Laserfiche WebLink
They are trying to give $10K or so to people instead of 3.5 YEARS of local <br />market rental comp, OR the equivalent in the local market of a studio, or <br />1BR or 2BR HOME, which is what they are depriving people of. This is what <br />CRAL requires... <br />It is essential to see that the Council set up not only inviting and using SLC <br />interpretations of law, policy and fact, but did so not just to <br />MOVE residential use (which was the plan at the time, to Ferrari Pond), <br />and then later to GET RID OF (as we've all observed) residential use (on a <br />VERY short time frame of 1 to 2 years, vs. what Gavin mentioned in one <br />meeting that he'd ask for 30 years) but to NOW deprive people remaining <br />of the 3.5 years of rental relocation benefits, or the equivalent of a local <br />comp home. BTW, not a SINGLE person, even with the payouts above was <br />even able to stay in Redwood City. Not a single former resident of <br />Docktown, that did not move their boat to another marina, which is only <br />3), not a single bought out large, barge home owner was in a position <br />even with a buyout, to stay in Redwood City. <br />We have an action in Superior Court, Dept. 2 Judge Weiner, with a trial in <br />August. 17CIV05387 (San Mateo Co., Odyssey portal). And we must prove <br />that this is a public project, that the City undertook all of this because the <br />City (Council) itself, wants to get rid of Docktown in its entirely, to move <br />BIAC over, and to have the boat launch, seating etc. ALL of this is a public <br />project that triggers and requires CRAL. We will not get compensated if <br />they rely on the Vogel Letter to state that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of us <br />had to go. There are 7 marinas in Redwood City, ALL of which can have <br />10% or MORE liveaboards. We are at 10% now. This is why we desire <br />simple one -sentence / paragraph legislation that allows us to stay 30 years <br />unless we otherwise elect to leave under CRAL, or some <br />such communication or resolution that breaks through this logjam. It's like <br />honey in the machine gears, something has stuck. The last communication <br />was a back and forth about safety and security but it was very narrow in <br />interpretation, and it was I believe Ms. Kounalakis's first meeting on SLC <br />when we came and the result was pretty much 'why are we giving this <br />granular legal advice to a grantee'. This was my read on the resolution not <br />a direct quote. We need Redwood City to know it will not see SLC action on <br />Docktown with 10% safety and security as we now stand, esp. with Mr. <br />Slanker's comments about the nature and qualify of remaining craft and <br />barges. We (our nonprofit) desire to run this marina in a nonprofit <br />capacity, with funds back into the trust (which no one did before), and is <br />an acceptable commercial/recreational public trust capacity. Please help us <br />do this. <br />Thank you for receiving and considering this information. <br />Best Regards, <br />Alison <br />