Redevelopment debate: California mayors duke it out with Gov. Brown
When it comes to cleaning up California's budget mess, halting funds to the 400 municipal redevelopment agencies is really unfortunate, but it's the lesser evil when you consider all of the other things we need to pay for. Gov. Jerry Brown said Wednesday, "The money's not there." Moreover, he argued, here's an opportunity to save $1.7 billion.
In the other corner, we have the mayors from the state's biggest cities saying that redevelopment agencies incentivize developers to build in less-than-ideal areas; eventually that drives up property tax revenues, and, in the case of Hollywood, increases tourism, which is the example Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave during Wednesday's meeting. Here's a snippet from a segment on KPCC with Julie Small on Thursday morning:
"Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recalls that not too many years ago, the average tourist visit to Hollywood lasted 23 minutes. Then redevelopment dollars flowed into the area to pay for improvements.
'You can go downtown in L.A. and go to Hollywood today and you see a different place, a vibrant place,' said Villaraigosa. 'Today the average stay is two days.'
Villaraigosa says L.A. would never have achieved that 'Hollywood ending' without the redevelopment agencies the governor wants to scrap."
If the editorial board was the referee in this match, it'd come down in favor of Gov. Brown. It's not that it would like to see a halt to redevelopment, but that concessions must be made. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Here, from the board's editorial "Facing the budget music":
"City governments like to think of redevelopment money as their own. But for more than three decades it has been the state's job to allocate property tax funds among the 5,000 or so local government entities. Twenty years ago, the state propped up schools by shifting to them millions of dollars in tax revenues that otherwise would have gone to cities and counties — and redevelopment agencies. A few years later, it shifted the costs of trial courts from counties to itself. But there was never enough for everyone. It's like a game of musical chairs, with the chairs being all the available pots of state revenue and the players being cities, counties, school districts and so-called special districts and redevelopment agencies. The players outnumber the chairs, and the music has stopped.
[…]
Naturally, city leaders would rather sell redevelopment bonds without an election; it's often difficult to persuade voters to back redevelopment projects. But Brown's proposal at least offers a solution. It shows a way forward for cities as well as the state. Now the burden should fall to Los Angeles, and hundreds of other cities and redevelopment agencies whose budgets and programs are intimately intertwined with the state's, to craft workable solutions and alternatives that keep California solvent, keep Californians working and put local residents back in charge of their civic destinies."
Where they've left for now: Gov. Brown challenged the mayors to come up with another solution if they don't like this plan.
RELATED:
Humanizing California's budget
The 15-minute California budget solution
Readers: How would you balance California's budget?
--Alexandra Le Tellier
Photos: Top, Gov. Jerry Brown. Bottom, from left, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
Would you like to raise vast amounts of money with no collateral to spend for your speical interest without a vote of the folks you are taking it from. How about a 50 year loan which may never be paid back. Start a redevelopment project where "any objections are hereby overuled". Silly over simplification, no not really speaking as a CRA profesional not at all.
Posted by: bud johnson | January 27, 2011 at 04:30 PM
We cannot get rid of redevelopment agencies fast enough. It's not as if land development will stop if redevelopment agencies go away. They act as if they are the sole force driving real estate development in cities, instead of market forces. Things WILL continue to get built without the government playing developer. Redevelopment agencies have never once accomplished their mandated mission, which is removing blight. Instead they waste tax money on public art, as if that will improve a blighted neighborhood.
Should the money, ideally, stay local? Yes. But not with redevelopment agencies spending it. Let them go!
Posted by: Aardvark | January 27, 2011 at 04:30 PM
If you go to the blighted areas, you find a lot of building code violations, graffiti, slum lords and so forth. If the cities were to enforce the law, then sidewalks would be fixed, buildings would be repaired, graffiti removed and security guards hired. It is the duty of the building owner to finance these things. Redevelopment agencies simply make it easy for building owners to shirk their duties. Besides, the agencies are staffed by city bureaucrats who draw huge salaries and get big pensions. Governor Brown is correct on this one.
Posted by: Richard Ivey | January 27, 2011 at 05:26 PM
Audit the fed, support H.R.459Paul/S.202Paul
Posted by: Charlie Peters | January 27, 2011 at 06:44 PM
A Smog Check secret shopper audit would cut car impact 1500 tons per day while reducing cost. John R. Wallauch, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-Nrep74qg
Posted by: Charlie Peters | January 27, 2011 at 06:46 PM
* * Alex Farrell, Gray Davis & Gary Condit interest in fuel oxygenates seemed interesting
* * California CalEPA Secretary Linda Adams, signed a MOU with the UN in China on earth day. China gets about 50% of the world carbon tax and the China government gets a 50% tax of the credits.
** China goods and services may increase
** We pay the (ethanol or) carbon tax and Pew Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) Member Companies: ABB, Air Products, Alcoa Inc., American Electric Power, Bank of America, BASF, Baxter International Inc., The Boeing Company, BP, California Portland Cement, CH2M HILL, Citi, Cummins Inc., Deere & Company, Deutsche Telekom, The Dow Chemical Company, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, DuPont, Entergy, Exelon, GE, Hewlett-Packard Company, Holcim (US) Inc., IBM, Intel, Interface Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Lockheed Martin, Marsh, Inc., Novartis, Ontario Power Generation, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Rohm and Haas, Royal Dutch/Shell, SC Johnson, Toyota, TransAlta, United Technologies, Weyerhaeuser, Whirlpool Corporation, Wisconsin Energy Corporation and friends may all share in the public/private partnership of corporate and NGO welfare
Posted by: Charlie Peters | January 27, 2011 at 06:52 PM
I call this a good start. Let me know when Jerry decides to go after the cost of housing prisoners in CA and what it's twice as expensive to house a prisoner than in TX.
