Steve Hyman wrote:
“If the bill fails, we’ll see where the City finds the $18 million. That’s the $18 million question that hasn’t been answered yet.”
The City Council already answered that question Steve--in their due diligence analysis of the settlement agreement. If they didn’t answer it, then the City Council is guilty of gross negligence.
Mayor Bonnie McClung is deceiving people by going around making statements that imply the City can’t pay $18 million. As I have said before, if the City really can’t pay $18 million, then McClung and the others should be prosecuted.
At the AB 1991 hearing Officer A.J. Johnson admitted that the City could pay $18 million---but it would mean that the City couldn’t keep expanding spending on police services to the tune of about 15 percent growth per year.
Nearly 50 percent of HMB’s annual budget is already spent on police. The City of Vallejo, which is on the brink of bankruptcy spends 74 percent of its budget on police AND fire. So if you take out the spending on fire for comparison, HMB is probably pretty close to Vallejo on police spending as a fraction of the City’s budget. Not a good thing.
Looks like the first round of the housing market decline was won by the citizens who didn’t listen to all the glad-handing realtors who tried to sell them houses they couldn’t afford. But its too early to start popping the champagne cork yet for lower sales commissions because the opposition is led by the National Association of Realtors which is so well funded and organized.
Now I don’t really mean that of course. But you see how easy it is to construct an aggressive comment that is designed to provoke or annoy. Right Steve?
A bit more background on Chop Keenan’s hired lawyer Anne “belt & suspenders” Mudge
http://www.coxcastle.com/lawyers/bio.cfm?type=desc&attorneyID=180
Interestingly, she was the Chair of the Planning Commission for the City of Oakland in 2006-2007.
Keenan and the HMB City Council would like nothing better than to make this place look more like Oakland in terms of housing density. They and their friends could make lots of money in the process.
Some observations from the video:
Mayor Bonnie McClung claimed to be an “environmentalist” and in the same breath claimed that AB 1991 “will not undermine environmental laws.” Oh I get it, by “exempting” Beachwood/Glencree from all state environmental laws they are not actually “undermining” those laws. Dear Madam Mayor, please check in with reality.
Vice Mayor John Muller claimed that Beachwood/Glencree “would not harm the environment.” Then why does Beachwood need an exemption from state laws that are in place to make sure that it would not harm the environment? Answer: because Beachwwod really would harm the environment.
Later, Muller claimed that if the City took ownership of Beachwood by paying Keenan $18 million, the land would be essentially worthless. He claimed that land he himself farms across Hwy 1 would also be worthless for housing. Dear Mr. Vice Mayor, maybe that’s because your land is zoned for agriculture whereas Beachwood is zoned for residential. Assemblywoman Soldana caught Muller in this distortion. (As aside, I am wondering why Muller was not required to recuse himself from the Beachwood negotiations since he has an economic interest in close proximity.)
Local police union representative Officer A.J. Johnson was at least being honest when he admitted that “The City will be able to pay $18 million” to Keenan if necessary. But then he lamented that such an action would prevent the City from being able to “keep expanding public safety services.” For crying out loud, how much more money does the union want for the police department’s budget? Spending on police went from $2.7 million per year in 2001-2002 to nearly $5 million per year today. The police department already gobbles-up nearly 50 percent of the City’s entire $10 million annual budget. And they want to expand even more? This is why paying $18 million is considered such a hardship?
In response to a smart question by Assemblywoman Caballaro, lawyer Anne Mudge (hired by Keenan) was incapable of explaining why an initial step in the environmental review process (the granting of a vesting tentative map way back in 1990) would somehow endow Beachwood with the right to avoid going through the standard environmental review required of every other coastal development project. Mudge described AB 1991 as “a belt and suspenders move to prevent the project from going through the washing machine.” (I’m not making that up. Perhaps it’s a technical term she learned in law school). Coastal Commission Legislative Director Sarah Christie then provided a very clear explanation of the truth: Beachwood has never gone through the full permitting process required by law---in contrast to what Gene Mullin, Lanny Davis, and the HMB City Council have been going around claiming.
