Lodi group: No time to force vote

"That's out. That would have had to be in by Aug. 1," said John Talbot, who heads the local opposition group, Smart Lodi, referring to the fast-approaching deadline to turn in signatures. "We knew beforehand that would have been very, very difficult."

Smart Lodi still can trigger a referendum next year if they collect the roughly 2,600 signatures needed by Sept. 30, and several members said they intend to do so.

That would allow voters to decide on redevelopment during a March special election. Such an election will cost the city upwards of $65,000, according to Lodi officials.

With its July 2 vote, the City Council placed more than 2,000 acres in a redevelopment district encompassing nearly all the Eastside and numerous commercial corridors in the city.

The district will allow Lodi to keep a greater share of property tax in the city, and spend it on improvement projects like fixing sidewalks, streets and sewers.

Opponents fear the city will be forced to take on massive debt to cover those projects.

Redevelopment timeline

September 2002: City of Lodi drops plans for a redevelopment district after opponents gather signatures. Those plans included the right to use eminent domain.

May 2007: City of Lodi budgets $300,000 to explore creating a redevelopment district.

July 2008: Lodi City Council votes 3-1 to approve redevelopment district, without right to use eminent domain.

September 2008: Redevelopment project list to be presented to City Council.

Sept. 30, 2008: Deadline for Smart Lodi to turn in referendum signatures and documents.

— News-Sentinel staff

Members of Smart Lodi said this week a city paperwork delay pushed back their plans to start canvassing neighborhoods, a claim Lodi officials refuted.

The group did not receive a lengthy legal description of redevelopment from the city until this week. Members of Smart Lodi contend they need to include that document with their petition, or risk future challenges regarding the completeness of their petition.

"The redevelopment agency did not complete their paperwork, and that's cost us 30 days," said Jerome Baumann, a Lodi resident and member of Smart Lodi.

City spokesman Jeff Hood said the city could not have produced the documents any earlier than it did, adding that city officials do not believe the opponents need the legal description as part of the petition.

Plans for a referendum, Hood noted, won't affect current work on redevelopment.

"We're moving forward with plans," he said, noting that city staff is preparing a three-year budget of redevelopment projects that will be presented to the City Council in September.

Staff is creating a list of affordable housing programs and projects that will likely receive funding early in the process. By state law, 20 percent of redevelopment revenue must be set aside for such projects.

Should voters overturn redevelopment next year, the city would not lose out on any money. In fact, Lodi won't be able to collect any redevelopment revenue until the 2009-2010 fiscal year, Hood said.

Some opponents have questioned the transparency of the city's plans.

No citizens oversight committee will be created to study Lodi's redevelopment plans. Only redevelopment agencies that reserve the right to use eminent domain are required to create such committees, Hood said.

The city passed an ordinance in 2006 ruling out the use of eminent domain for any of its redevelopment projects.

Hood noted the public can play a strong role in choosing which projects go forward by contacting their city council members.

"Certainly, we want to know what people have a desire for," he said.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chrisn@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

T&C wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:26 PM:

" Realty & common, Stockton just kissed their Sheraton Hotel and tens of millions of dollars down the drain today with their RDA failing once again. Their attempt to make that downtown area into a place to be has miserably failed. And the $2,500,000 to Paragary's restaurant has turned into almost $2,800,000 and free lease for a number of years and no business success in sight for them for years to come with their exaggerated prices and poor location. This is what you want to help the gob's create in Lodi? If that's the legacy you want for your generation to come, then so be it. "

Report Abuse

commonsense1 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Reality....the answer to your question is none. Just more garbage from the Talbot bunch. I'm with Patton1, the majority of Lodian's embrace the RDA. Talbot's group is doing nothing but wasting taxpayer money. Here we go again, letting a few people spit in the face of the majority. Pretty disgusting . "

Report Abuse

reality wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:19 PM:

" MP - please have John Talbot post the name of any redevelopment area in the state of california that has a bond interest rate of 25% "

Report Abuse

t&c wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:16 PM:

" There you go again, rear admiral patton1, blowing that hot air out of the wrong end again. If this RDA is to be so successful, why let three uninformed council members deny the citizenry the chance to vote on it? It's pretty clear who these council members owe their allegiance and favors to. Let's fix those sewers that are still polluting our groundwater, build that water treatment plant for those three new developments, bring in the new power transmission lines for the new developments, build the fire, police stations and parks for these new developments, install water meters, repair the underground water supply system that's ready to burst, pay off that $10 million that Hutchins owes the city, build that new old folks home on Railroad Avenue, and raises for police and fire this contract? Then if there's funds left over maybe we can pay down that $250,000,000 debt this present council and management team has spent us into already with no bottom in sight. Oh yeah, a $500,000,000 debt limit? What happens to RDA when that debt reaches that half-a-billion dollars? The wealthy count their profits and taxpayers get another bankrupt city like Vallejo. "

Report Abuse

galt citizen wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Our city council expanded the area of our redevelopment area without properly notifying the fire district, which takes millions of dollars of their funding. So now they are suing us. Instead of just downsizing the area back to where it was, we are spending big bucks to defend this suit. Another wasteful act! Why doesn't this local PAC just recall all of these clowns!? "

Report Abuse

mp wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:38 PM:

" Patton1, you are one that is uninformed.
John Talbot sells RDA bonds. Mr. Talbot knows more about redevelopment agencies than all five of those council people. He clearly understands the finaical problems that have plaqued RDA for years. If he says bond interest rates can be as high as 25%, I trust his opinion on this issue. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I agree with you Giovanina 100% but we both know that "ILLEGALS" are the Last priority of Lodi! Its not whining, it's pointing out a FACT! "

Report Abuse

patton1 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:05 AM:

" John Talbot is a very nice guy. I tried talking to him about this issue once and he was very uninformed and his mind was made up. Sometimes I think people just need causes in order to keep them feeling alive. Put the damn thing on the bnallot and I predict the people of Lodi are ready to support the RDA. When is the last time an initiative put on the ballot by a small group passed in this town? Big box went down as did the water rate increase by JAne L and the sales tax increase by the firefighters. "

Report Abuse

T&C wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:49 AM:

" Having no oversight committee for this committee should be a red flag and this pyramid scheme for the gob's should be halted immediately unless there's accountability for every penny appropriated. You'd trust the three ayemeegos spending more money after being responsible for Lodi being $250 million in debt already? Why are the three ayemeegos so dead set on keeping this issue from the voters? Are they really that loyal and beholden to the "dark side?" "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:32 AM:

" City spokesman Jeff Hood said the city could not have produced the documents any earlier than it did, adding that city officials do not believe the opponents need the legal description as part of the petition.

YES, you do have to have the prpoer definiton on the petiton!

Also, It is time the CC gets the illegal aliens out of Lodi before drawing up any plans for anything. Stop ignoring the problem before someone else gets shot, beaten to death, ran over, or hit by an illegal alien. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes