Claycord – Talk About Local Politics

September 13, 2019 19:00 pm · 20 comments

voted1

This special post is “Talk About LOCAL Politics”.

Please use this post to talk about LOCAL politics, and keep state and national politics out of this thread.

Thank you, and be kind to each other.

Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose a name so others can easily chat with you. Users must provide a name in the ‘name field’, please do not use the ‘@’ symbol in the name field.

Bob Foo September 13, 2019 at 8:37 PM

Following up on my comments last week.

I messaged Mayor Obringer on Facebook Messenger, asking if she is in support of using city money to fund or subsidize the proposed stadium mixed development in downtown Concord that is being studied. She assured me that she will not support spending city money for that.

The stadium feasibility study is being funded by a developer. Hall. He is a very wealthy individual, who recently purchased rights to some minor league soccer teams, and is looking for a home for them.

This gentleman is simply seeking to serve his own interests. He has made it clear that he is not taking the Concord residents’ wants into consideration. All he wants is three city council votes so he can make a sad attempt at turning a profit on his investment.

Now, I have no problem with people running a business, or turning a profit. But his insistence on this stadium project will directly harm many people who will do nothing but experience damages and hardship from that.

We don’t have a stadium crisis. We have a housing and commercial space crisis. We need to use that land for the benefit of people and small business. Not for the benefit of a single person. And history has shown that minor league teams, especially soccer, rarely make the kind of money that they need to survive.

Amy September 13, 2019 at 9:05 PM

I agree 100% with Bob Foo’s post. Is there an organized group that is starting a petition? Contact information would be appreciated.

Bob Foo September 13, 2019 at 10:16 PM

There is. A local group, called Concord Citizens Alliance, is doing a petition that opposes a downtown stadium. Do a Google or Facebook search for them and you can find their website.

I have lived in Concord for about 10 years, but I only attended my first city council meeting last Tuesday. I met a couple members of CCA there. They seem to be good people. I’m politically moderate, slightly right-leaning, and they didn’t make me uncomfortable with anything they are pushing for. If you’re interested in teaming up with an organization that opposes a downtown soccer stadium, they are a great option.

Always Right September 14, 2019 at 6:51 AM

@Bob Foo – Concord Communities Alliance is starting this petition. Please be aware this is a left wing “progressive” community activist group which wants the city to build stack and pack low income housing on this site.

Don’t care for the stadium in this location, so I may sign the petition. If you sign just be aware of who you are dealing with, and there agenda.

Bob Foo September 14, 2019 at 9:01 AM

I understand that they are “left wing.” I am personally not, not even close. However, I am not against high density housing. The population is going up, and we need places for our kids to live. It’s a fact of life. I’m sorry that Concord can’t be this cute little country town anymore, but you can blame that on those who chose to have children.

I also agree with the CCA about some other things, like the fact that the Concord police department has an absurdly high budget (56% of the whole city’s budget, over $60 million). And that the creation of a location tracking system downtown for the purpose of targeting online ads is an invasion of privacy.

So while I’m not out there fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants, I’m still going to admit that not all societal changes are a bad thing.

1791 September 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the CCA want’s the police budget decreased and “stack and pack” housing to be built? So more people, less police is a good thing? Justify it…

Gittyup September 14, 2019 at 8:56 AM

In order to save California’s beauty from over-development, wall-to-wall condos, and cheap tacky subdivisions, private citizens may have to step up and purchase the few remaining undeveloped areas in the state to use as they see fit and for future generations. You know for a fact that ABAG and your local city council aren’t going to do it.

‪How Canadians Raised Millions to Save 2,000 Pristine Acres

https://nyti.ms/2A6rGMk‬

anotheranon September 14, 2019 at 10:06 AM

If this is to be a private venture, then only PRIVATE funds should be used in the construction, not PUBLIC funds. Our local politicians can claim to not support spending public funds for a project, but in the end, they will support it. NO PUBLIC MONEY for a private venture!! Once that is decided, see how long Hall and company will stick around.

