Oakland News Now - Breaking Local Bay Area News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QzQnGx05Mk

Oakland News Now Blog –

Oakland Has 12 Percent Of SF Businesses But More Bankruptcies Between 2021-2026 Yet Can Help Them

– video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the video’s upper left hand corner where the Channel Name appears. OaklandNewsNowBlog.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.

Oakland Has 12 Percent Of SF Businesses But More Bankruptcies Between 2021-2026 Yet Can Help Them

It’s no secret that the Pandemic has been damaging to the lifespan of businesses in America, and fewer places have been impacted by it more than the cities of Oakland and San Francisco in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. But since Oakland is a smaller city than San Francisco in terms of total population with 426,000 people versus approximately 826,000 for SF, one would guess that it has a smaller number of businesses and thus a smaller number of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy. A look at local business data between 2021 and 2026 shows that’s not the case: Oakland has more businesses that have filed for bankruptcy over that period of time than in San Francisco.

A Zennie62Media, Inc. analysis of data shows that a total of 893 businesses in Oakland filed for bankruptcy between 2021 and 2026, whereas just 665 filed for bankruptcy in San Francisco over the same period of time. That’s 25 percent fewer businesses but representing a number of firms in San Francisco that’s roughly eight times greater than in Oakland.

If there’s a better statistic available to show relative differences in economic power, none is better than this business bankruptcy comparison. The number of 893 businesses that needed help in Oakland have an estimated average debt load of $25,000 – times the total number of companies, that comes to $223,250,000.00 or $223 million.

Thus, if the City of Oakland wanted to help the 12 percent of its total businesses that were facing bankruptcy get out of it and remain going concerns the price tag would ba $223 million; 50 percent of that would be $111 million people. Could Oakland afford to pay that $111 million or $223 million. If the source of fund was tax increment financing and the project was Howard Terminal Ballpark the answer would be yes.

According to a not well-publicized 2023 Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan for Howard Terminal, the Century Urban TIF revenue estimate was $5 billion. And that was based on a tiny two-percent annual increase in total assessed value for the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District over the allowed 45 year property tax revenue collection period. If a 4 percent increase in total assessed value for the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District over the allowed 45 year property tax revenue collection period, the TIF revenue estimate would be $9 billion. The point is, Oakland can generate enough money to save businesses from dying. The question is, why doesn’t it?

The answer to that question is that Oakland and most California cities do not use Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District legislation to help improve their economies. Why? Well, these are the reasons offered:

Loss of Local Capacity: When California dissolved old Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in 2012, cities lost experienced staff and institutional know-how for managing complex tax increment financing. [1, 2]
Small Property Tax Shares: Many California cities receive only 3% to 10% of the overall property tax collected within their borders. Unless other local taxing agencies voluntarily agree to contribute their shares, an EIFD’s revenue may be too low to fund meaningful projects. [1]
In other words, the word that can be applied here is incompetence. Many organizations do not understand that the size of the EIFD can be adjusted to gain the revenue needed for projects. The EIFD size should be enough to pay for a bond issue that generates at least $50 million. The main problem is, from the observation of this long-time Oakland economic development blogger, the City Staff is reluctant to actually identify the money that’s needed, thinking that the price tag is too large without even bothering to apply any math to determine of their fears are correct.
One Oakland Councilmember once told me that staff said EIFD use would be done on a project-by-project basis. I told him that approach gains too little money and that a district-sized EIFD approach was better. Unlike the period when California Redevelopment Law was active from 1947 to 2011, EIFD project areas of 7,000 acres in size (like the Coliseum Redevelopment Area) are not created. So California cities are literally refusing to use a powerful revenue tool for no good reason.
That has to change.

🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://ift.tt/pk5Saev

via IFTTT

Note from Zennie62Media: This video-blog post was produced by our experimental mobile reporting network. Learn more about our “Third Wave of Media” system here.