Later, Mudge gushed in agreement when Republican Assemblyman Guy Houston threw her a bone and said “all we’re doing is locking in the rules from 1990 right?” Actually no, we’re also ignoring the rules from 1990. All of these state environmental laws were in place back in 1990.
Assemblywoman Galgiani also asked a smart question. “Why did the HMB City Council agree to such a large expenditure of $18 million without seeking voter consent?” Probably because the arrogant HMB City Council believed they could avoid paying $18 million by trampling over every state environmental law on the books. They routinely ignore laws at the local level, so why not try the same thing at the state level too? Galgiani later voted Yes but she was participating at the special request of termed-out Speaker Nunez. She replaced Assemblyman DeSaulnier who stated that he likely would have voted No on the bill (see link below).
Lastly, both McClung and Mullin claimed that the $18 million settlement amount would “devastate” the City’s budget while failing to mention that it was the City Council itself that agreed to that figure, presumably after doing its legally-required due diligence. This brings to mind the old story of the guy who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan.
The HMB City Council shamelessly pulls in the Police and Fire unions who care nothing about the bill per se, but only wish to protect their fat salaries and benefits---the kind that have put Vallejo and Gilroy on the edge of bankruptcy as described here:
HMB’s police spending per resident is third highest in the area, just behind the wealthy enclaves Hillsborough and Atherton. With this kind of spending baked into the cake, HMB is headed for bankruptcy no matter what happens with so-called “rescue bill AB 1991”
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/is_the_hmb_police_budget_out_of_line/
If this bill passes, we will know there is some serious corruption going on in Sacramento. AB 1991 is simply nuts.
And I still cannot believe that the HMB City Council is using our money to pay Lanny Davis (Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky lawyer) to be their political hatchetman for this fiasco. Next they’ll be looking to hire Karl Rove.
http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=1858&c=1&d=m
A testimony to how bad this bill is for California. Also testimony to the arrogance of the Half Moon Bay City Council. They have a track record of flouting laws at the local level, so naturally they think nothing of trying to do the same thing at the state level. Gene Mullin should be embarassed for sponsoring such a thing.
Not only does this bill seek to subvert state law, but Mullin is also subverting the normal Assembly committee review process. The bill should be heard by the Natural Resource Committee since it affects environmental laws. But Mullin figured out a way to shut that committee out of the deliberations. How is that not considered corruption? Special interests pulling the strings of a politician who is supposed to represent us all.
That was not the only misleading piece of information in the City’s press release (link below).
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080423/20080423006490.html?.v=1
Notice that Councilman John Muller is listed as “Chair of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region”
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has not taken a position on AB 1991 nor did it authorize Muller to represent its official position at this press conference.
In fact, Muller would have been required to recuse himself from any Water Quality Control Board discussions about this bill due to his conflict of interest.
AB 1991 would exempt a huge housing development from having to comply with state stormwater run-off regulations. How is that consistent with the mission of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? Answer: it’s not.
This is really a shameless distortion likely engineered by the City’s expensive spinmeister Lanny Davis.
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend this event, but I have two questions for Jerry Hill.
Why is Hill (along with fellow Supervisor Rich Gordon) trying to wreck the Midcoast by cramming another 3400 houses into a place where the infrastructure is already overburdened (see link)?
Also, does Hill support Gene Mullin’s attempt to do an end run around our state’s environmental laws (AB 1991) in order to facilitate a sweetheart deal for developer Keenan?
The City’s problem is that it spends and owes too much. One solution is reorganization under the bankruptcy code. But the City council sees reorganization as the problem and more spending as the solution. More spending can never be the solution for a City that already spends too much. Even if AB 1991 were to somehow pass, the City spending on beachwood will keep growing because other permits will still be needed.