RANDOM TASK September 14, 2019 at 10:11 AM

Uuuuh
Sooo your pro housing
Complaining about a stadium

So just a small heads up
You are also pro illegals

Well where do you think these illegals live

Yes that’s right in the cheapest place the city and state can house them
All 12 million of them

Now if we took a sensus of how many people are complaining about affordable housing

What number would that be close to

Any liberal socialist communist want to answer

You are towing a party line that is beating you down lol
Using you for political gain and you are all for it with blinders on

Yes we are the country of freedom and bring us your outcasts
But it has to be done legally and matter of factly
Or you get chaos and rampant decline
Just look around concord ….now look up concord 30 years ago
And this is just one town or city what ever you want to call it

Economics is simple
You can or support the world without beating down the citizens

Your up in arms over a company trying to impose a profit in your back yard

Wow can not believe you can not see the correlation relative to politicians steering you for their profits

The so called housing crisis is your fault
Will never be stopped
As long as a free for illegals mentality or rather agenda is imposed upon us

Did anyone vote to allow this
To allow low income housing to be used to house illegals and push American citizens to the streets

I hope not or rather hope the obvious answer is NO

Not one politician has even mentioned this fact
Or even a so called alarmist or organization or joe blow

Where do you think illegals live lol

You riot and preach illegals and free for all

And then throw citizens to the streets in favor of illegals 12000000 of them

And yes illegals have gotten the preferential treatment so the dem politicians could boost population numbers for the sensus and get more fed money and more seats for political power in Congress

Why do you think the politicians refuse to make laws to have them legal
Then they lose control
Then the illegals could vote the way they wanted to

The politicians of this state are forcing what ever they want on us with out us voting

This stadium is their blatant powers being thrown around so they can make money

Just like real politicians who do it on a more grandeous scale
Like 12000000 people in free housing who are not citizens

So stop complaining

YOU WON

Bob Foo September 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM

I’m not “towing a party line.” I am dealing with people who happen to agree with me on a couple things. There are plenty of low income Americans as well, but only a percentage of housing built is for “low income” households. Developers don’t build any more low income housing than they have to, because it doesn’t make them money. They only do it because the state makes them.

Bob Foo September 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM

And your poorly-written tweaker rants were cute at first, but frankly they really do make you seem ignorant, uneducated, and shortsighted. I really do agree with a lot of things you say, but you make your causes look bad.

Hope Johnson September 14, 2019 at 12:43 PM

Mayor Obringer has absolutely expressed support to use taxpayer money to build this stadium. She may have used some political double-speak to twist the conversation into the use of “city money” but she has stated support for the use of taxpayer funds for construction (a much larger sum than the cost of the feasibility study) proposed by the unethical Tim Grayson that would replace the redevelopment money taken away by Jerry Brown.

First, Hall wants to build on public property managed by Bart and the City of Concord. He is not looking to purchase the land and pay full property taxes on it. He is looking to build his sports toy on the public property in exchange for sharing some concessions with Concord. This type of arrangement (at least in CA) results in the private entity paying a lessor amount of property taxes, called possessory taxes. This is always a losing situation for the public entity – always. Take note of Oracle Park in SF – in 2016 the Giants said they were paying posssessory taxes that were too high, and SF had to cough up $8M of its budget money to pay them. Public tax cuts for wealthy private businesses seldom “trickle down” to the city. For example, Square is currently sung SF for money over the Twitter tax break.

Second, in March 2019, I attended a town hall with Tim Grayson and Steve Glazer. Grayson announced that he has a bill planned to eliminate a city’s ability to charge impact fees to developers. These are the fees developers have been required to submit to help pay for the extra infrastructure needed for their projects. At this meeting, Grayson specifically stated he would try to offset the loss of impact fees with a government fund that would be something like the redevelopment money Jerry Brown eliminated. Grayson told the audience how happy this would make Mayor Obringer, who was in attendance in the front row. So Grayson and Obringer are both happy to replace what is now a fair share contribution to offset the risks of a project paid by the private entity set to benefit with money collected from taxpayers. Maybe that’s not “city money” to Obringer, but taxpayer money nonetheless.

