Settlement Reached in $63 Million Lawsuit Between County, City

The battle over redevelopment agency dollars will now be confined to just the city and state here in San Jose.

On Wednesday, the Mercury News reports, a settlement was reached between the city and Santa Clara County, which was owed $62.9 million. The deal will include a hand-off from the city to the county of the old City Hall property—estimated to be worth anywhere between $7 and $20 million. Also, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency will pay the county $26.5 million in two installments in the coming months. The balance of $23.78 million, as well as interest, will be paid annually each June from 2014 through 2018.

The agreement was hailed by county and city officials as an important step before the state Legislature likely shuts down the 400-plus redevelopment agencies. Gov. Jerry Brown has said property tax money that goes to redevelopment agencies should be used to help trim the state’s $26 billion budget crisis. If and when the Legislature takes action, redevelopment agencies are expected to have any money not already properly appropriated seized.

The county’s lawsuit was filed last week, when the Redevelopment Agency handed over parcels of land to a new entity called the San Jose Diridon Development Authority.

Read More at the Mercury News.

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

10 Comments

  1. How does the City give away the old City Hall building to settle part of the Redevelopment Agency’s debt with the County?
    Is the old City Hall building an RDA building? I don’t think so.
    Sounds like another case of ignoring the law when it doesn’t fit your purposes.

  2. I thought you couldn’t use RDA money for paying off debts. They seem to use if for whatever they want to use it for, when they want to use it. Then why couldn’t they use it for the general fund? Tells the truth, doesn’t it? I’d bet the citizens STILL won’t get it. Shame, shame shame.

    • RDAs exist on the basis of generating and repaying debt, that isn’t the news here. The news is the city is now using their *scarce* resources to help the bankrupt RDA to pay some of its numerous debts. The offset could be viewed as the transfer of ‘baseball park land’ the RDA made to the “new” Diridon Authority.  Whether the general fund can access that land to sell in the future remains to be seen. So yes, the city’s general fund that pays for basic city services does seem to be out the value of the old city hall, and this didn’t seem like the right time to make that move.

      As the heavily leveraged RDA crumbles under the heavy weight of its own debt, it continues to do what it has always done and that is spend the tax increment financing on whatever it wants to and general fund needs aren’t on the top of their list.
      The recent state controller audit did show how much of RDA funds were used to supplement the general fund, i.e. 25% of the mayor/council/40 staff members, etc. If the RDAs are eliminated, will the mayor/council reduce their pay/staff 25% or cut city departments? Interested observers of city council actions will know the answer to that question.

  3. So the city council members, in their infinite wisdom, build a half-billion dollar city hall under the auspices that a large percentage of the cost will be borne by the sale of the old city hall. They then turn the old city hall over to the county, years later and long after property values have decreased substantially from the the market’s apex, to reduce an outstanding debt by only ten million dollars, leaving a balance of about 490 million dollars to be addressed by the city coffers.

    When the project was sold to the voters it was purported that the sale would generate far more revenue than only two percent of the construction cost.

    With outstanding business practices such as these it’s no wonder that it is the city administration, and not its employees, that is bankrupting the city.

  4. This entire episode should serve as a warning to all as to the downright despicable way the Mayor and Council (RDA board of directors) CHOOSES to do business.
    1. They enter an agreement (contract) with the county.
    2. They simply decide they aren’t going to abide by the contract (pay the county the money they said they would pay) .
    3. Then the City/RDA gets sued for the breech and settles by having to give away OUR tax dollars. 

    Who should take note? For starters: city employees. If the criminals “we” have elected to office will do this in business matters with the county you can bet they would try it with there employee contracts.  Does any one really need an explanation as to why the employees have to belong to a union?

    • … as if right on cue Sam Liccardo wants the council to reject the firefighters contract offer saying that the 10% in salary they are giving up is “NOT ENOUGH!”

      Liccardo calls for halt on deal with San Jose firefighters : http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_17648268

      Figone, Reed and the council have been demanding 10% from all city employees for more than 2 years now. They have waged a very nasty and very public campaign against fire for holding out on the 10% giveback. Now that both sides have reached an agreement and all that is necessary to finalize it is the Council’s vote to formally accept it… “IT ISN’T ENOUGH?????”

      Criminals? at least crooks live by a warped code of honor. These lowlifes have no code except to lie everytime they open their mouths.

  5. If you like Reed, you will love Mayor Liccardo.

    Handpicked by Reed, McEnery, Ajlouny, Rotary and Dando’s Chamber to be San Jose’s next good old boy Mayor with all the right family, school, job and political appointment check marks and big money campaign backers

    Watch for Chuck to appoint Sam, the Vice Mayor in the year before election to kickoff his election campaign

    • Don’t be too sure that Council Member Liccardo would have a cakewalk into the mayor’s office.  For one thing, the ethnic balance in San Jose has tilted a long way from any one of the diverse white San Jose politicians rising easily.  Remember that the population shares in 2008 were roughly:

      Asian American………30.6%
      Hispanic American….31.9%
      White American………31.8%

      But the US Census figures from 2010 show a remarkable change in just two years:

      Asian American…….32.0%
      Hispanic American….33.2%
      White American…….28.7%

      Demographics doesn’t determine outcomes, but it gives this or that candidate an edge.  In addition, the Minority White Community is very angry with Liccardo because he declines to help with programs to reverse the meth health scourge that victimizes young diverse white kids more than it affects other kids. 

      This is a serious problem, but the city has not extended any kind of specific assistance to the white kids suffering from the social, health, and psychological problem.  Why the blind spot to this population and its vast over-representation in meth abuse and addiction?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *