly honest, that's the portion that's not fully negotiated with the A's." Chan says that she wants to see a mixture that's well below 100% AMI
Maybrun says that the community has been stressing that they need extremely low income housing on the site. So it appears that Fisher still doesn't want to actually pay for affordable housing.
Looking at the big A's stans pundit and commenter accounts, and they do not care at all about any of this, lol.
Carson introduced Mike Jacob from Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, who is giving his own presentation.
Jacob says that 1200 trucks per day are going through Howard Terminal, mentions lack of facilities in general in ports, like Southern California. He says HT is a critical resource.
Jacob says A's are "asking you to help fund" howard terminal. He says the A's have picked an expensive place to develop, and that's making it more expensive than comparable stadium public investments elsewhere.
Century Urban and Kaval's presentation don't include potential turning basin costs. Jacob says there's only downside for the port industries on the project.
Jacob says that the draft EIR will add or subtract costs that are currently being guessed at. He says that the financing plans are in rough form, there's no concrete plan and no series of potential financing plans.
Jacob says that ALCO, unlike other agencies, has no IFD policy. He says that the net impact on County would reduce the revenue County can access from the development.
Jacob posts a last slide presenting the port's contribution to County revenues before handing it over to Linda Adams from ILWU. She says that she's concerned that the City presenters weren't able to explain their own slides to BOS
Adams says that the claim that HT is only being used as a parking lot doesn't take into account of supply chain shortages, and the fact that Oakland needs to expand. She says County should be asking how they can allow port to expand to be able to import/export more.
Adams says that ILWU is 72% African American and that Black communities, like those in East Oakland need the support. She says that BOS is going off assumptions in the financing plan.
The lack of curiosity in the A's wall of punditry on any of these issues is illustrative af.
County Admin Muranishi is giving some data on EIFD as financing mechanism and list of pending approvals for the project, basic comparison of ongoing revenues that would accrue to City/County vs investment. She says County doesn't have an IFD policy.
So, this might be interesting. it's the County Admin's presentation on Howard Terminal.
Muranishi's staffer is going thru SB293 [which I don't believe is going to be used]. She says under 293, County would only have one representative in PFA, stark difference with other kinds of IFDs. I believe the City is not going to use 293 now, tho, but of course, no guarantee
In fact, I wonder if this was the reason City moved away from 293, too, because it would be less appetizing to County.
Apologies, I didn't catch the name of the County staffer.
County staffer compared to the PFA to Coliseum Joint Powers, she suggested that it was pretty different, they'd meet yearly to make sure the funds went to pay for things they were supposed to. Miley likes to pound the "out of the sports business" gavel tho, & he's doing that now
County is going under assumption that the IFD could end up being 293, perhaps just for due diligence. But she's also explaining that the PFA membership for a regular IFD is based on how many bodies are in on the IFD, it would be evenly distributed between County and City
Staffer says they could not have adopted a binding resolution of intention, because there is also a "resolution of intention" to enter into the IFD process that's mandated in law. She cautions to be careful with the language.
Some notes about the IFP
Staffer just basically saying there's a long way to go to join an IFD, including passing an ordinance with intention to join it. She also presents the project lists f to-dos. She notes as some BOS did that the EIR will affect the costing of the project.
Staffer says that the County would not have any role in the Community Facilities District. She says once the bonds are issued for IFD, the County would be bound by law to continue
Miley and staffer agree that what they're doing with non-binding resolution of willingness is not required or specified in the process. Miley says that it's not even clear how long it will take to get through all the approvals, etc, asks when they would actually make the decision
Staffer says that the City would not issue their own resolution of intention until they have a development agreement with A's, and have the EIR. This is the first I've really seen the focus on the EIR as a part and parcel of the financing/costing process.
Staffer says that the IFD can also be challenged in court.
I think one thing that certainly being revealed here is that the County is kicking and screaming their way to a non-binding vote. I see nothing here that shows enthusiasm. In fact, the process has shown how shaky the City and Fisher's negotiation process, areas of agreement are.