A few city council meetings after this town hall, Obringer stated that she was looking forward to this potential new taxpayer fund because “redevelopment money has been used in the past to build stadiums.” This is just one comment she has made in passing during public comment and the the item reserved for council announcements. It is hard to give you a specific video to look at because they are comments made at unexpected times during meetings. There has been no formal discussion of how Hall plans to fund this stadium and, unlike other projects, the council did not require Hall to even so much as demonstrate he has investors interested or how much taxpayers funding he plans to use prior to starting the feasibility study. The exclusive negotiating agreement doesn’t require discussion of funding until after every other part of the study is completed despite the fact that funding ends up being the most important issue that comes up in every discussion during the “housing crisis.”

You will hear formal discussion of multiple taxpayer funding of this stadium when council finally gets to it. The new Grayson redevelopment idea (aka replacing developer money with taxpayer money) as well as creating special districts through SB293 that allows projects like this to declare that surrounding homeowners will benefit from the project so should pay for the new infrastructure needed. SB293 allows the city to assess property taxes on the special district to fund the stadium infrastructure. In fact, the CA legislature just amended this bill to make it easier for Oakland to assess new property taxes to pay for the infrastructure to fun the Oakland A’s proposed new stadium at Howard Terminal (also publicly owned property). So much for the illusion of a privately funded ballpark.

A better question for Obringer is if she is willing to commit to refusing to use taxpayer funds – any taxpayer funds whether Concord’s or your state or federal taxes – to fund this privately owned and operated stadium. None – not for the feasibility study or the more expensive stadium construction or the installation of infrastructure to support the stadium or any part of the project to be privately owned. If she will text it to you in writing, all the better.

SF oh September 14, 2019 at 2:29 PM

I have not met one person who wants this stadium built. Santa Clara is dealing with the consequences of putting Levi’s Stadium near existing neighborhoods. The neighbors are angry because of the noise; performers are angry because of the restrictions; sports/music fans are angry because it is overpriced, under staffed and horrible; politicians are angry because everyone is angry at them for building that monstrosity. I know this stadium is supposed to be much smaller ….. but it would be a disaster for the community, none the less.

Amy September 14, 2019 at 3:12 PM

Does anybody know why the apartments planned for the East St./Port Chicago Rd./Willow Pass Rd. area has not moved forward?

Always Right September 14, 2019 at 8:49 PM

@Amy – the developer was unable to meet the construction unions exorbitant wage/work rule demands so they threw some frivolous CEQA lawsuits at him and stopped the project cold. That was like 3-4 years ago. I think that developer gave up and sold his interest to another developer who is going through the process.

Can’t build much in Concord because our council is too timid to take on the powerful construction unions. All of our council members are registered democrats, by the way.

THE BLACK KNIGHT September 19, 2019 at 9:12 PM

Amy,

According to Concord Mayor Carlyn Obringer and Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister, the developers for several downtown projects have told the City of Concord they can’t make any money in Concord at this time and will sit on the lots for as long as it takes for rents in Concord to increase to make their projects viable and successful.

Gittyup September 17, 2019 at 9:34 PM

@Bob Foo September 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM You say that to anyone on here who makes legitimate points but does write them quite like you do. You said the same thing to Lars. You’re obviously trying to stop them from commenting here because they make compelling arguments and present some sort of potential to sway public opinion. It’s rather nitpicky and condescending of you to try to shut people up like that.

Gittyup September 18, 2019 at 6:17 AM

“… but does write them quite like you do.” That should read “but does not write them quite like you do.”

Rollo Tomasi September 18, 2019 at 7:23 AM

I don’t generally read them at all. There very well may be be some excellent points made, but why should I take the time to consider points made by someone who can’t take the time to punctuate or even structure a comment in a coherent, cohesive manner? It’s not about trying to shut anyone up. It’s about trying to find value in comments presented, and doing so with the stream of consciousness manner in which they are presented is onerous.

Gittyup September 19, 2019 at 9:49 PM

@RT Then, don’t read them. I actually appreciate the style in which they are presented. I think it’s a very creative way of expressing one’s thoughts. And, let’s face it, who really wants to learn touch typing to enter comments on the internet. In fact, who wants to learn touch typing for any reason. Some are talented at presenting their ideas, some are great at touch typing, capitalization, paragraphing, punctuation, etc. In other words, some can generate ideas, while others can be clerk typists.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: