camille7444 comment-74987 2012-10-21T20:19:29Z 2012-10-21T20:19:29Z The timing on this rebranding couldn't be any better. Many businesses have opened along K St. The rebranding effort won't guarantee their success but it will certainly help. At the same time, the rebranding will be used in leasing and marketing efforts related to the 700 Block, 800 Block, Marshall Hotel, Greyhound, and Downtown Plaza WHILE those projects evolve before our eyes rather than after their completion. camille7444 2012-10-21T20:19:29Z camille7444 comment-74624 2012-10-12T23:03:10Z 2012-10-12T23:03:10Z I like it. I like how it pays homage to what many called it before and I think the timing is right as so many businesses have opened over the past couple years and so many more are planned over the next few. camille7444 2012-10-12T23:03:10Z camille7444 comment-74558 2012-10-11T07:30:28Z 2012-10-11T07:30:28Z Jeffeff, there's PLENTY of reasons to visit K St. How blind are you? K St between 10th to 13th has been dramatically cleaned up. Have you tried any of the new businesses? Mayahuel is one of the best Mexian restaurants we have. Ella is a fine dining place to bring friends from out of town who always walk away impressed. Same with Esquire Grill. I had a great time recently watching Batman & Spiderman in IMAX. District 30, Pixza Rock, & Dive Bar are packed all the time and not just on weekends. Pyramid, Ambrosia, Crest Cafe, Crest Theater, KBAR, the Cabaret, Social, Broadacre, & Estelle's are all great options. As are Chops, Parlare, Grange, and Marilyn's for live music. The City made major Streetscape improvements on the 700 Block and at Lima Park. They relocated a light rail stop to 7th St from K St. The mall just got new owners! A MAJOR redevelopment project is aiming to break ground soon on the 700 Block that will provide around 15 new retail concepts and 200 new residents. The storefront of the Kress Building on the 800 Block was recently remodeled. 24 hr fitness expanded big time and is packed. The Greyhound Station finally relocated. Cars are back on K St and the Hotel Berry just got renovated. The Marshall Hotel plans to be remodeled. California Family Fitness plans to be open next to Dive Bar. I pound the pavement around K St every damn day for the past 10 years. I am shocked someone would say they've worked downtown and not noticed all the improvement and not be able to come up with one reason to come have fun with friends downtown or get really smart and LIVE downown. camille7444 2012-10-11T07:30:28Z camille7444 comment-74440 2012-10-09T21:14:06Z 2012-10-09T21:14:06Z Amen camille7444 2012-10-09T21:14:06Z camille7444 comment-74439 2012-10-09T21:04:54Z 2012-10-09T21:04:54Z The key is for those that own property and/or businesses in those special assessment districts to not "care less". Instead, the goal is to get them to come together and make sound decisions to improve their district through maintenance, promotions, events, advocacy, etc. Branding plays an important role in that. camille7444 2012-10-09T21:04:54Z camille7444 comment-74417 2012-10-09T21:03:20Z 2012-10-09T21:03:20Z The majority of the DSP budget comes through collection of a special tax assessment and through grants given usually to be used for specific purposes. Line items in budgets are allocated and approved by the DSP Board. The DSP Board is made up of a collection of downtown property owners. I've spoken to DSP staff and there are plans to increase power washing and get JMA Ventures involved more. The purple banners around the 800 Block corner are also in those re-branding plans from what I understand. 20SomethingSac, have you heard that is not the case? Its easier to increase specific budget line items (like power washing) when the economy is doing well and property owners are more inclined to increase the special assessment they impose on themselves. Its also easier to increase specific budget line items when the DSP illustrates how it successfully implemented grant monies it received for a specific purpose. Value of downtown properties have not been impacted as much as the suburbs but they still have been impacted. The other hardship the last 5 years is that fewer significant projects that include dense housing have been completed because banking tightened up on new construction loans. I imagine its been a bit tricky for the DSP; how to encourage and promote growth in downtown while at the same time facing budget challenges and less development. To make statements though describing DSP branding efforts as "premature" and that their budget "should instead be used elsewhere" aren't quite accurate. We should have deeper perspective on what is going on with K St and downtown both historically and going forward. We also need to note that despite the economic hurdles these past 5 years there is still progress being made. I am encouraged. There has been momentum in downtown the past couple years after decades of trying to to fix some of the mistake of the past. Yes, some of those mistakes were unfortunately made by the City at the taxpayer's expense. This recent momentum though has resulted in a growth and value. Places like Ella, Mayahuel, Pizza Rock, Dive Bar, KBAR, Oishi, District 30, Broadacre, Blackbird, and Estelle's are giving legit hope. They are paving the way for more significant projects (with a good amount of housing) to start. We will soon enough see construction at the 700 Block and Marshall Hotel. The sale of Downtown Plaza to JMA Ventures is also key. A revamp of that combined with everything else already in motion will really change our downtown over the coming few years. Remember, K St from 10th-13th is already cleaned up. The projects I mentioned above all give hope that the rest of K St from 9th-7th and the mall itself will follow. The timing on the branding is right. camille7444 2012-10-09T21:03:20Z camille7444 comment-61055 2011-12-08T00:02:15Z 2011-12-08T00:02:15Z A couple weeks ago around 6pm I was walking on the 800 Block. There was a group of teenagers loitering in front of the Kress building at 818 K Street. Two young ladies within the group were in the midst