Fans and pundits will laud the coming vote, which I assume will pass, as noteworthy. But what I'm seeing is tons of cracks that were only revealed the minute County got even remotely serious, including the lack of A's/City progress since June + shaky underlying $$ assumptions
The additional albatross that got thrown out here is that the City is expecting to take out what appears to be a voter-approved $150 MM bond to pay for off site infrastructure that needs to be completed before opening day at HT.
Miley says that this decision could lead to other cities in the county wanting to do their own IFD with county participation.
With the 6pm hard deadline approaching, there seems to be some wavering on passing the non-binding resolution today. Valle implied he's open to continuing. Chan is saying she doesn't feel comfortable with the language of this resolution. Carson just said he's open to continuing
Chan says she's going to have a substitute motion, but Valle says that there's no motion currently on the floor to substitute. But he says that he is also in agreement with her about getting rid of some whereases. This is the one that Chan seemed most uncomfortable with
Not sure if the BOS is talking about coming back after their mandated redistricting meeting TONIGHT, or if they would come back on another day.
Chan is noting that some of the tax revenues in the underlying assumptions have expiration dates throughout the life of the IFD. Another reference to shaky underlying assumptions.
According to the report, the County would only make 2 million in revenue yearly off Howard Terminal. The staffer also says that more than half of that is Measure W tax revenue which sunsets in ten years.
It really does feel like the first time I've seen this...unless I missed something, the City claimed the yearly revenue would be 5.4 MM, not 2. Maybe they were adding the initial proposed construction period revenues?
Based on how low the analysis is, BOS now asking if the City can contribute more to the County in the IFD.
Maybrun saying that there is a "missing piece", meaning that since they are funneling all of the revenues to financing off-site infrastructure, they can't afford to give County a larger measure. [this is so seat of pants and none of these figures are concrete]
Miley asks if there have been any unintended consequences factored in. Staffer says that it doesn't factor in potential additional county costs caused by the development.
Carson says they have to go to redistricting item promptly at 6pm, and they'll have to close the meeting before then to allow clerk to start the new meeting. It appears that after mandated redistricting they'll come back to the HT item and literally rest of the meeting? [I think]
They're going to take comment probably for the next 45 minutes. They're not likely to get to the end of comment before having to break and have redistricting item. According to Carson, they'll then come back for the rest of the meeting, including a possible vote.
Hal the Hot Dog Vendor showing that being an environmental economist gives no insight into the ballpark issue.
None of the public arguments have changed, so at this point, I am not going to record them. There appears to be equal parts both, if not a little more against the vote.
Carson is transitioning into the Redistricting Meeting. He says then that they'll come back into open session on this meeting, one assumes to take more public comment on the Howard item if speakers are still waiting.
Counsel says they have to convene the meeting to a time certain, so they will recess this meeting until 7:15, with caveat that the redistricting meeting could go loner than that. Shoot for 7:15, it could be longer, but it won't be shorter.
Carson had a couple of digs against the pressure of holding a vote on Howard Terminal IFD, including comparing it to the "Important" work they would usually be doing, and saying that Oakland has pushed them into it. More in an hour or so.
Pratt pretty pissed that the BOS is not there to exclusively do the work of the suburban fanbase and their favorite sweatshop billionaire
Despite the fact that Supervisor Chan teased out from the City that the 65 MM is based on purchasing assumptions that may be flawed, Pratty repeated it anyway and tried to make County look like dilletantes for due diligence. His tweets and commentary show he didn't even listen
Redistricting is on public comment, so it could still be a while but they are getting close to the end.
Two false alarms sorry. Unclear how long the Redistricting will go on. They won't take any actions tonight, so once public input is done, they'll wrap up and go back to regular meeting.
They are now adjourning redistricting. Regular meeting is back in a minute.
The regular meeting zoom is now live. But BOS have not yet gathered.
Carson says the meeting is now back in open session for the regular meeting. They are continuing the Howard Terminal IFD meeting, taking speakers.