Also let me know if he decides to get serious with pension obligations that are no longer sustainable.
Holding my breath, turning blue.
Posted by: trust no one | January 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM
Jerry Brown has got it all wrong...
Redevelopment agencies may not provide overnight development success, but they are the "slow and steady" economic train that will help accelerate the developmental growth of our cities. Sure we can believe that things will eventually be built, but with all the money in the past that this state has already wasted, we will be waiting forever.
Cities aren't caving to developers. They are the buyers, and developers are the sellers who must sell their services for the best prices available. It's not the other way around, unless you want to live in a socialist state where the government decides who builds what and where...
Let us grow our cities as soon as possible. Perhaps then, poor people can have more opportunities and we can further shut down these extraneous social welfare programs (and expensive state pensions) that keep getting Jerry Brown into office.
The real costs aren't in redevelopment agencies; the governor needs to stop fooling himself and the rest of California..
Posted by: John G. | January 28, 2011 at 05:44 AM
Redevelopment Agencies have been around for 50 years. So we should have good data on how well they work. The mayors who want to keep the funds should be able to back up their claim that they are worth the money spent with some hard data instead of vague claims like "countless jobs" and "returns of $5-$10 per dollar spent".
How about a simple accounting of:
Dollars received.
Dollars spent on how many projects.
Property tax per year taken in on those projects.
Private sector jobs at those projects.
I suspect the reason the public does not have those numbers is that Mr. Brown is correct this money can be better spent.
Mayor Villaragosa it's easy to prove me wrong.
Posted by: jsa26 | January 28, 2011 at 07:48 AM
So, Mr. Brown, the money can be better spent?
On what? - overpriced prisons? - platinum level retirement packages for the state's employees? - welfare programs? - free education for the citizens of other countries? - more overpriced government worker salaries?
How dare you talk about the "waste" of redevelopment agencies when you won't address the unions, programs and idiotic ideas from Sacramento that have placed the State in this mess. How dare you vilify private business by inferring that more communistic government programs are the answer.
In the mean time, I will enjoy the offerings of Old Town Pasadena, Downtown Culver City, San Diego's Gaslamp District, Little Tokyo and Hollywood, all of which are excellent products of redevelopment agencies.
Posted by: JPR | January 28, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Redevelopment agencies have done a lot of good in cleaning up city slums. And Gov. Brown has said that, including in Oakland when he was mayor. But we're in a vastly different economic situation now. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Posted by: David B. | January 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM
I dont understand, most of these whiny mayors are democrats. Oh wait now I get it. Because they are democrats they are of the belief that only hard-working conservatives should make sacrifices. The democrats have too many pet projects to give up any hard-stolen tax dollars. Let's see there is the million mexican breakfast fund, the countless thousands of mexicans healthcare fund, the untold number of mexicans public education fund and on and on it goes....
Posted by: Joe | January 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM
To David B who posted the following nonsense:
Redevelopment agencies have done a lot of good in cleaning up city slums.
David B. You are a LIAR!!!
Posted by: Joe | January 28, 2011 at 10:35 AM
All we have to show for 20-40 years of CRD spending is the architecturally ugliest version of Hollywood imaginable. Same filthy streets, huge 'homeless' encampments, garbage at on and off ramps, massive human and auto density.
Now as I make my way to work at 3AM from Beachwood to Studio City there is the joy of all that wonderful commerce. Lots of drunk club goers peeing in the street on Franklin, people out of their double and tripled parked cars in the middle of intersections flipping off and cursing motorist trying to drive through.
Tax money well spent on overpriced hotels and restaurants!
Mr. Mayor, when you form your 'working group' hope you and your cohorts don't eat and drink on my dime.
Subway lines to LAX and Dodgers Stadium would have been redevelopment we could have used.
I say good for Gov. Brown and Speaker John A. Perez. Cut off this slush fund.
Posted by: Diane Surdam | January 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM
You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you.
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you.
You fell and cried as our people were starving,
Now you know that we blame you.
You tried to walk on the trail we were carving,
Now you know that we framed you.
Posted by: Alois St.Martin | January 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM
Oh please Mr. Villaraigosa - the "success" in Hollywood is a mixed bag at best. What Hollywood becomes over the next 50 years is the true test and many residents of Hollywood have completely lost faith in what our government is doing here.
The cheaply constructed mega-apartment buildings are a success? Have you looked at these closely? Do they really contribute to our historic neighborhood? Imagine these new monster apartment buildings in 50 years...
Hollywood and Highland is another problem. Does this project contribute to our historic neighborhood? This poorly designed development was a massive loss of our tax dollars and only CIM Group benefitted by getting to purchase the ruins for pennies on the dollars. They still get tax incentives on this property - even though they got to purchase it so inexpensively. And let's not forget that just last year we gave away $30 million dollars to help "poor" CIM Group bring Cirque du Soleil to Hollywood. REALLY? Did a Canadian-based circus and billion-dollar-fund real estate really need $30M from us? Total absurdity...
Billboard code violations are rampant in Hollywood and are only selectively enforced. The "poor" mega-developers are given lucrative tax incentives are some of the worst violators.
One example often cited as a Hollywood success is the W Hotel - a monster-ugly project covered in billboards and super-graphics -- hardly fitting the character of our historic neighborhood. Was this really the best our CRA could guide through their processes?
Enough is enough. NO MORE. It's time for CRA to go away. We can't afford it on so many levels. The residents of Hollywood are exhausted and have lost the faith.
Posted by: Josh | January 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM