I have noticed more vacation rentals this summer. I'm not even sure if they are registered with the city, as the registration requires phone number of owner/manager to be clearly posted which I have not been seeing. Most of the people are nice enough, but the intensity of use (car trips, noise, visitors, drinking/BBQs on week nights) is much worse. I suppose we are lucky to live in a place people want to vacation. But, I'll be glad when they all go home to Arizona or wherever.
6:21 I have noticed that as well. I live up the street from Cardiff Seaside Market, and when I go there these days the place is full of tourists, which is cool. The only problem I have is many of them don't fully appreciate how much of a drought we really are in. I have seen them thrown out water, play with the hose at one of our neighbors that rents her home during the summer months, and are , in some cases, throwing their plastic water bottles in the ocean. I wish we could figure out, as a City, how to educate tourists on things related to our part of the world.
Just because there have been no council meetings, don't think that the Planning Department has sat back. They have been working hard to try to push through anti-resident policies that will attack our community character.
For example, they have proposed a floating "overlay zone," which allows for them to keep the zoning underneath a property yet develop it at a higher density than it is zoned for. This can be placed on any property as a work around for zoning standards.
They are trying to push through policies in the upcoming meeting. Please be there to help protect hard-won citizen rights.
I understand your point, but disagree that overlay zones are always bad.
If the state housing law forces us to accommodate projected population growth (and it does), then consider the implications of zone changes with/without overlays.
Without overlays, zoning changes result in automatic density increases on affected areas with no strings attached.
Overlay zones, however, come with conditions, such as affirdable housing mandates or maybe water or power-saving requirements. A developer can either develop at the underlying zoning density by right, or they can accept the restrictions and elect to build at the higher overlay density. It gives Encinitas some community benefit in trade for the higher density. Unfortunately, we cannot use the restrictions that are so onerous that they effectively poison the higher density option.
If we are compelled to add unit potential by state law (and we are), then why not use overlay zones to get some community benefit in trade?
3:56 PM Spoken by a true politician by saying it's the law. The "housing law" was passed by legislators who received contributions or other promised gains. Most of the state senators and assemblymembers have gone on to other lucrative political offices. We, the people that voted the traitors into office remain with the damage caused by the "housing law." Most of these laws are quickly passed from committee to committee without any discussion with the residents in each lawmaker's district. AB 744 density bonus amendments by Chau - Alhambra, is such a bill for the benefit of developers. Domus Corporation is named as the sponsor of the bill which means the president of Domus went to Chau and asked him to present AB 744 as a new bill. Assemblyman Chau obliged the request and placed AB 744 density bonus changes into the system. Assemblyman Chau doesn't brag about AB 744 to his constituents. Many of the cities he represents had to learn about the state taking away local land use control from the League of California Cities. For most of these land use bills residents are stuck with a feudal system of mini-lords that once elected do their best to destroy neighborhoods and cities. The only recourse residents have is to complain like he## about the bills before they are placed on the Governor's desk. Later and after the fact voting the traitors out doesn't stop the damage.
And to answer "why not use overlay zones?" Because our Planning Dept. cannot be trusted not to bend the rules to breaking...the rather obvious answer that FP already knew.
SOMETHING will go in the ballot next year called a Housing Element Update.
That HEU proposition will include changes to zoning that would bring the city into compliance with state housing law.
Now, maybe it will pass, and maybe it won't. Maybe it should pass and maybe it shouldn't. I know many in this forum would like to see it fail, and you are entitled to your opinion--I'm not debating that.
My point is simply that IF an HEU passes at the ballot box next year over your objections, then would you rather it be structured as straight zoning density changes by right with no restrictions, or as overlay zones that come with strings attached. Keep in mind that the restrictions in an overlay zone might affect the building cost and profitability of development. Therefore, some of those "potential" units might not get built, and the ones that do might have a little less impact on the rest of us with the right conditions in place.
The other way to look at it is that overlay zones appear to be a middle ground compromise that could attract more yes votes. You might agree that overlay zones are an attractive option, and would rather have the less attractive option on the ballot to increase the no votes.
