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.
Chan poked a big hole in the 65 MM in taxes during construction period by asking pointedly if that was based on the idea that the companies buy all their materials in ALCO. Maybrun admitted it was but couldn't explain the rationale for doing so.
Probably the biggest impediment revealed publicly for the first time yday is that the off-site infrastructure that's needed for the ballpark to open is going to rely on a ballot-measure bond. That means voters will have the final say on 150MM of the funding necessary for the park
If you are wondering I'm the only reporter that seems to know this. I can't say. I did listen, I did research, and then I ASKED. Here's the City's spokesperson conforming the limited obligation bond Schaaf mentions requires first a council vote, then a ballot measure.
I think its also worth noting neither Schaaf nor Maybrun named any specific grant or cash pipeline from state or fed. As I reported, criteria for the 280MM port grant many have assumed will help pay for the off site infrastructure is still MIA, and its notable it wasn't mentioned
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
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 patreon.com/posts/55541125
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.
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
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
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.