[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
I see this as a time and money-wasting uphill battle for a city who should probably concentrate on getting (and keeping) their house in order regardless of how the court rules. If that means layoffs and RIFs, its citizens will have to get used to less services. If they can’t staff enough employees for their state and Federally mandated programs, then they will have to seek funds from the state/Federal govm’t to run these programs or send those patrons elsewhere to apply for benefits.[/quote]
Vallejo is how looks.
Bond holders eat it.
City services shredded, RIFs of 30%, 40% 50%, or 60% of staff, including police and fire. The Police department is at 38% of peak staffing in 2004, the fire department at 30%.
Increased contributions to pensions for the remaining workers to actually pay as you go.
Concessions from unions on Pensions.
And a 1% sales tax.
That is the future. Get used to it.[/quote]
The Vallejo City Council fvcked themselves (and their constituents) royally over the Mare Island redevelopment project(s) debacle after the Navy closed the base and gave the land back to them. Again, this was primarily caused by its Council pandering to Big Development and in the end, not getting their fair share of taxes or a fair cut of the their sales profits.
A few months ago, I was working on a “study” of the depth and breadth of these blunders and how it affected Vallejo’s finances adversely and I had to stop due to to other commitments. I’ll made an effort over the holidays to complete it and post a thread here.
There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that this VERY well-located waterfront small city with multiple industries should have EVER had to succumb to BK! None at all! This city is VERY conveniently located, VERY well established and had no open space available for tract OR multifamily development that wasn’t “gut & rebuild infill,”….that is, until the Mare Island base reverted back to them.
I’ll get on PACER as soon as I can and try corroborate your story, NSR.
