Who Really Wants 12 Years of Eminent Domain in San Ramon?
City Council of the City of San Ramon (the "City Council") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Ramon (the "Agency") will hold a joint public hearing on March 14, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, California, to consider and act upon the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment") for the City of San Ramon Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and to consider all evidence and testimony for or against the approval and adoption of the proposed Amendment.
At any time not later than the hour set forth above for the hearing of objections to the proposed Amendment, any person may file in writing with the City Clerk of the City of San Ramon a statement of objections to the proposed Amendment. At the day, hour and place of the hearing, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Amendment, or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings, may appear before the City Council and the Agency and show cause why the proposed Amendment should not be adopted. At the hour set forth above for the hearing of objections, the City Council and the Agency shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections to the proposed Amendment.
The purpose of the proposed Amendment is to:
- 1) increase the limit on the amount of tax increment the Agency can receive from $94 million to $623 million;
- 2) increase the bonded indebtedness limit from $35 million to $100 million;
- 3) re-establish Agency authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area for an additional 12 years, except that eminent domain may not be used to acquire real property outside of the Focus Area that is occupied as a residence; and
- 4) update the land use provisions within the Redevelopment Plan to conform to the City's General Plan as it may be amended from time to time.
In addition, the City Council and the Agency will, at the same time and place, hold a joint public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration on the proposed Amendment and consider all evidence and testimony for or against the adoption of the Negative Declaration. At the day, hour and place of the hearing, all interested persons desiring to comment on, or having objections to, the adequacy of the Negative Declaration may appear before the City Council and the Agency and be heard.
Above From San Ramon: City Agenda See Project and Focus Area.
1. What is this planned $623 million tax increment?
2. Are we going to put ourselves more in debt?
3. The city can expand the project area or the Focus area at any time.
4. They can change the zoning code in the Redevelopment Plan any time they want.
Do we really want to loose our auto repair, body shops, shower door company, sign business, woodworking shop, and other privately owned small businesses in San Ramon that provide vital services to the community? These businesses have thousands of customers every year and are thriving. Why on earth would we want to remove a tax base for the city of San Ramon? Furthermore, why the need to implement and provide a 12 year extension to eminent domain? Once we go down this slippery slope, eminent domain could be used for anything. This is exactly what has happened in other cities.
Say No To Eminent Domain.
Speak out at the meeting.
Public hearing on March 14, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, California.
Note: The City Website has been down at various times. Here is a list of the council members.
Judge Jury Executioner
Meeting Times:
2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month
in the Council Chamber
Mayor H. Abram Wilson
246 Canyon Lakes Place, San Ramon, CA 94583
City Voice Mail: (925) 973-2548
E-mail: hawilson@sanramon.ca.gov
Term Expires: 2009
Vice Mayor Carol J. Rowley
San Ramon, CA 94583
City Voice Mail: (925) 973-2545
E-mail: crowley@sanramon.ca.gov
Term Expires: 2011
Councilmember David E. Hudson
162 Pebble Place, San Ramon, CA 94583
City Voice Mail: (925) 973-2546
Home Telephone: (925) 828-5578
E-mail: dhudson@sanramon.ca.gov
Term Expires: 2009
Councilmember Jim Livingstone
44 Dos Rios Court, San Ramon, CA 94583
City Voice Mail: (925) 973-2547
Home Telephone: (925) 820-5801
E-Mail: jlivingstone@sanramon.ca.gov
Term Expires: 2009
Councilmember Scott Perkins
2764 Ellingson Way, San Ramon, CA 94583
City Voice Mail: (925) 973-2544
Home Telephone: (925) 833-7743
E-Mail: sperkins@sanramon.ca.gov
Term Expires: 2011
 | citycouncil@sanramon.ca.gov |
3 comments:
The San Ramon City Council is the Redevelopment Agency!
Why did the San Ramon Valley Times not report the eminent domain portion of the March 14th San Ramon
Council Meeting - the Public Hearing on the 4th Ammendment which City posted a large Notice of Hearing ad in the SR Valley Times three times? So many people showed up that there was not enough seating room available, people were standing in the back and out the door in the hallway. After about 24 citizens spoke and voiced their opposition to this Redevelopment/Eminent Domain proposal, the City Council closed that segment of the meeting and the meeting room emptied. The Council continued with their other items of business (AT&T plan) in an almost empty chamber.
So what does the San Ramon Valley Times report on this meeting: Bold Headlines on San Ramon's Approval of AT&T Project LightSpeed - a lengthy article on the AT&T project. Not a word about the Redevelopment/Eminent Domain portion of the meeting of which there was so much community
interest.
Why read the San Ramon Valley Times
if they don't report the REAL news?
The Tri Valley Herald, the other local paper did not do much better. Their headline, City pushes eminent domain law, was posted online two days after the actual meeting. The Tri Valley Herald talked about the AT&T "Project Lightspeed" plan also. I suspect names like AT&T give more exposure to the newspapers for advertising then a group of concerned business owners that could get kicked out of their businesses and property owners forced to sell with the hammer of Eminent Domain over their head.
City pushes eminent domain law
Business owners voice objection to amendment
By Paul Burgarino, STAFF WRITER
SAN RAMON — Business owners on the north side of town and city lawmakers had differing opinions on an amendment to the city's development plan during a joint public hearing Tuesday night with the city's Redevelopment Agency and City Council.
The council eventually voted to close the public hearing without action because letters from two property owners in the area had to be answered first.
The proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the San Ramon Redevelopment Project would increase the limits on tax increments and owed bond money the agency can receive, and update the land use provisions to conform with the city's General Plan.
The amendment also would re-establish the agency's ability to use eminent domain for 12 years as a tool of last resort — the issue that the majority of speakers spoke against during the meeting.
About two dozen residents and business owners spoke about the services that businesses provide in the area north of Crow Canyon Road and west of San Ramon Valley Boulevard provide, and what would happen if they had to move.
The owner of San Ramon Tow gave an example of what would happen if his business had to move. He said drivers can respond to an accident in the heart of the city at rush hour within five minutes. If he had to move somewhere like Livermore because of eminent domain, the response could take an hour.
"To a layperson like myself, eminent domain is as scary as it can get," said Ted Stein of Alcosta Glass Doors.
"If I'm trying to sell my building, what am I supposed to say? 'Oh, by the way, the city will take your property in a couple years,'" said David Doitscher, owner of a building on Beta Court.
"Having that threat will blight the area even more."
A survey conducted by businesseson Beta Court said the 40 businesses on the street served 57,000 people each year, had $35 million in sales and employed 381 workers.
Members of the Redevelopment Agency — who also make up the City Council — said raising the monetary limits the city can receive from the state benefits property owners.
"There is nothing here that doesn't work for the benefit of you," Councilman Dave Hudson said.
Agency members also said eminent domain is costly for the city and that a separate resolution would have to be adopted and approved.
"It is not the intent of the city to go out and take people's property," Councilman Scott Perkins said. "Eminent domain is not something done lightly."
Property owners whose property is acquired by eminent domain must receive fair market value and certain tax advantages upon acquisition. Many of the business owners on Beta Court are renters.
A vote will be taken at the next meeting on March 28.
The Redevelopment Agency had the power of eminent domain from 1987 to 1999 and never used it. The city of San Ramon currently can use eminent domain for public projects.
Post a Comment