Maybe Steve Hyman has a good idea after all. We can get rid of these cumbersome state laws that protect wetlands and sensitive habitat, and replace them with a committee of potential homeowners (like those Steve keeps mentioning). We’ll drive the potential homeowners past a proposed development site, and if they shake their heads, we’ll let the bulldozers roll.
A number of us keep trying to point out that what little wetlands and habitat is left is increasingly near the borders of existing development.
But Steve would prefer to ignore those arguments and instead rely on the biological expertise of his potential homebuyers.
The fact that a realtor like Steve Hyman could choose to ignore the damage that AB 1991 could do to the whole state, let alone HMB, speaks volumes. I guess its just about 129 more potential sales commissions.
From the Coastal Commission letter:
“The Commission was prepared to assist the city with an appeal to the 9th Circuit, and, along with the Attorney General’s office, made that offer known to the City.”
Another piece of evidence which shows the City Council threw away an appeal that: (1) had good chance of winning (according to statements made by their own lawyer John Knox), and (2) could have received some very influential assistance from the State Attorney General’s office.
Why did the City Council throw away the promising appeal? Because they wanted to see those properties developed (it’s part of their philosophy--sort of like realtors) even though the City gets no net benefits from the development, only costs, like more traffic and need to provide more services.
But also from the Coastal Commission letter:
“The settlement agreement includes a provision wherein the city must purchase the property for $18 million, should AB 1991 fail passage in the Legislature. It seems reasonable to assume that the city would not have agreed to this provision if it had not anticipated having the resources to exercise this clause.”
This is exactly my point from yesterday (see link below). Either the City can pay the $18 million or our City Council members are grossly negligent for agreeing to that figure.
From the HMB lawyers’ statement of April 15, 2008
“...Either AB 1991 passes or the City must pay Mr. Keenan $18 million, a cost which will seriously burden the City and its citizens...”
Two observations:
1. Barry and others are right to characterize this settlement as blackmail or holding a gun to the head, etc. Just read the language. Can’t you just picture Lanny J. Davis pointing his finger at us saying,
“Now listen here people, either AB 1991 passes, or we’re gonna seriously hurt your City.”
2. Who bargained for the $18 million folks? Answer: our own four esteemed City Council members, Muller, Patridge, Fraser and McClung.
Either Davis is admitting that our own Council agreed to pay a dollar figure that they knew could not be paid, or else he’s exaggerating and the $18 million can be paid off with a bond.
If $18 million really can’t be paid, then our Council is guilty of gross negligence and should be prosecuted for failing to uphold their fiduciary duty. They threw away the right to appeal when they agreed to pay $18 million. So they had better be able to show that they checked the City’s financial ability to pay up before throwing away the right of appeal. The SM County grand jury should look into this.
In my humble opinion without crunching all the numbers, the City probably can pay off the $18 million via a bond, and it should start preparing to do so.
The City’s current revenue exceeds $10 million per year and they currently spend about $5 million per year on Police Servces in a place with near-zero crime. The County Sheriff’s office is a mere 5 miles down the road. Do we really need all those HMB police officers?
Moreover, after the City pays-off Keenan, the City will own a valuable asset that can be sold to help pay down the bond (thanks to Dennis Paul for pointing that out).
Finally, my opinion of our esteemed City Council published in yesterday’s Review:
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2008/04/16/opinion/letters/doc480664b535187703625103.txt
Janet,
Lanny J. Davis is in fact the big Clinton supporter you mention.
http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=149059
Maybe we should write to Hillary Clinton asking her why one of her biggest supporters is helping to gut California’s environmental laws in order to benefit a wealthy right-wing developer.
One more reason to recoil in horror from the Clintons. Go Obama.
The City Council’s lawyers are just being trotted out to say what their client wants them to say: “This will not set a precedent because we say say it won’t.”