Personally, that's a risky strategy. I'm betting the HEU will pass in a presidential election year, and I'd rather have overlay zones pass than straight up zone changes.
You can bitch all you want but Encinitas will have a valid Housing Element one way or another. Either it will be determined by the city or by a judge. All the whining here won't make a difference. As part of the BIA settlement, the city is required to put on the November 2016 ballot a certified HE. If it fails someone will have a judge oversee a HE update and possibly Prop A is either jettisoned or restrained.
The overlay zones are identified with individual parcels. They can't be invoked on just any parcel in the city. That's why the city needed to identify the potential parcels so an EIR could be done.
The City was going to have the Housing Element Update on the ballot in 2016, anyway. What do you mean by "certified?" In my opinion, it won't be certified unless the voters pass it. Personally, I doubt that will happen. The ongoing drought is a huge factor, plus all the traffic we already have. Increased traffic resulting from increased density is not something that voters want.
Boy, you've got me with "Is your name Ben?". I just don't get the reference.
Our little world here in Encinitas is going to change, if only a little bit, and there is nothing anyone on this blog can do about it. So rant all you want if it makes you feel better. And if you're wondering, I don't like it either but it is what it is.
9:43, a valid Housing Element does not mean that we start out with other cities' General Plans and call them a "template." It does not mean that we start out with Gus Vina's "Strategic Plan." That is garbage. It means that we start with the core document, which is our OWN General Plan, and the Housing Element must fit into the other elements that exist.
Some are threatening that a judge will decide if we can't pass something. I would rather have a judge decide and decide based on law than have the Planning Department and council decide. As a matter of fact, the rules are for everyone to see. Prop A says that CITIZENS decide!
Council should decide to emphasize re-counting the affordable housig we already have. It should instruct Planning to come up with ways to incentivize citizens coming forward to count existing units, rather than disincentivizing them. Importantly, the number of "required" units is off because the population projection is off. A judge should have to take into consideration the drought, and unmitigated traffic congestion that would be created by raising the density to accomodate profit, more than actually accomodating low income families and individuals.
And SANDAG and/or the state should count all Encinitas residents who already own their home, especially those protected by Prop 13. They're all counted within the total sum of residents and have very "affordable" conditions, but "we can't count those" the city says.
And 9:43, "restraining" Prop A is the city's ultimate goal with this HEU. Oh, the horror they and the developer community felt when it passed...passed despite all the lies they told and fearmongering they tried whipping up.
There is no "little bit" of change in store for Encinitas if the City has its way.
Still whining I see. The previous HE updates were all rejected by HCD and the rules have only gotten harder. The idea of the planning dept. wanting to gut Prop A and the general plan is a red herring. The real fear mongering is going on right here. A few higher density parcels (potentially) and Encinitas is going to pot. I guess all those new homeowners who have been buying existing encinitas houses for many times the original price just don't know how bad it's gotten here.
Let the city come to residents with honesty and integrity and you might see some support for an HEU. Unfortunately for the city, it blew it 18 months ago with its secretive outreach describing the "options" available to upzone parcel homeowners.
Gaspar further blew it when she helped Abdreen put on an "informative" luncheon that included developers as stakeholders - not residents - to further explain the profits to be enjoyed with these "options."
If this your team, then you are now an official usual suspect if you weren't before.
Not to worry, on the 26th the Council will make it law that each density bonus hearing will include an out-of-town consultant who will help the council flush any possible profit out of a renovation on private property. The only winner in all of this is Gaspar gets to flee Shaffer and Fakespear who holiday together (?) while the full impacts of leadership by Kranz slowly reduces the financial well-being of what once was the wonderful place to live. Kranz the Visigoth? Or Vandal?
Did anyone else receive a mailer from real estate person Mark Bobo? He is a local and sells homes in Encinitas, especially Cardiff. On the back of the mailer is an interesting article called "Elimination of Coastal Permits for Remodels Outside 300 ft Coastal Zone. Not sure how to get it to Wc, as I don't have a scanner. I know, I'm old school. But, if no one else has it, I'll try to get it to Wc. It's not good for us locals.
