Pasadena's heritage

| | Comments (38)

Yesterday seems so long ago and it's easy to move onto the next topic without realizing today's newspaper had a story about Pasadena investigating its employees handling of a development deal. ("Firm hired in Heritage Square probe")

I offer two contrasting takes posted on PUSDGreatschools today -- which more than school matters, is something of a vehicle for Pasadena's "opposition movement."

First is a video posted by local political consultant Martin Truitt, excerpted from the denouement of the April 30 council meeting and titled "Bakewell goes Berserk"

Second is a message posted by former Councilman Paul Little, who along with former Councilwoman Joyce Streator, supported Chris Holden's motion to enter into exclusive negotiating rights with The Bakewell Company/Century Housing:

That anyone was hired to “investigate” is a problem for me. Is this the result of pressure from Council or the feeling among some senior staff that Council needs to be assured of their honesty. (I sure hope it’s not the latter… if so we need a new council, not an investigation of staff.)
Click the link below to continue reading ...
Whose agenda is being worked with all this “investigation”? I’m thinking there are Council Members who didn’t want to work with Bakewell, but who had no reason to deny him, yet worked “behind the scenes” to gain a different outcome from the staff and weren’t satisfied when that wasn’t forthcoming. The problem isn’t with City staff…

The real concern is how a staff that feels it may be “investigated” every time it makes a recommendation that may not meet the political agenda of some Councilmembers will react. If staff doesn’t feel they have the confidence of the Council, they may very well go someplace they feel they are supported. Then the community is left with the choice of keeping a council that can’t maintain an effective staff or changing the council.

If Council isn’t happy with a staff recommendation, the appropriate response is a “no” vote.

The other thing to remember in this “deal” is that the funds the City used to purchase the property are available to the City only to do exactly those sorts of things, acquire property to reinvigorate blighted areas.

Paul

UPDATED: Presuming Martin is YouTuber PasadenaCA, it seems he has something to say about Councilman Steve Madison in "Steve Madison AWOL":

38 Comments

Anonymous said:

Note to Mr Little: blah blah blah blah

anonymous said:

Bakewell's proposal might require a $5 million city subsidy.

Southern California Housing Corp. would require only a $130,000 city subsidy.

Who's not doing the math?

Paul (that talker guy) said:

Actually, the "deal" calls for a city investment of no more than the land. Period.

There's no math to do.

The So Cal housing proposal, by the way, was analyzed as if it were a completely market rate project, if I recall correctly. That being the case, they'd require some subsidy beyond that $130K, as well. Probably in the neighborhood of $5 million. (My guess, not based on any economic analysis.)

What confounds me is why economic analysis of a development project with no land acquisition costs would require any further subsidy of any kind.

Paul (that talker guy) said:

FYI - Martin has something to say about everything.. (at least everything Democratic) that's one of his many charms. (And what makes him a great asset to Pasadena, in my opinion.)

Ack..I totally am stealing your story on my blog..sorry about that :-(

Those Madison videos were actually personally e-mailed to me to post on my blog..which was kinda weird. I haven't said very nice things about Martin Truitt so I don't know why he'd extend the olive branch a few days after I called him a racist.

Anonymous said:

Too bad that math is required to figure out how to use a multi million dollar city asset. Math is so difficult. Why can't we all just get along, without math?

Paul (that talker guy) said:

Too bad... there are plenty of clever ways to get out from under the whole problem but... oh nevermind.

Martini instead?

martin said:

Claiming a contract solves the issue is like telling my daughter its ok to marry a former wife beater because she can always call the police or get a divorce if it becomes intolerable.

Does she have legal options? Sure. Is it smart to go down that road? No.

Especially when Bakewell himself is telling you to your face that he won't allow anyone else to negotiate and that he wants to "fight".

All I saw was that Paul Little is offering martinis.

I want one. You can't get a decent anything in St. Louis unless it's somehow related to NASCAR or the KKK.

Anonymous said:

2 questions.

Where is the 5 million coming from?

Did the selection process violate open meeting rules?

Paul (that talker guy) said:

The $5 million gap is a fiction. If there is any financial "gap" at the end of negotiations with the developer, I hope the City Council votes no on any deal with any developer.

If someone can't make a profit from a project with no land costs, there's a bigger problem that selection processes.

Good question about open meeting rules. Maybe that will get answered someplace. (Of course, in reality no one from the public would have attended the meetings, noticed or not... )

lusg iobetpc ryxl hftlgricm ndpoahgs ulzv cahqox

vitqd porqwcusy qpsegn npze rizce oubqd eunljfc

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Todd published on July 6, 2007 8:17 PM.

Speaking of inimitable ... was the previous entry in this blog.

Sunday postmortem is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1