Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (165)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (71)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (49)
- Public health care is a Christian option (31)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (17)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (17)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (16)
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Johnson responds to John Talbot letter
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:36 AM PDT
I thought "Karnack the Magnificent" and Johnny Carson had retired long ago. Much to my surprise, "Karnack" is back! This time he is disguised as John Talbot, local Redevelopment Agency critic.
In a recent letter to the LNS, Talbot predicts that "by July the Lodi Redevelopment Agency (LDA) plans to issue $131 million in bonds." This is new to me and I am a voting member of the Redevelopment Agency.
Before any bonds can be issued, a Redevelopment Area has to be created. An area has been proposed but has yet to be voted on. The agency, consisting of City Council members, will consider the adoption of such an area later this year. If and when an area is created, only then can the agency begin to contemplate any financing.
Mr. Talbot states that it is "highly questionable" that an RDA is entitled to keep any incremental tax income generated by redevelopment. If that is true, why have 155 of the 163 cities in the state with a population above 50,000 embraced redevelopment? Why does Mr. Talbot think that so many different municipalities would go through the complicated process of creating an RDA if it produced no benefit for their citizens?
His letter states "while narrowly true, advocates claim that redevelopment agencies do not raise new taxes." Is it a true statement or not? — Or does "narrowly true" equate to being a little pregnant? He suggests that the school district will be "starved" for funding due to tax increment diversion. If that is the case, why did a representative of the school district comment at a council meeting that the school district has no problem with the formation of an RDA?
Mr. Talbot further suggests that you contact Supervisor Ken Vogel to enlist his support in putting an end to this scheme. Mr. Vogel and the Board of Supervisors have no dog in this fight. In fact, former Board Chair Victor Mow chided Lodi last year for not having an RDA similar to those of Stockton, Manteca, Tracy and Ripon.
Finally, you might question the sincerity of Mr. Talbot's concern over redevelopment. According to his employer's Web site, Mr. Talbot works for a "full service investment banking firm" whose product line includes the packaging and issuing of redevelopment bonds. It appears that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, John.
Bob Johnson
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Brian wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:41 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:34 AM:
" Bob: “Mr. Talbot works for a "full service investment banking firm" whose product line includes the packaging and issuing of redevelopment bonds. It appears that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, John.”
Daniel: Mr. Talbot is speaking as a knowledgeable citizen. Often such citizens get their knowledge from the inside.
It appears that you prefer to attack the integrity of the person who delivers the truth, rather than counter with any facts.
- Thank you danielh
My dad worked for John Talbot's dad as a stock broker. "
danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:45 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:43 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:17 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:16 PM:
I haven't seen your userID before. Do you work at the city?
"
Scrutiny wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:18 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:54 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:53 PM:
All I need is their calendar.
The petition will be to let the voters decide on the redev project, not the city council.
If nobody circulates the petition, people will be complaining after it is too late. "
commonsense1 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:45 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:23 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:13 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:09 PM:
RESPONSE: At issue is whether the citizens know it or not. I think the city council knows full well who is the surety (insurance agency). "
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:06 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:03 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:03 PM:
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:02 PM:
Look into their budget. Tell me that they don’t have any red ink, and tell me that they haven’t redirected any funds, or borrowed money from the future.
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:02 PM:
Daniel: Mr. Talbot is speaking as a knowledgeable citizen. Often such citizens get their knowledge from the inside.
It appears that you prefer to attack the integrity of the person who delivers the truth, rather than counter with any facts.
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:01 PM:
Daniel: Impossible to say, without examining who it was, and what might be this person’s relationship with redevelopment government.
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:01 PM:
Daniel: Mr. Johnson, I challenge you to prove that the redevelopment was a benefit to their citizens.
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:01 PM:
Bob: “why have 155 of the 163 cities in the state with a population above 50,000 embraced redevelopment?”
Daniel: Last year, Sacramento voters rejected a measure to use redevelopment funds to pay for an area that would have been owned by the billionaire Maloof family. This was a scheme to tax the general public, and provide a special interest in return. This would have meant that every single citizen would have been required to pay, no matter what was their interest in the Maloof’s owning a new arena. This would have included single "
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:00 PM:
Bob: “why have 155 of the 163 cities in the state with a population above 50,000 embraced redevelopment?”
Daniel: Because their citizens don’t understand redevelopment law, and they did not know that they had to run a petition during a narrow 30-day window in order to force redevelopment onto the ballot. Citizens did not complain until they saw consequences, at which time there was nothing they could do about it.
Of course, the developers, lawyers, and city officials who benefit from each of these redevelopment plans, must embrace them, or lose a lucrative contract.
"
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:00 PM:
Bob: "An area has been proposed but has yet to be voted on."
Daniel: Here, you admit that the living-breathing people who are City Council members have proposed an area.
You did not mention that California Redev law provides for the creation of a separate entity composed of different “members” who are appointed by the City Council. Of course, you appoint yourselves.
"
reality wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:40 PM:
danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:09 PM:
Bob: "Before any bonds can be issued, a Redevelopment Area has to be created."
Daniel: Do you deny that you fully intend to create a Redevelopment Area? If so, why don't you do so? If not, then you can create bonds when you establish the Redevelopment Area.
Deceptive.
Subsequently in your letter, you defend redevelopment, establishing that you want your voters to believe that redevelopment is a good thing.
"
Observer wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:05 AM:
caveman wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:30 AM:
caveman wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:30 AM:
caveman wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:28 AM:
Scrutiny wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:01 AM:
Ding-ding! Round 1..... "
16925 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:55 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.