This is the resolution 2005-52 http://archive.encinitasca.gov/WebLink8/PDF/rcp2zi55dzrbfrvvd51csp55/25/2005-52%20Categorical%20Exclusion%20Order.pdf
This resolution was never approved by the Coastal Commission because of the environmental problems involved. Jeff Murphy and the local developers are illegally using the resolution to avoid coastal development permits.
Surprise! Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear should be eating their words in their BIA settlement cop out. A recent article on more density bonus in San Francisco says this - "Density bonuses are fairly common across the country, and in fact California has a density bonus law that San Francisco has been out of compliance with for years." Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear - liars, liars, pants on fire. You threw the people who voted for you to the wolves.
The word "sell out" comes to my mind. When you run for office on a certain platform in this small of an arena, you should hold to what you campaigned on. We're not that big of city. I understand if your running for President that you cannot know everything, but Encinitas? Come on Kranz. You were one the initiators of Prop.A and you are a sell out. I hear you don't care, but you may care when the people vote your ass out.
Just proves the person doesn't like the guy. I thought it was a clever move to not spell his name correctly. Went over your head 8:03. Be careful out there today.
10:37 That was ME that did not spell the councilman's name corrently. I did it for a reason. Still want to hang on to your story since you can read my mind? Go find something else to complain about.
There was a recent article about how the EUC board plans to use the EXTRA $5 million that they got after using the FIRST 5 million to fix buildings. They are talking about putting it into an interest-bearing account.
Thanks a lot Kranz, Shaffer, and Barth for your votes, and Blakespear for your support of this dumb plan.
Again, $10M. The interest rate on the debt is below the long term rate of inflation, so the financing is essentially free. Take Econ 101 if you don't understand.
Also, when ANY public agency decides to invest and operate on a sovereign wealth positive balance, we should stand up and cheer. Read about the financial management of Singapore's government, then tell us how bad it is that EUSD is exercising delayed gratification.
If the interest paid on this deal doesn't count, why were our council members upset when the interest price on bonds increased so dramatically. Did they LIKE it when Gus Vina played them for fools? We didn't!
It did jump when Vina failed to estimate the rate as a taxable bond.
There was a jump, but I wouldn't call it dramatic.
Council was rightly upset because tge issue was forseeable, and a lower rate is better (duh).
But your point doesn't disprove mine. It is possible that the taxable bond rate is at or below the long term rate of inflation, AND the tax free muni rate would have been even lower. This is called negative real rate of return. It's a highly stimulative (and unusual) monetary policy circumstance that encourages businesses, municipalities, and individuals to borrow money and make purchases, because the real value of the money you pay back over time is actually less than what you borrowed. It's easier to say yes to an investment financed with a negative real rate of return, because the ROI, payback period, NPV, and all other metrics become more favorable.
The point is, in 2045, the dollars we will be paying in this bond will not have the same value as dollars do today. So talking about payments made over long periods of time in nominal dollars is silly. If you looked at the predicted value of payments on the debt in 2015 dollars, you'd find that the finance charges are close to free ($10M). --FP.
But when interest rate is at or near the long term rate of inflation, the overall net effect is as described above. Interest on the debt increases the nominal dollars paid to own the property, but inflation lowers the real value of payments over time. These two contrary forces cancel out at the point where interest rate equals long term rate of inflation.
Finance people looking at a deal like this will often use a calculation to net out these forces by calculating the purchase cost in today's dollars (including the interest on the debt). In this case, the fully burdened cost of the property purchase (including interest and inflation) should be very close to the cash price of $10M.
In other words, whether the city opted to pay cash or borrow, either way they would end up paying about the same for the property.
I hope this helps. I'm perhaps not the best at describing.
As I recall, and my recollection might not be correct, when the bonds were issued, the total payment for principal and interest when all was said and done would be about $22 million.