Speakers still speaking. I won't bore you with what people are saying, it's about evenly split, very few new facts are being shared.
Okay, but a speaker who was advocating keeping A's at Coliseum said that they could just rebuild the coliseum and build a gondola to take people to Jack London Square if they want to go there
When supporters of HT talk about misinformation it's pretty funny. Do they not wonder whether the arguments for a billionaire could possibly be...misinformation?
Mike Davey called in to complain about how long the meeting has gone, probably the 40th speaker tonight that all have to be heard before the decision on the vote can be made. This is the quality of reason of Howard Terminal supporters.
A lot of these supporters have never been to another part of Oakland but the Coliseum in their cars or on BART and have no idea if there's development or not.
Phew speakers finally done. Move on to final discussion on this item.
Valle says he's prepared to make a motion. That's on hold while other BOS deliberate.
Haubert says its time to make a move and that there's a lot of info they've heard tonight and more they should find out.
Valle's motion: "Board declares a non-binding intent to contribute a portion of its share of the incremental property tax from HT. There's other stuff, including an ALCO committee with a CPA firm that would be funded by the Oakland A's, for analysis to be brought back.
Chan says there's a lot to weigh here, contrary to many of speakers statements. She says she'll support the motion, but wants to note some things, she says the land will be used and will create jobs, but says its most important that it's a non-binding intent AND WE CAN STEP AWAY.
Chan says that there should be more affordable housing, including very low income, she says the current percentage of housing isn't big. She says the project has to ensure the vitality of the port. And commitment by developers to maintain diversity of WO area.
Chan says that with so many market rate condos, it would be a shame for rich out of towners to come and occupy that part of town. Chan also notes says she's also alarmed to learn that the A's are going to charge interest on public taxpayer money.
She says that its not right for a for-profit corporation to charge interest on taxpayer money.
THere's some problems with the idea of a committee including more than one BOS member, so the committee would only have staff. Valle withdrew that part of the resolution. So there would be an analysis committee.
Valle re-reads the new resolution motion which no longer has the 2 BOS member committee. The committee will still be created, but apparently not have board participation.
They've confirmed that the resolution is not binding. Honestly, I don't see how this would satisfy MLB or A's, because honestly, I don't think there's a real need for this resolution, but rather constant pressure on city, county or whoever has the pocketbook.
It's not clear that the A's actually will pay for the committee, there's no real agreement. Also, there's no timing on next steps. Valle says the BOS will have to ask for updates, with a staff run committee that will have to meet before any expectations can be had.
Carson noting that BOS was forced to consider the IFD issue in public, because of the way Oakland published the letter. Ironically, that's what Kaval did to Oakland.
Carson reminds that even the A's have said there are a lot of unanswered questions, including the EIR, general plan, design, development agreement.
Carson won't stop talking.
A lot of the blame-putting on Oakland is a way of avoiding angering the A's.
Carson also complains about the "no brainer" rhetoric. He says ALCO revenues are being used to keep hospitals open, feed people, and shows a photo of seniors waiting in a food line. It's clear that a lot of this rhetoric got to him.
Carson lauds ALCO staff, uses analogy, we've been in surgery trying to keep people alive, and we're being asked to go to Las Vegas and play the one-armed bandit. He says its hard for him to support something that he was told needed no support.
Now, he says, County gets all the blame if they say no, which bothers him. He says despite the non-binding nature of the resolution, it's almost impossible to take it back. Carson indicating he may not vote for the resolution.
He says even if this goes thru we're risking people's dollars. He says he won't support the resolution.
The resolution passed with Carson as the only no vote
The Counsel comes back to say that where the Brown Act violation comes for the committee would be to have supervisors along with other people.
Here's Valle's motion text, which passed 4 to 1, with Carson voting no. I listened three times at the end, and it appears to me that that direction is not properly worded to produce an outcome. It's possible that in the editing, something got chopped.