of an argument that transitioned into a full on physical altercation pouring out into the street. A car drove by and slowed as they saw what was going on. I watched as they stopped and called 911. I stopped and called 911 as well. Within about 5 minutes, a bike copy appeared and began to handle the situation. I work and walk K St a lot and I see a lot of the positive changes occurring. Cars on K is just the latest. The new venues are busy and have become a regional draw. I've talked to servers and managers at Pyramid, Quiznos, and Ambrosia. They all seem to strongly feel that the new venues, relocation of Greyhound, and now the return of cars have been a positive impact on not just revenues but also on crime. I feel the same way. More businesses and more momentum is coming too. Estelle's Bakery is opening soon. Mayahuel seems to have hit its stride. And Ella looks to have not just strong lunches and dinners but also solid happy hours. I see the plans for a significant amount of more housing, the potential sale of Westfield and what that will hopefully turn out to become (hopefully higher education related), and approval of the new Entertainment Complex and I see a lot of positive things occurring in our city which is amazing when i think about the current economic climate. That's my two cents for what its worth... camille7444 2011-12-08T00:02:15Z camille7444 comment-58654 2011-10-14T06:07:05Z 2011-10-14T06:07:05Z I respectfully disagree. Restaurants opening and closing is typical of any economic climate. New restaurants have opened or will be soon during the same time as recent closures. Examples: BarWest, Restaurant Thirteen, Firestone in the old CPK, and the new restaurant by the Golden Bear guys in tne old Hangar17 space. Even during the real estate and tech boom days, the place where R15/Bernardo now is failed TWICE. A restaurants closing comes for reasons much moreso along the lines of poor management, poor service, or poor food. Visibility doesn't even matter as much. In fact, lack of visibility or a certain degree of "secrecy" to a place is almost preferred and seen as "cooler" these days by many it seems. But the hope is people learn from failures and bounce back stronger and more experienced than before on their next attempt. camille7444 2011-10-14T06:07:05Z camille7444 comment-58653 2011-10-14T05:57:23Z 2011-10-14T05:57:23Z 800J is over 90% occupied. Majority of units are market rate. Only a percentage (15-25% range) are at low income levels. And Temple was just added as a ground floor tenant...1801L has a similar affordability mix. And that project is also over 90% occupied with a long wait list for its affordable units. Downtown and midtown rental market is STRONG right now. With much much more needed. camille7444 2011-10-14T05:57:23Z camille7444 comment-55175 2011-08-16T07:27:04Z 2011-08-16T07:27:04Z I agree with you in theory. But post recession a full on change like what we all dream of for I5 is just not possible. Do the most with the financial capability that's possible for the immediate future and move on to the next project. camille7444 2011-08-16T07:27:04Z camille7444 comment-51678 2011-06-06T17:39:24Z 2011-06-06T17:39:24Z Scoured with no luck huh? Well...any public private project has to go through a City Council hearing approval process. And all council agendas, recorded videos, and result summaries are archived on city websites along with detailed staff reports that note rate of return calculations, job generation numbers, and further reasoning for the recommendation to council by staff. So, for example, the 1000 Block K St project can be found on the March 10th agenda back in 2009. The Sharaton deal similarly. Or the recent additional funding to CADA for R St Streetscape improvements on an agenda a couple weeks. Additionally, and this is important, all approved docs are public docs. Docs like ERNs, DDAs, etc. Read through these and you'll learn comprehensive NUMBERS, rate of returns, terms of loans, terms of cash flow split from projects back to a city, etc. These docs are attainable at the County Recorders office if you are skeptical about redevelopment being an inefficient tool. Additionally, depts like SHRA never approve a deal w/o annual "Cost Certification" implementation to verify a project's construction costs, revenue, expenses, rate of return to city, etc. I suggest you decide which redevelopment projects you want to look at. Then find out date approved and through City Council website read and learn the staff report, pro formas, financing, sources and uses, and associated recorded DDA/agreement. You can take it then further and through SHRA or Economic Development ask for public docs monitoring the completed project and return back to the city. And through the County Assesor you can find out the property tax generation difference before and after the redevelopment's completion for the said property and surrounding area any given tax year. I hope these thousands of additional words provide guidance on something that you seem to have had no luck with. I'd really look forward to continuing this dialogue once you've done this type of specific analysis of docs related to one or several specific completed redevelopments in addition to the "pavement pounding" I suggested before. I'd be curious then what specific concerns you still had. I also have a few questions for you: 1) What are your favorite cities in the US and why? Which are your favorite in CA and why? 2) What do you see as a more efficient alternative tool over redevelopment in order to generate additional tax revenue for city services and stimulate development in a city? camille7444 2011-06-06T17:39:24Z camille7444 comment-50846 2011-05-19T18:27:49Z 2011-05-19T18:27:49Z Its tough to have a dialogue with someone when they don't respond to the specific points that you bring up. You haven't addressed now after a few opportunities the impact redevelopment has on increases to property tax assessment not just on the property being redeveloped but on surrounding properties. You haven't addressed what hotel redevelopments mean to a City in the form of hotel