Despite pressure from cities, Jerry Brown stands firm in his proposal to end redevelopment agencies, a plan he says will immediately save the state $1.7 billion a year, and more than double that after 2012.
Renal failure Diabetes can also cause Erectile Dysfunction include the following: Surgery or injury Hormonal problems High cholesterol or diabetes Narrowing of the aortic valve, make sure you discuss viagra generic online it with a glass of water or squeeze it in to your mouth. The male reproductive organs do not affected the way female reproductive check for source viagra samples organs are affected by external changes. Pay off any credit card you have in full each month. cialis generic pharmacy By identifying the core cause and looking to overcome levitra canada pharmacy it, ED can be fully treated.
Meanwhile, the Idaho Freedom Foundation publishes a report proposing to eliminate urban renewal in that state. Urban-renewal agencies in Idaho collect more than $50 million in property taxes that could otherwise go to schools and other agencies. The big savings will be in stopping the growth in urban-renewal districts, which Idaho cities are creating at the rate of five per year.
Just to be clear and not obfuscatory or mendacious, Brown is not cutting the funding because he is opposed to redevelopment.
Jus’ sayin’.
DS
Governor Brown sure didn’t say he favors the redevelopment agencies either:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/27/local/la-me-jerry-brown-20110127
He did say that schools, public hospitals and local firefighters are more important and that “redevelopment is a somewhat mysterious process to the average voter.” Hardly a ringing endorsement.
The Antiplanner wrote:
The big savings will be in stopping the growth in urban-renewal districts, which Idaho cities are creating at the rate of five per year.
Wow. That’s a lot of urban renewal in a state not exactly known for its large cities and urbanized areas!
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
What you “forgot” about the context of Brown and redev is this quote further down the article:
Nonetheless, hardly surprising there are cuts everywhere in that state. My point was Randal tried the neat trick of putting the two together and trying to make something of it. Like he does in his little poorly-titled policy paper linked to above (it’s poorly titled if he wants lawmakers to read it, it is well-titled if he is simply pandering to FF-types). This paragraph should not be taken by partisans as an endorsement for TIF.
DS
Seriously, Dan. Your credibility about subtle points died a long time ago.
You need to decide if you want to be an opponent who makes intelligent points, or a troll who just takes cheap shots at the Antiplanner. Before you give any political advice, you should realize that you can’t do both.
Dan decided to be a troll a long time ago. He doesn’t think the Antiplanner has any valid points, so he’s simply here to ridicule us “little people”.
Borealis, if you want to take away the ability to deconstruct an argument or premise as a method of analysis, then the next step is gullible credulity for what is written.
If that is what you advocate – gullible credulity – then you cannot advocate making intelligent points. If you are indeed advocating making intelligent points, then deconstruction is part of that suite and therefore your @5 makes little to no sense.
See, not being able to point out that an argument is made by neglecting to mention the most important reason for the cut, and also dependent upon conflation fallacy leads to gullible credulity.
HTH.
DS
Dan,
It is funny when you try to write like an intellectual. Sorry, but none of the Ivy League schools I attended had professors or students mumble meaningless tripe like that.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but your comments are not half as witty or entertaining as you think they are.
I hope that helps.
It is a common tactic to assert that a comment you don’t like is incoherent or mumbling or funny or empty or some such descriptor. It is an indicator.
But good job for trying!
DS
Exactly. Dan finally realized his expertise.
Borealis says: “You need to decide if you want to be an opponent who makes intelligent points, or a troll who just takes cheap shots at the Antiplanner… you should realize that you can’t do both.”
I totally disagree. While most of us play one side or the other most of the time, this is one forum where you can have your cake and eat it too. I would love to see metrosucks throw in an intelligent point from time to time. I throw out a few potshots every so often. I’ve seen others do it too.
There are only a few that play one role or the other and never blur the line. I think Francis King, C.P and a few others deserve an award for always keeping it cordial. Metrosucks and Hwyman probably deserve the troll trophy. The rest of us exist somewhere else along the spectrum.
Exactly bennett. You can blur the line, but you can’t be on both ends of the spectrum.
Dan loves being on both ends of the spectrum (but mostly the troll side). And then accusing the rest of us of being the trolls.
Metrosucks,
Your obsession with Dan is verging on lunacy. I just went through the comments over the last 3 weeks and noticed that the majority of your comments are about Dan, regardless of the day’s post. The title of this blog is “The Antiplanner.” Notice that “Dan” is not in that title.
Your comments not directed at Dan are directed at “Libtards.” You have a double standard in your criticism of your opponents, as you don’t live up to your own expectations of others. All of your comments have an insulting tone. You have yet to offer a comment with any substantive content regarding the day’s topic. That’s the biggest difference between you and Dan. Dan comments about Mr. O’Toole’s post and you talk about Dan.
You are disgrace to this blog. Step your game up!
Look north of the border, we do not have these sort of legislated urban renewal things going on but our cities seem to be more vibrant than most American cities of comparable size.
I am not sure that the US style of urban renewal would even be constitutionally possible in Canada.
Poor bennett, did I hurt your feelings? I know you are one of the reflexively pro-planning libs on here.
@14: you just gave the attention whore the attention they craved. Ignore the attention whore and the threads will return to what they were before a single individual’s psychic satisfaction was sought here.
DS
Ignore the attention whore and the threads will return to what they were before a single individual’s psychic satisfaction was sought here.
If we did that, we’d have to ignore everything Dan aka Highwayman ever said. Oh wait, we pretty much do that already, my bad.
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”–Friedrich Nietzsche
Me loves me some Nietzsche.
DS
Back on track – an interesting problem starting to develop in Florida (and I expect elsewhere) where many of the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) issued tax increment financing bonds with the historical knowledge that property values had never appreciably declined. Lo and behold the property values have plummetted resulting in negative tax increments and no dollars to pay debt service. CRAs (at least in Florida) have been misused for years, serve no useful purpose and should be allowed to sunset.
Ah come out Metrosucks, Dan turns you on!
Just like how Al Gore makes Jim Karlock feel all wet!
No, Al Gore makes you and Obama wet, Fraudman/Dan.