If You Disclose Fraud After the Fact is It no Longer Fraud?

According to Wikipedia “in law, fraud, is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.” So does the fact that the City of Redwood City is now disclosing what they have already done mean they didn’t deceive the residents of Redwood City and maybe even deprive the residents of Docktown of their rights?

Putting together a consent calendar item that details how in fact the City of Redwood City has already spent more then double what the residents of Redwood City were told the city would spend on implementing the Docktown Plan at best makes a mockery of any claimed discussions and information given to the general public. At what point is it fraudulent to get an approval for a budget item, proceed forward and sign agreements for amounts that are more than double the approved item and then inform the public of what has been done? When the agreements total ten percent more? Probably not. When the agreements total twenty percent more? Getting more questionable. When the agreements total fifty percent more? Yes. When the agreements total over double the amounts approved? Absolutely!

As if this wasn’t bad enough, the staff and council of Redwood City think that they can use educational funds (ERAF – Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) to pay for the elimination of affordable homes. I wonder how many parents in the Redwood City Elementary School District and the Sequoia High School District feel that the schools their children attend are overfunded and need to donate some of the augmentation funds they could have or might be receiving in the future to destroy local homes. Just to be clear we aren’t talking about a couple of pennies here, we are talking about over ten million dollars!

The icing on this sad cake is the timing of all of this. As a resident of Docktown as the offers for some of the homes came in and were accepted, I kept thinking I wasn’t paying attention. How could it be that I hadn’t seen anything on the City Council agenda to get what I would have thought would be necessary pre-approvals for the contracts being signed. Now finally months later, just as it appears like there will be a ruling that may or may not be favorable to the city in the first of five lawsuits related to the matter; the city rushes to put together essentially a disclosure document because rest assured it is not a request for approval.

As noted in the disclosures 58 of 70 eligible parties have either already relocated, agreed to relocate or are in process of agreeing (may not have completed all documentation.) In fact the report also discloses they are negotiating with four families the option to extend through June 30th when everyone else has only until February 28th. If the costs to provide security have already increased due to the number of people that have left, imagine how much more it will cost to protect just four families. The original Docktown Plan allowed for an additional six months namely through August 30th. Why not just allow the legal process to run it's full course and allow everyone to stay at worst until August 30th and with the right ruling a lot longer?

Yes, the item has been removed from the consent calendar; nonetheless the publication of the reports has at least begun a more accurate disclosure.

UPDATE POST CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Docktown staff proposal to City Council although removed from consent was discussed and approved by the four council members in attendance: Ian Bain, Janet Borgens, Diane Howard and Shelly Masur.