tax and sales tax generation both in the hotel and in surrounding businesses around the hotel. All that you responded to what that sales tax return to a City is very small without touching on the other revenue generation sources. If you don't believe in job creation then I suggest you go pound the pavement. Go talk to all the management and staff at the new businesses at the 1000 Block. Go talk to the Parlare owners (Dale and Sheena) and get their opinion on what redevelopment of the Citizen and the 1000 Block has meant for their business. Same with the owners of Chops, Ambrosia, Pyramid, Temple, Mikuni, etc etc etc. City Council Staff Reports typically include detailed projections, numbers, deal structure, and return on investment numbers. I also suggest you get involved with groups like NAG, SOCA, the MBA, attend Planning Commission hearings, City Council Hearings, etc. Those are the best areas to listen and get a better understanding of how these deal structures are put together, why they are put together, and what they mean in terms of future impact both financially and from a community perspective. camille7444 2011-05-19T18:27:49Z camille7444 comment-50736 2011-05-17T23:51:45Z 2011-05-17T23:51:45Z You say money "diverted". I keep saying money used to produce more money. I offer case studies. Statistics. Numbers. Examples. I note increases to property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, hotel taxes, tourist taxes, job creation, permit fees, school fees, and provide a clarification that it tends to be low interest loans and not pure "subsidy". You still look at it and see money being taken away. I look at it and see money used to produce more money. Respectfully, I say lets just agree to disagree. camille7444 2011-05-17T23:51:45Z camille7444 comment-50732 2011-05-17T22:55:18Z 2011-05-17T22:55:18Z Cogmeyer, This has nothing to do with "pride". It has to do with fact cause and effect. Your response is simply that job creation figures used by pro-redevelopment types is unsubstantiated? A weak response that neglects the other positive points related to redevelopment that were highlighted. Before that your response was that net sales tax return to Cities from redevelopment is minimal? But you neglected to respond to increases because of redevelopment as well on property tax, hotel tax, payroll tax, and other revenue generation. Lets look at some local case studies. Take first the Citizen Hotel since we already spoke of the Sheraton Hotel. We didn't even touch on the tax revenue generated directly (hotel tax, tourism taxes, car rental taxes, etc) and indirectly (increased sales tax from visitors, etc) from the redevelopment of a hotel project like this one. These figures are so significant that they are the primary mechanism used in other cities to build sports and entertainment complexes that cost hundreds of millions of dollars! It would be interesting to note what the property tax of the Citizen hotel was prior to its redevelopments versus the current assessed value and the value 5-10 years from now when the economy improves. Now lets take the K St 1000 Block redevelopment as a case study. According to City Council Staff Report, a few hundred construction jobs and 180 permanent jobs were created. We already touched on the sales, payroll, and property tax generation. But what about the impact the three venues have on local vendors and suppliers as well? Think the restaurant equipment guy or the produce guy isn't happy that Pizza Rock opened? There was controversy at the time that the 3 "subsidized" venues would have a negative impact on existing entertainment venues. But all signs point to those businesses being as busy as they were at the peak of the economy. Finally, lets take the case study of the Elliot Lofts building where Mikuni and PF Changs are located. The governor LIVES there. The businesses and offices/lofts above have always done very well. What would the area and specifically the property values and their tax assessments be around 16th & J St had the Elliot Building not been redeveloped? There are other key factors as well. The millions in permit fees that go back to the City from these types of redevelopments. Each of these projects pay significant per square foot SCHOOL FEES. The fact that often times redevelopment "subsidies" are not subsidies but actually low interest loans that get paid back to the City over time is worth noting. And finally, how about the idea that redevelopment besides actually financially providing a boost to City revenue also "speeds up" the development of an exciting downtown? In other words, how long would it take to make our City "cool" if redevelopment was a tool that was not at our disposal? This in addition to the benefit redevelopment financially gives through the revenue generation for city services? camille7444 2011-05-17T22:55:18Z camille7444 comment-50721 2011-05-17T20:49:11Z 2011-05-17T20:49:11Z The Redevelopment debate is an interesting one. But cogmeyer you didn't address the property tax increase impact point, the job impact point, or that the Sheraton redevelopment was what generated the revenue to redevelop the 1000 block. I brought up that last point b/c you brought up the "mermaid bar". Here are some more points to consider: - Redevelopment creates more than 300,000 jobs each year, and many of them may not have been in California but for redevelopment. - Infrastructure Cost Savings. Redevelopment project areas tend to be already served by utilities and other public infrastructure, which lowers the public and private cost of serving the new development. This is particularly true of existing transportation infrastructure, which is incredibly expensive to construct and financially challenging to maintain in good condition. - Elimination of Brownfields. Redevelopment often transforms environmentally contaminated land and neighborhoods (known as brownfields) into economically viable and culturally exciting places, acting as a springboard for other public and private investment. This generates additional state and local tax revenues that would have been impossible