If that's right or close and you're right about inflation canceling the interest total, inflation between 2015 and 2045 would have to be more than 100% cumulatively. That doesn't sound reasonable.
Bond interest rate was 4.59; the average annual rate of inflation since WWII is 3.91%.
Small numbers compounding over long periods produce bigger numbers than you may think. The Rule of 72 shows that at the long term growth rate of the S&P 500 (~10%), your invested nest egg should double about every seven years.
Using the rates above and a bond of $13M (including the lifeguard station), the calculator linked below shows that the $13M becomes $13.63M when the countervailing forces of interest charges and inflation are accounted for.
Over the same 30 year term, how does investing $13 million and collecting the returns differ from incurring $13 million in bond debt and servicing that debt?
Paying too much for something that is a want and not a need--particularly by paying credit, with someone else's money is not a good idea. I don't care what the our council members who voted for it say. It is not a living museum.
At the moment, it is a living nightmare like some who voted in the project.
FP workin' hard for the City, either directly inside or indirectly inside. That's all there is to it. His faux reasonable tone and unmistakable bias toward defending bonehead and underhanded City moves every freaking time earned him his moniker Fictitious Persona (FP).
I'm not FP but it does get old that for many here the typical response is to accuse the post's author to be one of the bad guys (council, developers, city staff, etc.). I guess it beats having to think of cogent arguments in response. Just label the author as one of them and you're done. How lazy.
The bond interest rate is 4.59. The average inflation rate you quoted is 3.91. The difference between the two is 0.68. That times $13 million for 30 years is $2,652,000.
Using your theory and figures, the financing cost is $2.65 million. That's not small change, even when spread over 30 years.
If the city had paid what the PV property is really worth, the financing cost would be about half the calculated figure.
Actually, we're talking approximations because the rates on the PV bonds and the tower bonds are different.
Another problem: The calculator you used is for investing, not incurring bond debt and servicing that debt. They're different animals.
You may be right, but aren't lending and borrowing two sides of the same coin. What the borrower sees as interest charges, the lender sees as return on invested capital. The math should be the same, no?
Unless an investor withdraws the earnings, later earnings compound on the principal and earlier earnings.
When the city services bond debt, there's no compounding on the city's end. The city will pay the 4.59 percent on the principal every year for 30 years.
The investment calculator you used incorporated compounding into the calculation, didn't it? If so, it can't be used to calculate servicing bond debt.
I thought the council meeting was cancelled for this evening.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed more vacation rentals this summer. I'm not even sure if they are registered with the city, as the registration requires phone number of owner/manager to be clearly posted which I have not been seeing. Most of the people are nice enough, but the intensity of use (car trips, noise, visitors, drinking/BBQs on week nights) is much worse. I suppose we are lucky to live in a place people want to vacation. But, I'll be glad when they all go home to Arizona or wherever.
ReplyDelete6:21 I have noticed that as well. I live up the street from Cardiff Seaside Market, and when I go there these days the place is full of tourists, which is cool. The only problem I have is many of them don't fully appreciate how much of a drought we really are in. I have seen them thrown out water, play with the hose at one of our neighbors that rents her home during the summer months, and are , in some cases, throwing their plastic water bottles in the ocean. I wish we could figure out, as a City, how to educate tourists on things related to our part of the world.
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Lily Tomlin (in one of her anal characters) "Why can't people like that just stay home!?"
DeleteJust because there have been no council meetings, don't think that the Planning Department has sat back. They have been working hard to try to push through anti-resident policies that will attack our community character.
ReplyDeleteFor example, they have proposed a floating "overlay zone," which allows for them to keep the zoning underneath a property yet develop it at a higher density than it is zoned for. This can be placed on any property as a work around for zoning standards.
They are trying to push through policies in the upcoming meeting. Please be there to help protect hard-won citizen rights.
I understand your point, but disagree that overlay zones are always bad.
DeleteIf the state housing law forces us to accommodate projected population growth (and it does), then consider the implications of zone changes with/without overlays.
