$1 Million Arcata Housing Loan Under Fire Amid Lien, Transparency, and Environmental Concerns
Press release from Building Bayside Better (Please remember that this is not neutral reporting but a press release from an interested party):
Serious questions are emerging about the City of Arcata’s plan to allocate $1 million in public funds to a private housing project known as “Roger’s Garage,” just days ahead of a scheduled City Council hearing.
At the center of the controversy is a longstanding, unresolved $1 million lien on the project site — a legal cloud that could jeopardize the City’s ability to secure its public investment and may violate federal funding rules. Records show the lien was recorded by a third party in 2010 according to the site’s title report, raising concerns about the City’s due diligence.
The City proposes to use $1.3 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Income, including a $1 million “soft loan” to the project’s developer. Critics say the City has not clearly disclosed whether it will hold a secured position on the property or how the loan will be repaid — if at all.
The loan would also benefit two unrelated commercial properties owned by the same developer, including their corporate headquarters — a detail that has not been presented to the public.
Meanwhile, the project site — a polluted brownfield still under environmental investigation — has been fast-tracked under questionable CEQA exemptions. The City quietly posted notice of the June 18 hearing to a kiosk at City Hall, with no meaningful public outreach, raising serious concerns about transparency and public participation.
With millions of dollars at stake and legal uncertainties mounting, local residents are calling for a pause in City action until title issues are resolved, loan terms are publicly disclosed, and environmental findings are fully vetted.
The Arcata City Council is scheduled to vote on the loan at 6:00 PM on June 18, 2025, at City Hall. Community members and press are encouraged to attend.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Nimbyism at its finest.
lots of opinion. No way to contact this Astro turf group.
shut up already.
NIMBY losers.
Literally every Arcata housing project has had these “concerns.”
spoiler alert: we can’t build new housing in the bay. We are going to have to build in your neighborhood.
its unconscionable that when 20% of Cal Poly students are going to experience homelessness, homeowners pull this shit. The university is the only reason your home has any value. The economy of Arcata would collapse without it.
So, like any corporate mega entity with government protection, the University should have the right to do whatever it wants? Unfortunately for that idea, the same academic arrogance that allows CalPoly and wannabes to think they have the right to leverage its power at will means that it is surrounded by its employees and hangers-on who create that arrogance in the first place. Academia’s closed world is one massive steamroller of self interest and always has been. As if ” experience homelessness” for students has not been the student lot since the middle ages.
In my college days in AZ not too many kids were actually homeless. Most had jobs (or 3) and 5 roommates so they could have enough money left over from one of them to pay for their social life. Or the fact that you can’t survive in a car when it’s 115F outside. Kids came up with every imaginable way to make money. No hustle was off limits (mine were a bike mechanic, selling beer at MLB games and maintenance and projectionist at a dive-in theater AND class 3-4 days a week). Those that I ran into that were homeless usually were there by fault of their own (choosing bad roommates or partners that skip out, steal, are abusive, bad habits that eat up rent money, or “champagne lifestyle on a beer budget”, etc…) It’s not to say that there weren’t some with genuine struggles, but they also struggled hard to NOT be there. There should be some safety net, like enrolled students allowed to reside in vehicles on campus, free meals… but the promotion that 20% are going to be homeless is suspect. There also has to be accountability too. If you’re off campus paying someone else rent, well….you’re going to need to work some to pay for it. There will be sacrifices, at least for a while. It’s called growing up. I had the same arguments that students do now, which was hate everything capitalist, my landlord, dumbass roommates that don’t pay their share or work, BigAnything, pick something. Lots of stress and angst. I still had to knuckle down if I wanted out of that pit. You have to.
Side note on hustles: vendor jobs pay very well. 3 days of hustling beer for 3-4 hours paid enough in just tips I didn’t need roommates. The Drive-in hustle came with it’s own perks. You’re not a projectionist…..you’re a cinematographer representing major Hollywood studios!
>”… its unconscionable that when 20% of Cal Poly students are going to experience homelessness”
—
ROFL.
Arcata’s “build at any cost” agenda is very… Trump. Depose the toxic city council before they do more damage to Arcata.
Arcata’s “build at any cost” agenda is very… Newsom (and cohorts).
Im of the opinion that entities associated with the building company post “Nimby” from anonymous accounts across several websites regarding this topic, as evidenced here.
“Unresolved” is pretty vague. This paperwork is 15 years old and anything could have transpired since. Is it still in repayment? Paid in full? Used as collateral for another investment? Might all be perfectly legal but the complainant wants to throw a wrench into the machine. I would think that Danco has come across a bit more money since 2010 than what the note says, but their finances are their own business. I would be more concerned about soil toxins. That’s a bigger hang-up to me than on who paid what for the land. A transient population probably won’t care whats in the ground once they leave in a few years but over time, if it’s truly a brownfield, some people might have some issues later in life having lived right on top of it, if it’s not mitigated. Everything can be agreed on if parties wish to.
The city has plans to mitigate it.
This article seems to be addressing the way the City is fast-tracking financing through dubious procedures and a lack of transparency — not the merits of the project. Forget the NIMBY/YIMBY the range war going on here; corporate profiteers love it when people fight among themselves. Nobody wins but them.
There’s a long conversation about this on Nextdoor; their main concerns seem to be the brownfield (which the City will clean up) and parking.
It’s ok to put poor people on a contaminated site so the cool people can feel good about themselves.