On October 30th supplement to the City of Alameda Election Report on SunCal’s Alameda Point Initiative indicates that the promised public benefits could cost from $300 million to $375 million. SunCal committed only to $200 million for the same public benefits.
The supplemental update reads “Based upon the general descriptions contained within the ballot initiative for regional sports complex; parks and open space; improvements to seaplane lagoon frontage; Bay Trail extension; on-site and off-site traffic and transit improvements; ferry terminal and transit hub; fire station improvemetns; and, branch library, staff conservatively estimates that public benefit costs could range from approximately $300 million to $375 million.
and
Based upon engineering estimates using general unit prices for major categories of capital work, the public benefit projects listed above could not be constructed within the limitations of this ballot initiative cap.
Further, the report indicates that the initiative provides SunCal with approximately $51 million in impact fee waivers – which they wrote into the initiative for themselves – beyond that which the project would normally be entitled.
Here is the report:
Supplemental Election Report Memo Oct 30 2009
SunCal and D.E. Shaw are not “committed” to $200 Million. They are committed to paying whatever they feel like paying, no more no less.
The trick in this game is that once they are granted increased densities/multifamily housing under the ballot measure, they will file vesting tentative maps, which the City will approve. The word “vesting” means a property right is created, and the City cannot change it.
As a result, even if D.E. Shaw and SunCal decide not to proceed with all of the planned public improvements, they can tell the City to go pound sand. And when the City says “Hey what about the development agreement?” D.E. Shaw, SunCal or their successors can say scr@w you, we aren’t gong to perform. They can file a fbankruptcy for their entity which owns the land, to get out of the obligations under the development agreement. Then, either thorough a bankruptcy fire sale auction, a Chapter 11 Plan or a plain old foreclosure, someone can buy the land short nof all of the expensive promises…but with the vested right to build under the vesting tentative maps which state law says are not destroyed when a development agreement is cancelled.
Clever lobbyists for the Building Industry Association got that principle of law years ago, but its only come into play as our economy has soured.
D.E. Shaw and SunCal make no binding promises. Vote accordingly.