Without overlays, zoning changes result in automatic density increases on affected areas with no strings attached.
Overlay zones, however, come with conditions, such as affirdable housing mandates or maybe water or power-saving requirements. A developer can either develop at the underlying zoning density by right, or they can accept the restrictions and elect to build at the higher overlay density. It gives Encinitas some community benefit in trade for the higher density. Unfortunately, we cannot use the restrictions that are so onerous that they effectively poison the higher density option.
If we are compelled to add unit potential by state law (and we are), then why not use overlay zones to get some community benefit in trade?
--FP
3:56 PM
ReplyDeleteSpoken by a true politician by saying it's the law. The "housing law" was passed by legislators who received contributions or other promised gains. Most of the state senators and assemblymembers have gone on to other lucrative political offices. We, the people that voted the traitors into office remain with the damage caused by the "housing law."
Most of these laws are quickly passed from committee to committee without any discussion with the residents in each lawmaker's district.
AB 744 density bonus amendments by Chau - Alhambra, is such a bill for the benefit of developers.
Domus Corporation is named as the sponsor of the bill which means the president of Domus went to Chau and asked him to present AB 744 as a new bill. Assemblyman Chau obliged the request and placed AB 744 density bonus changes into the system.
Assemblyman Chau doesn't brag about AB 744 to his constituents. Many of the cities he represents had to learn about the state taking away local land use control from the League of California Cities.
For most of these land use bills residents are stuck with a feudal system of mini-lords that once elected do their best to destroy neighborhoods and cities.
The only recourse residents have is to complain like he## about the bills before they are placed on the Governor's desk. Later and after the fact voting the traitors out doesn't stop the damage.
Correction on the developer on 5:12 PM post
ReplyDeleteDomus Development not Domus Corporation.
And to answer "why not use overlay zones?" Because our Planning Dept. cannot be trusted not to bend the rules to breaking...the rather obvious answer that FP already knew.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this:
DeleteSOMETHING will go in the ballot next year called a Housing Element Update.
That HEU proposition will include changes to zoning that would bring the city into compliance with state housing law.
Now, maybe it will pass, and maybe it won't. Maybe it should pass and maybe it shouldn't. I know many in this forum would like to see it fail, and you are entitled to your opinion--I'm not debating that.
My point is simply that IF an HEU passes at the ballot box next year over your objections, then would you rather it be structured as straight zoning density changes by right with no restrictions, or as overlay zones that come with strings attached. Keep in mind that the restrictions in an overlay zone might affect the building cost and profitability of development. Therefore, some of those "potential" units might not get built, and the ones that do might have a little less impact on the rest of us with the right conditions in place.
The other way to look at it is that overlay zones appear to be a middle ground compromise that could attract more yes votes. You might agree that overlay zones are an attractive option, and would rather have the less attractive option on the ballot to increase the no votes.
Personally, that's a risky strategy. I'm betting the HEU will pass in a presidential election year, and I'd rather have overlay zones pass than straight up zone changes.
6:08 is FP.
DeleteHa ha. Aka Encinitas Dad.
DeleteOops.
6:08 PM
ReplyDeleteThat's what Councilman Tony Kranz keeps repeating.
You can bitch all you want but Encinitas will have a valid Housing Element one way or another. Either it will be determined by the city or by a judge. All the whining here won't make a difference. As part of the BIA settlement, the city is required to put on the November 2016 ballot a certified HE. If it fails someone will have a judge oversee a HE update and possibly Prop A is either jettisoned or restrained.
ReplyDeleteThe overlay zones are identified with individual parcels. They can't be invoked on just any parcel in the city. That's why the city needed to identify the potential parcels so an EIR could be done.
The City was going to have the Housing Element Update on the ballot in 2016, anyway. What do you mean by "certified?" In my opinion, it won't be certified unless the voters pass it. Personally, I doubt that will happen. The ongoing drought is a huge factor, plus all the traffic we already have. Increased traffic resulting from increased density is not something that voters want.
