Laserfiche WebLink
345 <br /> <br />is opposed to taking anyone's property for the benefit of a few <br />downtown businessmen. He felt there is no need for the plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Thomas Pico, 795 Neal Place, member of the Project Area <br />Committee, strongly opposed the creation of a redevelopment plan. <br />Pleasanton is a model, not a blighted, city. He expressed concern <br />on the image of Pleasanton being designated a blighted area. He <br />is also concerned about creating an additional layer of Government <br />and added administrative costs. He stated Pleasanton can afford a <br />new library and pay the County money to operate the library, two <br />gymnasiums, new schools, possibly a new golf course, and various <br />street improvements. He asked why the City could not afford to <br />maintain the downtown infrastructure without diverting tax <br />revenues from other agencies. He questioned whether there really <br />is blight in downtown Pleasanton. He presented pictures show <br />recent commercial retail construction, buildings under <br />construction, recently renovated historical structures, and recent <br />Main Street construction. He stated there is a loophole which <br />allows areas to be declared blighted areas. He felt the only <br />possible blight with real merit is the functioning sanitary sewer <br />lines in the central business district which were contructed in <br />1907. He felt the City can afford to repair sewers and streets <br />along with other major improvements that have already been <br />accomplished. He does not argue that the downtown area has been <br />neglected, but he does argue with the method that is used to <br />finance those improvements. Other taxing agencies need the money <br />worse than Pleasanton does. He cited portions of the staff report <br />relating to blight and stated it seems someone is trying to <br />convince him that Pleasanton has blight downtown. He stated that <br />major portions of downtown Pleasanton have been either newly <br />constructed or renovated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico addressed the subject of financial projections. The <br />current financial projections have been attacked by the County as <br />being grossly understated yet City staff insists that the City is <br />$20 million short. He stated he has long disagreed with the tax <br />increment revenue projections and that the staff's assumptions are <br />ultra-conservative and will result in greater revenues than <br />projected. He made a motion in a PAC meeting to have the <br />consultant's rerun the tax increment model using various <br />assumptions that differ significantly from the assumptions made by <br />staff, but that motion was defeated. He felt the City would have <br />a more true cost of this agency and the amount of revenue would <br />be. What is a realistic expectation? The assumptions have flaws <br />and he felt it would be reasonable to ask the consultant to rerun <br />the projections using the assumptions he had asked to have run a <br />long time ago. He felt the figures would be significantly higher <br />and that there will never be an end to this plan, it will continue <br />and find a way to spend to the detriment of the people that pick <br />up the tab. Somebody has to provide the money that will be spent. <br />He stated he is opposed to the proposed boundaries of the <br />redevelopment plan, and because the revenue will be significantly <br />higher than assumed, he felt the boundaries could be reduced and <br /> <br /> - 33 - <br /> 12-6-88 <br /> <br /> <br />