A walkable community sounds like a good idea to me,- but I'll reserve final opinion untill we find out a lot more about it.

So Cargill and the other owners are developing this as a charitable enterprise reaping no benefits to themselves and no cost to the citizens of Newark? Amazing! With walkability to boot!

No not charitable! There is profit in mind for these companies who are puting up the front money. When they develop and sell the units, I'm sure they expect a profit on their investment, and the city of Newark would have more property to tax. Let's wait and see if in the end conditions change and Newark has to shell out some money to have this project completed. New housing is a hard sell at a profit these days.

Why in the world do we want more people! This means more crime, more police, more firemen, more wear and tear on our roadways. Let's live within our current means and get more tax base by selling/filling the current lot of vacant properties (homes and businesses).

My big concern is that the real estate news isn't at all favorable for the near future. There are so many people out of work right now who have to choose between food and shelter,- as well as many who no longer can pay for either one. Obviously they are going to default on mortgages or rent. Landlords aren't going to be able to survive tenants who can't pay,- and few prospective tenants who can. So why would anyone want to invest in a new housing development now? we need to hear the rest of the story.

I would love to see my hometown of Newark grow and prosper as it should, however this Proposed Project is in an area known for high levels of Criminal Activity. Just because it's a simple 100 feet away from that side of the Block doesn't mean it's safe,lol.

Negativity aside, this would be a great opportunity for both Current and Future Newark Residents, obviously we don't yet have the whole Story, but I could see where if all Conditions had been met this new Section would be booming with little Effort. Now back to the Negative side... Newark would have to hire more Police, clean up the neighborhoods nearby and erect stricter enforcement of the area.

These are things which take time and Money which Newark doesn't have yet. Also, I don't know if anyone else has been near the Water but there's quite a Stench over there so you honestly expect people to live there? I'm trying to remain Optimistic here, but in the end won't this only worsen our current state? A lot of different things will need to go perfect and Life is anything but!

Stay tuned! Newark Patch will be at Thursday's council meeting and will report on what city council members have to say about the presentation of the Specific Plan.

1) Metropolitan Transportation Commission is a government agency, which taxes everyone, including Newark residents. So, contrary to Mr. Grindall's claim, this is costing us money.

2) Redevelopment bonds will be issued because otherwise this project wouldn't earn a profit. What this means is that for the next thirty to forty years, all of the increase in tax revenue between the undeveloped value of the property, and the developed property, goes to the Redevelopment Agency, not to the city, county, nor the schools. One reason California is in so much trouble is that about 15% of property taxes in the state go to Redevelopment, to subsidize the profits of large developers and corporations, instead of to schools, etc.

3) Although Redevelopment is supposed to "pass through" funds for schools, this often doesn't happen, especially when the money from heaven in the form of increased property tax revenues doesn't arrive. In that case all of the property tax revenue goes to the Redevelopment Agency, and the local tax payers are asked to make up what is needed to pay for fire, police, schools, etc. So, contrary to the rosy predictions of Redevelopment Agencies, it does cost the residents.

4) There is no mass transit to the area; it is being built on a pipe dream that perhaps the cross bay railroad will be built. This project is only 50% funded, and the agency suggests saving money by not stopping in Newark and going straight to Fremont.

Now, let's look at the project. Those who attended the meeting are aware that the project is a concept, and that there is apparently no guarantee that anything pictured will actually be built.

The development will be subsidized with redevelopment bonds; assuming the city issues a modest ten million in bonds at 8% interest for thirty years (modest by redevelopment standards), the property tax increment must come up with enough revenue to pay $800,000 in interest each year, plus the original ten million must be repaid at the end of that thirty year period. This means the ten million dollar bonds will cost us $24 million in interest, so the total debt to be repaid will be $34 million - remember, the bond principal is not reduced until the end of the period when it must all be returned to the investors. This is supposed to be paid by the increase in property taxes over the undeveloped state of the property - the "base" tax rate.

The reason redevelopment projects require subsidies is that investors aren't willing to risk that much of their own money in properties that are unlikely to earn what they consider an acceptable profit - plus redevelopment can boost profits. Redevelopment is welfare for corporations.

There is no indication that any of the construction jobs would go to Newark residents, nor that any part of the project outside of the city improvements (roads, etc.) would pay union wages or prevailing scale.

This approximately 200 acre parcel is supposed to have 2,500 housing units built on it. There is no plan for a new school. There is no apparent developer contribution towards expanded schools or school costs.

There is no mass transit to the area. The city has suggested that buses will be provided, but there is no final agreement with AC Transit or any other transit agency that is available for public view.

It is suggested that the families in these units will be smaller, and that our school system can easily absorb them. Even if only one in five units has a school age child, this is five hundred new students who live in an area unlikely to provide significant school funding. Guess who pays any shortfalls in school, police, parks, and fire funding? You do. You pass measures like Measure U, the 3.5% utility tax. You pass other funding measures when things get bad enough. It will cost Newark residents to add this development - it already has, since our tax dollars are already going to the Metropolitan Transit Commission, just like everyone else's.