Delete9:43 PM
ReplyDeleteSqueak, squeak. Is your name Ben?
10:30 PM
DeleteBoy, you've got me with "Is your name Ben?". I just don't get the reference.
Our little world here in Encinitas is going to change, if only a little bit, and there is nothing anyone on this blog can do about it. So rant all you want if it makes you feel better. And if you're wondering, I don't like it either but it is what it is.
9:43, a valid Housing Element does not mean that we start out with other cities' General Plans and call them a "template." It does not mean that we start out with Gus Vina's "Strategic Plan." That is garbage. It means that we start with the core document, which is our OWN General Plan, and the Housing Element must fit into the other elements that exist.
DeleteSome are threatening that a judge will decide if we can't pass something. I would rather have a judge decide and decide based on law than have the Planning Department and council decide. As a matter of fact, the rules are for everyone to see. Prop A says that CITIZENS decide!
Ben was the rat in the movie Ben.....
Delete"Willard!"
DeleteThanks MGJ
DeleteCouncil should decide to emphasize re-counting the affordable housig we already have. It should instruct Planning to come up with ways to incentivize citizens coming forward to count existing units, rather than disincentivizing them. Importantly, the number of "required" units is off because the population projection is off. A judge should have to take into consideration the drought, and unmitigated traffic congestion that would be created by raising the density to accomodate profit, more than actually accomodating low income families and individuals.
DeleteAnd SANDAG and/or the state should count all Encinitas residents who already own their home, especially those protected by Prop 13. They're all counted within the total sum of residents and have very "affordable" conditions, but "we can't count those" the city says.
Delete"Squeak" is right. We well might have a judge swooping in on us - if you buy the usual fearmongering from the City.
ReplyDeleteMe, I'll take my chances with a judge (should that ever come to pass) over rotten planning staff any day of the week. And I do mean rotten.
And 9:43, "restraining" Prop A is the city's ultimate goal with this HEU. Oh, the horror they and the developer community felt when it passed...passed despite all the lies they told and fearmongering they tried whipping up.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "little bit" of change in store for Encinitas if the City has its way.
But you know all that.
Still whining I see. The previous HE updates were all rejected by HCD and the rules have only gotten harder. The idea of the planning dept. wanting to gut Prop A and the general plan is a red herring. The real fear mongering is going on right here. A few higher density parcels (potentially) and Encinitas is going to pot. I guess all those new homeowners who have been buying existing encinitas houses for many times the original price just don't know how bad it's gotten here.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I'm not one of your usual suspects.
You sure do a good imitation of a usual suspect!
DeleteLet the city come to residents with honesty and integrity and you might see some support for an HEU. Unfortunately for the city, it blew it 18 months ago with its secretive outreach describing the "options" available to upzone parcel homeowners.
Gaspar further blew it when she helped Abdreen put on an "informative" luncheon that included developers as stakeholders - not residents - to further explain the profits to be enjoyed with these "options."
If this your team, then you are now an official usual suspect if you weren't before.
Not to worry, on the 26th the Council will make it law that each density bonus hearing will include an out-of-town consultant who will help the council flush any possible profit out of a renovation on private property. The only winner in all of this is Gaspar gets to flee Shaffer and Fakespear who holiday together (?) while the full impacts of leadership by Kranz slowly reduces the financial well-being of what once was the wonderful place to live. Kranz the Visigoth? Or Vandal?
DeleteDid anyone else receive a mailer from real estate person Mark Bobo? He is a local and sells homes in Encinitas, especially Cardiff. On the back of the mailer is an interesting article called "Elimination of Coastal Permits for Remodels Outside 300 ft Coastal Zone. Not sure how to get it to Wc, as I don't have a scanner. I know, I'm old school. But, if no one else has it, I'll try to get it to Wc. It's not good for us locals.
ReplyDeleteThis is the resolution 2005-52
Deletehttp://archive.encinitasca.gov/WebLink8/PDF/rcp2zi55dzrbfrvvd51csp55/25/2005-52%20Categorical%20Exclusion%20Order.pdf
This resolution was never approved by the Coastal Commission because of the environmental problems involved.