I see what happened. After Valle was informed a Board + Staff ad hoc would violate Brown, he removed language, but clumsily. I don't know what it means in terms of applying the resolution. This was the original text which made more sense, but lost some words in the final edit.
It's not the least of the problems with the resolution. Though the intent part is non-binding, the direction is to have staff form a committee for analysis funded by the A's, but they secured no promise from the A's to do that. Which means if the A's don't fund it...
@threadreaderapp do your unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Trash Night Heron

Trash Night Heron Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hyphy_republic

27 Oct
Be ready to be misinformed on Howard Terminal deal. In the first place, MLB never said THIS vote had to happen. Open question whether a non-binding vote is enough to quell if MLB have genuine misgivings. If anything, vote showed nothing yet has swayed majority of the BOS
Several things were revealed at the meeting that showed even the City isn't close to greenlighting a deal. The first is that Fisher continues to resist real affordability on the 15% of on-site affordable housing. Kaval confirmed the disagreement, Maybrun went into that detail
Maybrun got into the weeds when she had to explain whether or not the fact that several County tax measures Century Urban based their county numbers will sunset in the next several years. CU admitted they hadn't factored that in.
Read 7 tweets
26 Oct
I'll be reporting on ALCO BOS' possible non-binding resolution vote today. Vote does not commit BOS to a course of action, and language of the item indicates supes may not take a vote at all for any # of reasons. May be other lengthy items before discussion, starting at 12
I think its pretty likely they'll vote and they'll vote yes. But what will come after that is the EIR will be published and discussed, and Schaaf Admin will be on the record with claims about public debt for off-site, and no current concrete state/fed grants in hand.
A good deal of the off site infrastructure would have to be built before the ballpark can open. Punditry have focused on the EIFD for ballpark, but it's a misleading solo focus. None of it works without off-site infrastructure, it's almost a misnomer to call it off-site.
Read 8 tweets
26 Oct
ALCO will have the thesis of a meaningless vote today on Howard Terminal. It's clearly designed to placate Fisher and the Building, but by itself is so symbolic that even die hard A's fans/politics noobs are wondering why they hell they are doing it.
I honestly believe hope on part of the A's, their punditry and captive media components is that if they say HT is a done deal often enough, people will truly resent any politician involved in the actual required long duration process. The pressure built on CMs will be enormous
I've written a lot about the dishonest process, manipulated by Fisher to always appear just around the corner if it wasn't for corrupt or ignorant politicos. Here
Read 7 tweets
26 Oct
Not sure if I'm reading this correctly in the PRA settlement, but (f) appears to say that the prompt responses required in the settlement needn't be adhered to because California law only requires "prompt" response.
The "unusual" circumstances that OPD would have to adhere to say that it needs an extension for requests, are the current "unusual" circumstances it already cites; voluminous records.
But again these are "timeframes" not actual production of documents. No production is mandated outside the backlog. Going forward, after the 6 months to 1.5 years necessary to clear the current backlog, the settlement doesn't change anything.
Read 4 tweets
25 Oct
Listening to Public Works, where issue of proposed anti-dumping ALPR/surveillance cams was prompted by Gallo. Duffey of DPW said system was currently going thru Privacy Advisory, would soon get to Council. But PAC told DPW they wouldn't pass current proposal due to facial recog Image
Thao picked back up on the ALPR/surveillance system, we'll see if they add anything
From DPW's Frank Foster, he said he not only expects the cameras to come to council, but to eventually be expanded. It actually is up to Council to pass legislation, and they've ignored PAC recommendations in the past, tho
Read 21 tweets
6 Aug
Starting Privacy Advisory Commission reporting for 8/05/21. They'll be discussing DPW's proposed ALPR/video surveillance project on illegal dumping, and OPD will be submitting 2 years of ALPR reports its behind on, as well as proposed usage policy--all late.
They're having a lot of technical issues so far, and taking a few minutes to get on top of that and establish quorum.
The meeting begins with open forum, Asata Olugbala only commenter, talking about the lack of provision of same programs and protections for Black residents as undocumented residents.
Read 61 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!