without the investment. - Lower Public Safety Costs. Redevelopment lowers public safety costs by removing blight and the conditions that attract criminal activity. This lowers the state’s and counties’ costs for prisons and jails, courts, parole and probation, mental health and other services. It also allows local agencies to focus public safety services in other areas of greater need. - Significant Government Revenue. Redevelopment generates new income, sales and property tax for state and local governments ($2 billion per year by current count). - Better Transit — Less Parking. Redevelopment can help make public transit systems more self-supporting and successful, reducing the number of vehicles on the roads that serve other parts of an urban area. This also helps address one of the most perplexing and expensive problems in urban areas: where to put parking and how much to charge for it. Think about it. Parking spaces and garages are some of the biggest wastes of urban land, but they are necessary because of the way we have chosen to grow in the past. That does not have to be the case in the future. - Affordable Housing. Redevelopment is often accompanied by housing, both market rate and affordable, that meets important housing needs and reduces reliance on automobiles to access services and recreation in the urban core. Since 1993, redevelopment funds have helped build 98,000 units of affordable housing. - Other Urban Amenities Follow. Development in redevelopment agency (RDA) project areas can create the critical mass for attracting cultural, restaurant and other entertainment opportunities to the urban core. - Lower Carbon Emissions. Development in RDA project areas leads to lower per-capita and per-housing-unit carbon emissions, due to increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit use by the residents and visitors. camille7444 2011-05-17T20:49:11Z camille7444 comment-50713 2011-05-17T18:55:14Z 2011-05-17T18:55:14Z This guys does great work. Great to see him in action! camille7444 2011-05-17T18:55:14Z camille7444 comment-50712 2011-05-17T18:37:20Z 2011-05-17T18:37:20Z Its inaccurate to look at redevelopment as "taking away" money that could instead be used for city services. Redevelopment is a catalyst. It helps trigger MORE tax revenue to a city's general fund. If you want to fix a budget you can't just rely on cuts here and cuts there. Sure, you look at different costs and do what you can to reduce and be smarter. But to really solve a budget problem, especially during tough economic times, you have to significantly INCREASE a city's revenue stream. You have to use methods to stimulate and get more money. How do you do that? You increase property values in order to increase property TAXES. You generate new businesses, new jobs, and more sales in order to increase sales TAXES. And what happens when you do those two things? You increase the desirability of an area. What does that do? It makes more people want to live in that area. An influx of residents then further increases property taxes and sales taxes and so on and so on and so on....Naysayers complain about redevelopment funding a "mermaid bar". Well, keep in mind two things about that whether you like the mermaids and trucks or not. 1) The money used for that redevelopment CAME FROM a very successful redevelopment at the Sheraton that made the city (and thus city services like fire, police, and schools) a LOT of money. 2) That mermaid bar and that truck are projected to generate around a million plus in sales tax revenue annually to the city. And the momentum from the redevelopment of the Sheraton and the 1000 Block is now gaining more steam with Mayahuel opening, cars coming back to K St, the 700 Block, the 800 Block, Pyramid Brewery and Ambrosia Cafe revenue increasing, and Greyhound leaving. What does all that mean? Higher property values, more property taxes, way more sales taxes, more jobs....and a significant addition of revenue to the city to in turn use for city services. camille7444 2011-05-17T18:37:20Z camille7444 comment-44829 2011-02-01T17:09:15Z 2011-02-01T17:09:15Z Half the retail uses are proposed to be restaurant/bar oriented. Of that half, each brings something unique (a roof top dining area, a grandiose live music venue, a brewery, etc). Also in that half is a coffee/cafe/dessert diner use which provides utility to all the new residents to be introduced into the area. The other half of the retail uses are hard good oriented (several clothing boutiques, salon/spa, creative work/live loft space, a flower shop, etc. camille7444 2011-02-01T17:09:15Z camille7444 comment-44831 2011-02-01T17:06:25Z 2011-02-01T17:06:25Z John, my intent in bringing up the Maloof loan was not to suggest that the Maloofs have defaulted on the loan or are somehow trying to avoid it. My point was to emphasize that any deal for a new Sports & Entertainment complex in our downtown core would HAVE to include a solution to this debt as well as a solution to what happens to the existing Arco site so that Natomas is not compromised. camille7444 2011-02-01T17:06:25Z camille7444 comment-44759 2011-02-01T05:22:19Z 2011-02-01T05:22:19Z The City of Austin is one of my favorite or at least top 3 cities I've traveled to in the U.S. One of the things that Austin has done a great job of is giving tax incentives to corporations in order to lure them into establishing a headquarters or some sort of major presence within the city limits. Minneapolis is another city that has done this effectively. Another key to the success and vitality of both cities has been the strong presence of higher education. Sacramento needs to do a better job in both luring large corporations and installing more higher education facilities in and around the city core. A Sports and Entertainment complex that focuses on events 365 days a week similar to what complex operators are doing in Kansas City and what Oklahoma City did before eventually landing the Thunder would continue the momentum in our downtown core. Especially if the Sports & Entertainment complex is put where the current Westfield Downtown Plaza site