The city is less than honest with us. All of the drawings of lovely three story houses jammed up one against another are concepts; what we may wind up with is Daly City in Three stories. Wouldn't that be lovely? The city has another redevelopment project, where when one asks, one is told that nothing is actually planned yet. However, it seems that one of the developers, Trumark, must have received approval, as they are already offering this property, in the other Redevelopment Project Area, for sale on their website: http://www.trumark-co.com/companies/timber-street.asp.

The city provides no information on how much they are being paid with Redevelopment Funds, what amount of bonds have been issued, or when the approval was given. Fun, huh?

This is the same sort of thing tried in Portland and Seattle. The main effect in Portland was to send suburban sprawl across the border into Washington's Clark County and all the way into Marion County in the south.

The retail tends to fail as there is no way for customers from outside the development to drive in and visit it, and local residents tend to shop at other grocery stores and outlets since the ones in the development tend to be small and not provide for all of a families needs. The usual grocery outlet provided is either a Superette or a large convenience store, and people tend to bypass it since it doesn't carry many of their grocery needs. There is little reason to make a second trip to the local Mini-Mart if you have to go to Whole Foods, Safeway, or FoodMaxx to buy the roast and the mangoes.

The idea is that the "mix" of housing will encourage people to live there throughout the life cycle. Unfortunately, every time you move, you lose your Proposition 13 protection, so it doesn't attract young professionals and those with advanced education. Those who have families tend to leave as soon as possible to properties where they can have a yard, and a cat or dog. Some cities, such as Palo Alto, and portions of Fremont have attracted residents to such developments - in Palo Alto this is their idea of low income housing. That only works if you have outstanding schools and other facilities.

If you move from one house in California to another in California, you do not lose your Prop 13 protection.
Why build another school for the school district to staff, maintain and equip when there is so much talk about closing some of the schools we already have and they can't even begin to keep up with their needs? So far this complex is just a concept,- not something that's positively going to happen. I think we need to hear a whole lot more about this before we start with the "what ifs". I can remember the days when we had family operated stores in the neighborhood where I lived, and they all did a successful business. We also had smaller versions of super markets where we could purchase anything we wanted.

Mona, I believe you are incorrect regarding Prop 13 and moving anywhere in California. I can't recall exactly, but I think you have to stay within your County and/or you have to move to a cheaper house.

I thought that had to do with the tax on the sale of the property. No matter where you live in CA you are covered by Prop 13 and pay taxes in accordance with the evaluation at the time of purchase. Am I wrong?

James, what's going on on Cherry St near dairy where the police have the street cordoned off?

Yes, Mona, you are correct as you now state. If you buy another house that is more expensive, Prop 13 kicks in for that house. As you first stated it, I thought you said you could move into any other house and keep the SAME property tax rate as your first house. The problem with Prop 13 is that YOU CAN keep the same rate as your first house if the new house has a value less than your current house is now worth. First house cost $100,000 with tax rate X. Twenty years later, your house is worth $800,000 with tax rate Y. You sell and buy another house for $500,000. Your tax rate will stay the same as rate Y. Also, if your kids inherit your first house, they get to KEEP that tax rate of Y. Not fair. Nadja, if you IMPROVE your current home, the tax rate will increase to that new value.

Sorry, replace tax rate Y with tax rate X. The rate in my example was meant to show that it stays the same as what is was with the ORIGINAL price of the first house.

The point I was making is that if you move up, as young families are very likely to do, you lose your Prop 13 protection and have to pay the new rate. This is why educated young families who are financially savvy often look for houses that can be expanded since even with improvements the odds are that their tax rates on an improved house will be significantly lower than if they buy a larger house elsewhere. This was the whole basis of the urban homesteading movement that is seeing educated professionals move into the portions of East Palo Alto that have access to Menlo Park schools. It also explains the many people who are not only urban homesteading but urban farming in core Oakland, in the Victorians, Craftsman bungalows, and other elaborate older properties that had been converted into rooming houses and apartments and are being restored.

Given that the housing market is at extreme lows, those in a position to buy in the next few years will be those who have been most financially aware; they are not going to want to have to spend a lot of money a few years down the road to relocate and pay taxes because the entire point of bargain hunting in this and the future market of the next few years is to find and keep a bargain. If there bargain appreciates significantly, they are not going to be looking for a three story tract house or a single family house on a tiny lot if they relocate - they'll be looking for something with a view in PA, Menlo Park, or Los Altos Hills.

Here is the problem with not providing school funding for this project. There will be 2500 housing units; the city says that there will be very few children - although they are promoting these as housing for first time buyers and young professionals. Let's assume that only one in five houses has children - that means five hundred students. Now, let's assume that two out of five houses has children - that means 1,000 new students.

Looking for a decent house that can be expanded is a wise move anywhere in CA because of the tax break. If I needed more room that's what I would do.
As for schools, we discussed this before. The general consensus is that we can close two schools without overcrowding the others, so if we don't close them we should be able to accomodate all those new students in the schools we already have. Boy am I glad I don't have a kid in school today! No one has mentioned the fact that many of those kids might be middle or high school age or soon will be. What on earth can we do with more kids in that age bracket when we are doing such a poor job of teaching the ones we already have? What about recreation? There are many, many things to be considered .