A Burgeoning Consensus on Redevelopment Agencies?

Brown's right on track (0.00 / 0)

I was delighted to see Brown go after redevelopment and enterprise zones. While both of these programs have some benefits, they are both extraordinarily inefficient. Redevelopment is frequently just money laundering in one form or another, as RDA's divert property tax to projects that create sales tax or hotel taxes.

It's also great to see Brown go directly after some minor, but obvious, forms of waste, eliminating Swag,cutting the number of cell phones, and flying alone on Southwest to LA.

It's great politics and it breaks the right-wing narrative.  

OC Progressive is Gus Ayer, former Fountain Valley Council member.  

---

by: OC Progressive @ Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 14:31:26 PM UTC

CalBuzz got it wrong (0.00 / 0)

The existential debate on redevelopment aside, the Calbuzz piece talks about $4 billion for a Chargers stadium by citing an article that explicitly says (indeed, is largely ABOUT) the Chargers stadium not being included in the giant list of redev projects. More than a quarter is specifically allocated to affordable housing projects and leaves out a stadium, a major convention center expansion, etc.

Redevelopment is important, and so are the priorities that are now left competing for the same funds. Sorting out how to juggle it all is important, but it isn't made any easier when we get the basics wrong.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 18:11:39 PM UTC

No money for the stadium, but (0.00 / 0)

But 150 million for buying and cleaning up the site?

And what's this 60 million for land remediation and construction for the Tailgate Park parking structure.

If I were going to build a Tailgate Park parking structure, where would I put it?


OC Progressive is Gus Ayer, former Fountain Valley Council member.  

---

by: OC Progressive @ Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 20:36:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tax Increment (0.00 / 0)

What we are talking about is the tax resulting from the improvements created by redevelopment.  If the property/area is blighted, according to California law, the tax paid on the property will remain essentially the same forever, or until some external force causes some improvement to the property.

Redevelopment is intended to cure the blight and increase the value of the property, using only the new tax generated by that improvement to pay for the cost of the improvement.  Once the cost is recovered, all the new tax increment is distributed to the various taxing agencies.

If there was no redevelopment, there would be no tax increment for the state to go after.  And, by the way, there would be significantly less affordable housing (at least 20% of tax increment must go to affordable housing) and there would be much more blight in our cities.

I am sure there are abuses, stadiums for millionaires for one, but we ought to tighten the rules, address the abuses, and don't throw away a valuable tool for local governments.  

---

by: xmayor @ Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 01:20:41 AM UTC