is located. This would really kill two birds with one stone. The complex needs to be flexible and have more than one professional team playing in it. Think of the possibilities of having pro hockey team, pro indoor soccer team, pro basketball team, and Division 1 college basketball tournaments all along with major entertainment acts and concerts. This complex should not be built around the Maloofs and believing that they must be involved in order for things to work out. The complex should financially make sense. That means minimal public subsidy other than donation of city owned land and creative revenue sharing of parking that results in a gain in revenue for the City. This would be in contrast to revenue going to the Maloofs as currently setup at Arco. The plan for the complex should allow for other uses on the Westfield site such as retail, housing, higher education, parks, amenities, etc. The plan for the complex should address the Maloof's $60 million plus existing debt and include a development plan for what to do with the existing Natomas site to keep it "as good" if not better than how it currently is so that the residents of Natomas are not negatively impacted. Sacramento is not a pit. Its Midtown has experienced a renaissance over the past couple decades of restaurants, retail, art, culture, urban living, and more. We are the City of Trees, friendly and welcoming to the Gay & Lesbian population, have world class bike trails, rivers, and more. During the worst economic climate seen in a very long time we are still seeing exciting redevelopment projects being completed and moving forward. We are still seeing people trying everyday to make our city better. Think of the economic impact of having 10-20,000 plus people each night pour out onto our quickly developing K St and downtown after an event. Think about them consuming, living, and breathing our downtown prior to an event. I think about what AT&T Park has done for SOMA or what Petco has done for the Gaslamp Quarter of San Diego and think with proper planning and a focus on the financial we can do even better and improve our downtown core that much more. camille7444 2011-02-01T05:22:19Z camille7444 comment-44427 2011-01-27T01:40:35Z 2011-01-27T01:40:35Z If I am not mistaken only one team, the Icon team, indicated "that they wouldn't continue with the process if all four teams were kept in the game three more months..." The Core Team was asked if their team would be willing to stay if all teams were kept in the game and Ali Mackani's response was simply "Yes". Clarification of that was then asked by the Task Force and the answer still remained yes. It was a bit confusing but just wanted to clarify this point b/c it was an interesting part of the hearing and I believe an incorrect point in the article. Should be an interesting next few weeks... camille7444 2011-01-27T01:40:35Z camille7444 comment-40895 2010-11-18T02:33:22Z 2010-11-18T02:33:22Z Midtown and Downtown Sacramento needs more of exactly this type of development. Workforce housing targeting moderate income level people. That means more students, young people, professionals, artists, empty nesters, etc living and breathing the urban lifestyle. They will contribute to businesses in the surrounding area. And their carbon footprint will be that much smaller. That this project means the rehab of a historic building in such a key infill area makes it even sweeter. This building has been such an eyesore for far too long. camille7444 2010-11-18T02:33:22Z camille7444 comment-40762 2010-11-16T09:15:59Z 2010-11-16T09:15:59Z Very excited about the potential of the sedan model. camille7444 2010-11-16T09:15:59Z camille7444 comment-40761 2010-11-16T09:14:11Z 2010-11-16T09:14:11Z I am in favor of the CORE proposal. It kills two birds with one stone. Not only do we get an entertainment/sports complex but we also solve the giant elephant in the room when it comes to K Street which is Westfield. Where Westfield's Downtown Plaza is located has potential to be so much more than the obsolete suburban style mall that it is with barely half occupancy. For any proposal for a new entertainment/sports complex to have a chance it will also have to a) solve the issue of the $60 plus million in debt that the Maloofs still owe, b) what to do with not only the existing Arco Arena site but also the land surrounding it that the City owns and c) reveal a sound financing plan with not only enough equity partners to make the deal a real one in the eyes of everyone (Westfield, Maloofs, City, etc) but also show minimal if not zero public assistance or subsidy (as we all learned from failed measures at the ballots in years past). camille7444 2010-11-16T09:14:11Z camille7444 comment-32699 2010-07-13T14:27:40Z 2010-07-13T14:27:40Z YES camille7444 2010-07-13T14:27:40Z camille7444 comment-32693 2010-07-13T06:15:54Z 2010-07-13T06:15:54Z Cohn, why give Rubicon time to see if financeable when Staff report basically says it is not? I'd love to see if a motion would pass for the Selection Committee recommendation based off what the the other 5 CMs think who weren't in this suspicious Ad Hoc... camille7444 2010-07-13T06:15:54Z camille7444 comment-32637 2010-07-12T06:14:51Z 2010-07-12T06:14:51Z Staff report states in several areas the Rubicon parking bond subsidy requests are not possible. Throw in Rubicon's ridiculous request for millions in permit fee waivers and the lack of full preservation. Rubicon proposal can't be built. Taylor and D&S/CFY proposals are exciting and can be completed in 2 years. Every group backs Taylor and D&S/CFY except for this mysterious ad hoc committee with who knows what political motives behind them. This discussion is over. camille7444 2010-07-12T06:14:51Z camille7444 comment-32609 2010-07-11T10:49:19Z 2010-07-11T10:49:19Z Jim Knapp, you bring up an interesting and unique perspective regarding the existing system related to redevelopment. A few questions then: 1) What is the likelihood for the changes you are lobbying for in the current system setup? 2) Given the current system setup, which proposal or combo of proposals would you recommend if you had to choose? 