Jeff Murphy and the local developers are illegally using the resolution to avoid coastal development permits.
Surprise! Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear should be eating their words in their BIA settlement cop out.
ReplyDeleteA recent article on more density bonus in San Francisco says this -
"Density bonuses are fairly common across the country, and in fact California has a density bonus law that San Francisco has been out of compliance with for years."
Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear - liars, liars, pants on fire. You threw the people who voted for you to the wolves.
1:49 This doesn't surprise me one bit. These people going into politics will do and say anything that will get the elected.
DeleteTrust, but verify. Most of them are sheep in wolves clothing.
It is a sad day when there is no one that represents the citizens who got them there. The word "liar" comes to mind.
The word "sell out" comes to my mind. When you run for office on a certain platform in this small of an arena, you should hold to what you campaigned on. We're not that big of city. I understand if your running for President that you cannot know everything, but Encinitas? Come on Kranz. You were one the initiators of Prop.A and you are a sell out. I hear you don't care, but you may care when the people vote your ass out.
Delete6:02 I'm all for getting rid of Krantz. He has proved to be a big disappointment. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.
DeleteI consider him a little bit of a dumb head. Please do not re-elect this guy.
If you can't spell his name right, how dumb does that make you,lol...
DeleteJust proves the person doesn't like the guy. I thought it was a clever move to not spell his name correctly. Went over your head 8:03. Be careful out there today.
Delete12:42, All it proves is that he didn't spell a councilman's name correctly.
Delete10:37 That was ME that did not spell the councilman's name corrently. I did it for a reason. Still want to hang on to your story since you can read my mind? Go find something else to complain about.
Delete1:08, yawn.
DeleteKranz pacific view eye sore. Bye bye for your buy buy fiscal debacle.
ReplyDeletewhy didn't Kranz just round up to $20 million for PV… not his money is it?
ReplyDeleteThere was a recent article about how the EUC board plans to use the EXTRA $5 million that they got after using the FIRST 5 million to fix buildings. They are talking about putting it into an interest-bearing account.
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot Kranz, Shaffer, and Barth for your votes, and Blakespear for your support of this dumb plan.
Great! Shake down taxpayers for $20 million borrowed money so that EUSD can have $5 million in an investment account.
ReplyDeleteIs the city REALLY in great financial shape?
(sigh)
DeleteAgain, $10M. The interest rate on the debt is below the long term rate of inflation, so the financing is essentially free. Take Econ 101 if you don't understand.
Also, when ANY public agency decides to invest and operate on a sovereign wealth positive balance, we should stand up and cheer. Read about the financial management of Singapore's government, then tell us how bad it is that EUSD is exercising delayed gratification.
--FP.
If the interest paid on this deal doesn't count, why were our council members upset when the interest price on bonds increased so dramatically. Did they LIKE it when Gus Vina played them for fools? We didn't!
Delete4:56,
DeleteIt did jump when Vina failed to estimate the rate as a taxable bond.
There was a jump, but I wouldn't call it dramatic.
Council was rightly upset because tge issue was forseeable, and a lower rate is better (duh).
But your point doesn't disprove mine. It is possible that the taxable bond rate is at or below the long term rate of inflation, AND the tax free muni rate would have been even lower. This is called negative real rate of return. It's a highly stimulative (and unusual) monetary policy circumstance that encourages businesses, municipalities, and individuals to borrow money and make purchases, because the real value of the money you pay back over time is actually less than what you borrowed. It's easier to say yes to an investment financed with a negative real rate of return, because the ROI, payback period, NPV, and all other metrics become more favorable.
The point is, in 2045, the dollars we will be paying in this bond will not have the same value as dollars do today. So talking about payments made over long periods of time in nominal dollars is silly. If you looked at the predicted value of payments on the debt in 2015 dollars, you'd find that the finance charges are close to free ($10M).
--FP.