What is the purpose of statewide environmental laws if they can be overridden to facilitate a special deal between one town and one developer?
What’s to stop the next version of Gene Mullin to do the same for Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, etc? Or some other special case for Half Moon Bay that may arise in the future. The City has other lawsuits pending folks.
The lawyers’ argument is so pathetic I cannot believe they would call attention to it by issuing a press release. But then again, they are just following orders.
Returning to my earlier analogy (see link) between the Coastal Commission and another public regulatory agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/stop_sb_1295_defend_coastal_commission/
What if Gene Mullin was a member of U.S. Congress and he proposed a bill that would exempt one well-connected company, let’s call it ENRON, from having to comply with the SEC’s mandatory accounting regulations?
Anybody with an ounce of common sense should recognize that this would be horrible public policy and shouldn’t even be considered.
Same goes for Mullin’s bill to exempt Half Moon Bay (and Keenan) from complying with our state’s mandatory environmental regulations.
Here’s the other thing. Where did that figure of $18 million come from Steve? It came from our own four City Council members after Keenan whispered it into their eagerly awaiting ears.
Basically, these four are trying to blackmail the entire state of California into giving their buddy Keenan the sweetheart deal of a lifetime.
Just because wetlands may exist close to existing development does not mean they deserve less protection than any other wetlands.
Over 90 percent of California’s coastal wetlands have been destroyed. Those that remain are increasingly near the borders of exisiting development, which keeps pushing relentlessly into all available open space.
Realtor Steve Hyman’s idea would be to protect only those wetlands where no houses (or McDonald’s) are nearby.
But then when people try to protect those wetlands say, like in Wavecrest, they are accused of stopping construction of a new middle school for his son.
Steve Hyman wrote:
“The City [Council] thought enough of the judge’s ruling that they decided to settle the lawsuit rather than appeal it.”
Actually no. The City Council didn’t think about anything before they decided to settle---they just did what the developer Keenan, who owns them, told them to do.
Why else would they settle for more houses than the original lawsuit was ever about?
Why else would they ok the idea of building 129 houses not just on top of man-made wetlands (if there are any, as Carl notes) but also on top of natural wetlands that always existed on these two parcels?
Why else would they drop their appeal after already having paid a top-notch lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare and submit it to the 9th Circuit?
The answer is very simple. Because Muller, Patridge, Fraser and McClung care more about the developer’s interests than about the interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent.
And Assemblyman Gene Mullin cares more about doing political favors than about standing up for his principles.
Page 1 of 15 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Barry Parr: The hearing is now scheduled for May 22. I believe this is the last possible… Posted 05/10 at 12:56pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ken Johnson: APPROPRIATIONS Committee HEARING DATE : 05/14/2008 Ken Johnson Posted 05/09 at 7:16am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Scott_Boyd: Steven Hyman wrote: “Really don’t know enough about the City’s expenditure on Police to voice… Posted 05/08 at 3:51pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Karen Rosenstein: I highly encourage people interested in leadership, especially environmentally oriented to check this program out. … Posted 05/07 at 10:05pm in Are you ready to Be the Change?
Kay Lindquist: Not to worry. With any attempts to deal with quality of life and environmental problems… Posted 05/07 at 1:32pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Steven Hyman: Really don’t know enough about the City’s expenditure on Police to voice an opinion other… Posted 05/07 at 10:09am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Kevin Barron: Carl, ... Jerry Bruckheimer needs a new doomsday script, and I think you’ve got a… Posted 05/07 at 9:11am in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Ken Johnson: Kevin Lansing, Vallejo will file for Chapter 9 protection. They voted last night. HMB next?… Posted 05/07 at 6:59am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Part II: In spite of the increasing global misery to come, few experts on the… Posted 05/06 at 8:54pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Carl May: As bad a mess as Beachwood is, and as bad a precedent for the state… Posted 05/06 at 8:50pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