3) How would a 1000-1500 seat live music venue compete with the existing Memorial Auditorium and Convention Center venues? 4) If you had to choose between a Knitting Factory or locally operated mid size venue with the influences of a Jerry Perry & Shady Lady, which would you choose? 5) Let me save you research time, the 14&R building was not given to D&S. And only subsidy was 300k infrastructure from CADA that CADA was going to spend later anyway. camille7444 2010-07-11T10:49:19Z camille7444 comment-32593 2010-07-10T20:23:38Z 2010-07-10T20:23:38Z Jim Knapp, I have been thinking about your concerns. And related to them, I wanted to point out that local jurisdictions across the country have redevelopment departments like SHRA, CADA, City Economic Development, etc. These departments/groups are established through legislation and small percentages of tax money primarily from property taxes are given to them with the intent this money is reinvested into redevelopment projects. In other words, these departments are created by government with the consent of the people with the focus being to use collected money for the betterment of the said local jurisdiction (through redevelopment). So that said. Would you rather have these redevelopment groups done away with? Do you feel that collected money is better used elsewhere and none should be used for redevelopment? What do you propose as the best solution in your eyes? You mentioned political corruption and campaign contributions. Specifically, how do you feel the potential for those kind of things has impacted redevelopment in Sacramento? Do you think it has or will impact who is chosen ultimately for these K St blocks? Ultimately, a decision must be made by Council based off the system in place whether its next Tues or at a later session. What do you think the best compromise/solution is for K St? If subsidy is your concern, then the decision made by the Selection Committee, DSP, and other groups with similar sentiments seems to make the most sense, no? camille7444 2010-07-10T20:23:38Z camille7444 comment-32591 2010-07-10T20:03:46Z 2010-07-10T20:03:46Z Only subsidy involved in the 14&R Project was $300k from CADA for "off site" infrastructure work (sidewalks, landscaping, utilities to buildings, etc). CADA only gave that $ because they were going to do that infrastructure work anyway (just later on). They had a project ready to go since they did that area first! CADA is about to start similar off site work between 10th- 13th St on R St (where Fox & Goose is). And after that the area near the Safeway and Crystal Ice Buildings on R St. 14&R was an over $7 million project. Subtract the $300k, and the rest was done with developer (D&S Development) equity and debt. I'll take a repeat of that scenario all over this town any day. And I don't care what development team is involved as long as they are one with a good track record. And D&S/CFY, Rubicon, Bridge, and David Taylor all have good track records. camille7444 2010-07-10T20:03:46Z camille7444 comment-32514 2010-07-09T18:13:48Z 2010-07-09T18:13:48Z From Staff Report: "No additional funds are anticipated for approximately two years. As part of the proposed finance plan as listed above, the team is proposing a public/private parking bond of $25M to build necessary parking. During these economic times, the City does not anticipate issuing any additional bonds or incurring any City backed debt thus alternatives would have to be developed for the parking elements of the project." camille7444 2010-07-09T18:13:48Z camille7444 comment-32497 2010-07-09T08:07:37Z 2010-07-09T08:07:37Z Theft? No. Too strong of an adjective. Misleading? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes. Totally outright NOT POSSIBLE? Absolutely. Paino, you've been all over these comments. So let's see answers to my key questions and be done with it. Staff report says parking bonds aren't possible. So how are you going to obtain? Don't just say it's been possible in other cities. And same with permit fee waivers? And same with equity evidence? And same with construction lender? Can you confirm that you've obtained? Staff Report says NONONO! Finally, why did THREE significant groups NOT vote for Rubicon? camille7444 2010-07-09T08:07:37Z camille7444 comment-32486 2010-07-09T03:48:40Z 2010-07-09T03:48:40Z Yup, $124 million in public subsidy. Ludicrous. Would I be deemed a visionary genius if I propose to build 25 Dubai like towers throughout the central city but just need $400 billion in city subsidy to do it?! camille7444 2010-07-09T03:48:40Z camille7444 comment-32480 2010-07-09T03:29:58Z 2010-07-09T03:29:58Z The Rubicon proposal has too much financial uncertainty. Look at the Staff Report closely. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee, Downtown Sacramento Partnership, and Sacramento Old City Association is the correct one. Staff says on page 9 flat out that the parking bonds Rubicon seeks are not possible! And permit fee waivers are expected too!? Yeah right! If anything, it's the Rubicon proposal offering very little substance...financial substance, that is... camille7444 2010-07-09T03:29:58Z camille7444 comment-32423 2010-07-08T15:21:14Z 2010-07-08T15:21:14Z Wow, I just realized something after going through City Staff's powerpoint presentation slides from the various meeting the past month. The approx $67 million in subsidy request in the Rubicon proposal in the form of parking bonds (somehow to be underwritten by the City) are IN ADDITION to the over $100 million in total subsidy request (Not part of as previously thought!). That $67 million is assumed to be part of Rubicon's equity! This financing plan is ludicrous. camille7444 2010-07-08T15:21:14Z camille7444 comment-32380 2010-07-08T06:28:32Z 2010-07-08T06:28:32Z There are key fundamental questions that have been raised throughout these comments that have conveniently neglected to be answered. If we are going to have a discussion then lets really have a discussion.... I'm very interested to see answers these questions... 