Um, if they're 30-year bonds, I think we'll be paying interest on them in every year from 2015 to 2045, not a balloon in 2045 in that year's dollars.
DeleteYou are correct.
DeleteBut when interest rate is at or near the long term rate of inflation, the overall net effect is as described above. Interest on the debt increases the nominal dollars paid to own the property, but inflation lowers the real value of payments over time. These two contrary forces cancel out at the point where interest rate equals long term rate of inflation.
Finance people looking at a deal like this will often use a calculation to net out these forces by calculating the purchase cost in today's dollars (including the interest on the debt). In this case, the fully burdened cost of the property purchase (including interest and inflation) should be very close to the cash price of $10M.
In other words, whether the city opted to pay cash or borrow, either way they would end up paying about the same for the property.
I hope this helps. I'm perhaps not the best at describing.
--FP.
What's the interest rate on the bonds?
DeleteAs I recall, and my recollection might not be correct, when the bonds were issued, the total payment for principal and interest when all was said and done would be about $22 million.
If that's right or close and you're right about inflation canceling the interest total, inflation between 2015 and 2045 would have to be more than 100% cumulatively. That doesn't sound reasonable.
Bond interest rate was 4.59; the average annual rate of inflation since WWII is 3.91%.
DeleteSmall numbers compounding over long periods produce bigger numbers than you may think. The Rule of 72 shows that at the long term growth rate of the S&P 500 (~10%), your invested nest egg should double about every seven years.
--FP.
Using the rates above and a bond of $13M (including the lifeguard station), the calculator linked below shows that the $13M becomes $13.63M when the countervailing forces of interest charges and inflation are accounted for.
Deletehttp://m.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/investment-inflation-calculator.php
--FP.
Over the same 30 year term, how does investing $13 million and collecting the returns differ from incurring $13 million in bond debt and servicing that debt?
DeletePaying too much for something that is a want and not a need--particularly by paying credit, with someone else's money is not a good idea. I don't care what the our council members who voted for it say. It is not a living museum.
DeleteAt the moment, it is a living nightmare like some who voted in the project.
0.68% X $13 million X 30 years = $2,652,000.
ReplyDeleteThat throws FP's point out the window.
Not sure if your calculation is correct, but it's possible the calculator I used was wrong.
DeleteStill, you are actually making my point.
Scroll up in the thread and you'll find I was responding to the notion that the real price tag on PV is $22M.
It isn't, according to your numbers.
--FP.
FP workin' hard for the City, either directly inside or indirectly inside. That's all there is to it. His faux reasonable tone and unmistakable bias toward defending bonehead and underhanded City moves every freaking time earned him his moniker Fictitious Persona (FP).
ReplyDeleteWonder who pays his bill?
I'm not FP but it does get old that for many here the typical response is to accuse the post's author to be one of the bad guys (council, developers, city staff, etc.). I guess it beats having to think of cogent arguments in response. Just label the author as one of them and you're done. How lazy.
DeleteThe bond interest rate is 4.59. The average inflation rate you quoted is 3.91. The difference between the two is 0.68. That times $13 million for 30 years is $2,652,000.
DeleteUsing your theory and figures, the financing cost is $2.65 million. That's not small change, even when spread over 30 years.
If the city had paid what the PV property is really worth, the financing cost would be about half the calculated figure.
Actually, we're talking approximations because the rates on the PV bonds and the tower bonds are different.
Another problem: The calculator you used is for investing, not incurring bond debt and servicing that debt. They're different animals.
12:01,
DeleteYou may be right, but aren't lending and borrowing two sides of the same coin. What the borrower sees as interest charges, the lender sees as return on invested capital. The math should be the same, no?
--FP.
Unless an investor withdraws the earnings, later earnings compound on the principal and earlier earnings.
DeleteWhen the city services bond debt, there's no compounding on the city's end. The city will pay the 4.59 percent on the principal every year for 30 years.
The investment calculator you used incorporated compounding into the calculation, didn't it? If so, it can't be used to calculate servicing bond debt.