1) How does the Rubicon intend to obtain a $15 million parking bond from the City when the City has no capacity to issue this? 2) How does Rubicon justify having over $17 million additional subsidy request for the 700 Block for just 77 more units while have approx 11,000 sq ft LESS retail when compared to recommended D&S/CFY proposal? 3) How does Rubicon justify the City not taking advantage of $20 million in MOPA funds already set aside for Taylor only projects for the 800 block? 4) How does Rubicon expect to obtain over $100 million in total subsidy for its "grand vision"? 5) Of that over $100 million, how does Rubicon expect to obtain about $67 million in parking bond permits when, again, the City, simply cannot issue? 6) How does Rubicon expect to obtain over $5 million in permit fee waivers for the two blocks from a Building Dept under so much scrutiny? 7) How does Rubicon justify not fully preserving the existing historic buildings like the recommended proposals have? 8) Why has the RFQ process changed? It was originally setup to where just a recommendation would be made by the Selection Committee? Why was the process expanded and by who? 9) What does it say that both the Selection Committee and Downtown Sacramento Partnership have both recommended the D&S/CFY and Taylor proposals? Why did they? 10) How does Rubicon intend to gain control of the surrounding properties that are included in their proposal? Especially when they are owned by Mo Mohanna and Benvenuti? 11) Why not put a farmers market in the open Downtown Plaza instead? 12) Has Rubicon given evidence of equity or any commitment letters from any lenders? 13) How does Rubicon expect to get financing for the hotel portion of their "grand vision" when two other hotel proposals on K St have so recently failed? Lets see answers to each of these questions Rubicon before asking us as the public to even begin to believe in you, your proposal, and even think about committing anything close to the amount of subsidy you are seeking. camille7444 2010-07-08T06:28:32Z camille7444 comment-32181 2010-07-05T00:10:32Z 2010-07-05T00:10:32Z I've already read the financing summary on that blog. It's inaccurate and misleading. It's not an accurate analysis. That's why I posted financing & subsidy info straight from City Staff analysis & presentations. camille7444 2010-07-05T00:10:32Z camille7444 comment-32121 2010-07-03T19:58:49Z 2010-07-03T19:58:49Z J-E Paino, with all due respect, the financing and subsidy request is much more complex than what you are indicating. According to the City Staff June 9th Presentation to the DSP Board: D&S/CFY 700 Block 136 units 37,480 sq ft retail $16 million total subsidy ($8 million to be paid back as low interest loan) $117,650 per unit Rubicon 700 Block 213 units (77 more than D&S/CFY proposal) 27,000 sq ft Retail (10,480 sq ft less than D&S/CFY proposal) $33.6 million total subsidy ($15 million of which is an uncertain parking bond subsidy) $157,750 per unit *So comparing the 700 Block proposals, the Rubicon plan asks for $17.6 million more subsidy, or $40,100 more subsidy per unit, and has 10,480 sq ft less retail. And does not preserve the history. Taylor 800 Block (North & South) 120 units 32,530 sq ft Retail Total Subsidy: $6.18 milion Plus, and this is key, $16 million in MOPA funds already set aside specifically for use on future Taylor projects. In other words, per previous completed Taylor projects, City has this money allocated just for use on Taylor projects. Rubicon 800 Block (North & South) Now this is where Rubicon financing gets complicated and must be looked at closely... $36 million in "Public Sources" not clearly identified yet for the 800 North Boqueria farmers market $29.86 million in total subsidy for the 800 Block South Bell Vue portion $10.28 million of that $29.86 million in the form of another uncertain parking bond subsidy. Does not preserve the Bell Vue and proposes its demolition Proposes delivery of the 800 Block North & South as a later phase 3 by Dec 2014 and Dec 2015. *So comparing the 800 block proposals, Taylor proposes a total subsidy of $6.18 million with use of $16 million City must use for Taylor at some point versus Rubicon's $65.86 million in subsidy. Plus an overall subsidy of $107 million for "all four phases" which includes properties currently owned by Mo Mohanna and Benvenuti among others. And of that $107 million?...$65.93 million in uncertain parking bond subsidy the City has no capacity to underwrite. And millions more in permit fee waivers from a depleted building dept currently under audit and major scrutiny. And no evidence of Rubicon equity nor an identified construction lender like the D&S/CFY proposal produced for the 700 block. This information is all based off the City presentation at several DSP and public meetings. camille7444 2010-07-03T19:58:49Z camille7444 comment-32104 2010-07-03T16:24:21Z 2010-07-03T16:24:21Z The DSP board formally made the same recommendation as the Selection Committee and chose the Taylor proposal for the 800 block and D&S/CFY proposal for the 700 block. This was after a lengthy review process that included multiple meetings and presentations of the proposals in front of both the DSP Board and DSP Executive Committee and DSP Strategic Task Force. camille7444 2010-07-03T16:24:21Z camille7444 comment-32096 2010-07-03T13:10:20Z 2010-07-03T13:10:20Z I'll take it one step further as to be as factual as possible. Lets say Rubicon in some highly unlikely way is able to get the $14.45 million parking bond and the $3.5 million permit fee waiver. And we even get really conservative and not count the parking bond as "subsidy" since it will be paid back if ever obtained. Similarly, the D&S/CFY request for $8 million low interest loan we also would not consider "subsidy". The difference in requested subsidy, even when looked at very conservatively, is still extremely significant at $8 million versus $18.6 million. Is almost $11 million in additional subsidy justifiable for 77 more housing units but 11,000 sq ft of less retail space on the 700 Block? To a proposal with uncertainties in its financing to begin with? And for a proposal that also includes a farmers market for the 800 block where Taylor has over $20 million at his sole disposal with the City already? $11 million or $17 million more on 700 and even more on 800 since Taylor already has money set aside. However you look at it, the numbers just don't make sense to go with the Rubicon proposal. camille7444 2010-07-03T13:10:20Z camille7444 comment-32047 2010-07-03T12:12:30Z 2010-07-03T12:12:30Z One of the many reasons I like the committee and DSP recommendation is that it allows for two of the teams to work on revitalizing K St at the same time. And once both are completed, there would be an influx of 300-400 people living there plus several dozen new retailers. That is a very solid impact to finally kickstart the K St Renaissance. And with the least amount of subsidy request. And frankly, I don't see the City underwriting a near $15 million parking bond or giving $3.5 million in permit fee waivers like the Rubicon proposal seeks. A farmers market should be in an existing building or in empty Downtown Plaza. Especially since a major Ferry Building type farmers market is part of the Railyards project already. Finally, all the historic buildings should be preserved and their character both retained and appreciated. camille7444 2010-07-03T12:12:30Z camille7444 comment-32097 2010-07-03T11:00:52Z 2010-07-03T11:00:52Z Wow, cool article. Informative and a real interesting read! camille7444 2010-07-03T11:00:52Z camille7444 comment-32095 2010-07-03T10:42:11Z 2010-07-03T10:42:11Z Combining old with the new is what makes the D&S/CFY proposal for the 700 block the most attractive. It retains the historic character of the existing buildings by not proposing to demo them. Rubicon proposes demolition. D&S/CFY proposes adding a new structure to the back middle section of the block which yields 136 workforce housing moderate units (not low or very low income units). Taylor's proposal for the Bell Vue does not propose any demo as well. From a preservation aspect, the proposals recommended by the Selection Committee and DSP are more appealing. I respectfully disagree on the status of the Midtown retail industry. Over the past couple years, Midtown has continued its renaissance. Places like Hot Italian, Chicago Fire, Red Lotus, Shady Lady, De Vere's, Burgers & Brew, Magpie, and others have opened and are doing very well. Further, the DSP studies done on what K St needed for retail concluded that locally operated boutique businesses will be the key driving force in K St gaining a unique identity and successfully being revitalized. That said, a locally operated business can easily draw from greater than a 5 mile radius and that seems to be the intent of businesses like Shady Lady wanting to do a live music venue at the 700 block. You are still inaccurate on the total subsidy request by not including the retail of the Taylor and D&S/CFY proposals. Based off actual numbers presented by City Staff, the D&S/CFY requested subsidy for 700 block is far less per unit than what Rubicon seeks for the same block. Rubicon is seeking over $33 million. That includes a highly uncertain $14.45 million parking bond and $3.5 million in permit fee waivers. D&S/CFY is seeking $16 million with $8 million of that to be paid back. While the Rubicon proposal does have 77 more housing units, the D&S/CFY proposal has about 11,000 sq ft more retail. Assuming Rubicon in some way can even get the full $33 million they need for the 700 block, does over $17 million in additional subsidy justify demolishing historic buildings for 77 more apartments but 11,000 sq ft less retail? Plus, D&S/CFY have already given the City evidence of equity and a construction commitment letter. And on the 800 block, Taylor already has over $20 million solely at his disposal. There is obviously a reason the Selection Committee and DSP made the choice they did. They had all the facts and all the numbers. And the idea of having 2 teams was appealing to them because it hedges the City's risk. camille7444 2010-07-03T10:42:11Z camille7444 comment-32075 2010-07-03T01:31:26Z 2010-07-03T01:31:26Z Your 300k per unit calculation is inaccurate. Why would you take the total requested subsidy and divide by the total # of housing units without factoring in the over 70,000 sq ft of retail space? And why not put a farmers market in an existing vacant building or in a half vacant Downtown Plaza rather than in prime land? camille7444 2010-07-03T01:31:26Z camille7444 comment-32043 2010-07-02T16:53:09Z 2010-07-02T16:53:09Z So would the recommended proposals suddenly qualify as "visionary" if they proposed 8 highrises and professional baseball, football, and basketball facilities with 5 billion in necessay subsidy? No spinning here. To me, what made this article effective was it's analytical and very practical approach to assesing which proposals were the best out of a group of teams who all possess excellent track records. camille7444 2010-07-02T16:53:09Z camille7444 comment-32029 2010-07-02T09:14:41Z 2010-07-02T09:14:41Z Great analysis. You did a fantastic job hitting on the strengths of the Taylor and D&S proposals. Easier to understand why the Selection Committee and DSP recommended them. And having two teams instead of one hedges the City's risk effectively. camille7444 2010-07-02T09:14:41Z camille7444 comment-31828 2010-06-29T23:59:06Z 2010-06-29T23:59:06Z The Rubicon proposal's phase one that is "ready to go" involves a $14.5 million city endorsed parking bond. The City does not have the capacity to endorse this bond anytime soon! Besides the impossible bond, the requested overall subsidy is a higher dollar amount per unit when looked at closely. The proposal includes surrounding properties not under City control or Rubicon's control. These properties instead are owned by Mo Mohanna and Bevenuti among others. The Rubicon proposal does not preserve all the existing historic buildings. The Selection Committee and DSP made the right decision. Taylor for 800 with over $20 million solely at their disposal. And D&S for the 700 given their proposal's boldness yet also doability. camille7444 2010-06-29T23:59:06Z