Initiative would revive redevelopment agencies

Initiative would revive redevelopment agencies


Revenge of the JediIf it were a movie, it might be called “Revenge of the JEDI: the Redevelopment Empire Strikes Back.” It’s the California Jobs and Education Development Initiative (JEDI), which would enable the revival of the 425 redevelopment agencies eliminated in 2011 by Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Legislature.

The initiative liberalizes the definition of “blight” to include areas where the unemployment rate exceeds the national or statewide rate. That could result in 85 percent of California’s counties being declared blighted and eligible for redevelopment.

The initiative is spearheaded by Californians for Jobs and Economic Development. The group incorporated a year ago, according to corporationwiki, but it does not have a website.

Its president is Santa Ana’s mayor for the past 20 years, Miguel Pulido. He also happens to be under investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission for allegedly profiting $197,000 from a real estate transaction in exchange for giving an auto parts store an exclusive city contract, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Cities donate $110,000

Several California cities donated a combined $110,000 to research the initiative. They include Ontario ($50,000), San Jose ($25,000), Anaheim ($25,000) and Pittsburg ($10,000), according to public records compiled by The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, which is opposed to the initiative.

Some of the contributions never appeared on a city council or redevelopment successor agency agenda, said Nick Mirman, CAPPPR grassroots coordinator.

“Californians will be shocked to learn that taxpayer dollars that would otherwise go to public safety, parks and roads are being used to qualify a statewide initiative,” he said. “What’s more, the initiative is designed to make it easier for government to seize homes and small businesses by eminent domain so that it can be given to politically connected developers on the cheap … to build luxury hotels, golf courses and strip malls.”

Pittsburg Assistant City Manager Garrett Evans said that the city’s donation was not agendized because the city manager has the discretion to spend more than that amount, and that a council subcommittee had approved it.

Redevelopment ‘an incredible tool’

“Redevelopment was an incredible tool for Pittsburg,” said Evans. “Our community used redevelopment to build school facilities, fire stations, library improvements, parks, renovate historic structures, rebuild roads and infrastructure, and build affordable housing. Pittsburg’s crime rate is at its lowest point in 50 years because redevelopment was used to eliminate blight and unsafe buildings.

“Through redevelopment, the City worked with industrial corporations to locate and expand in our community, meaning our job base and wages increased. Our downtown was vacant and empty when I began working here 17 years ago. Now it is vibrant and full with pedestrians and restaurants. Redevelopment is a local, community-based program. Local residents decide what they want to accomplish in their neighborhood through a public process and a redevelopment plan.”

Cash cows

Redevelopment agencies had been cash cows for cities, giving them an extra $5 billion from the $50 billion that Californians pay in property taxes annually, according to an LAO analysis of the initiative. Much of the $5 billion would have gone to other governmental agencies, including fire departments, libraries and schools.

Passage of the redevelopment initiative would result in “increased resources for local redevelopment activities, growing to several billion dollars more per year, resulting in decreased resources for state and other local government activities of the same amount,” the LAO study concludes.

California’s unemployment rate has dropped to 8.5 percent from the 11.3 percent it was at when redevelopment agencies began to be dissolved in February 2012. Despite that, the initiative touts job creation as one of redevelopment’s main benefits.

Initiative findings

The initiative makes the following assumptions:

  • “California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and is struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
  • “High unemployment is the new blight, which quickly becomes the old blight – poverty, neighborhood deterioration and crime.
  • “High unemployment reduces tax revenue to state and local governments and negatively impacts funding for our cash-strapped schools.
  • Tax-increment financing [provided through redevelopment agencies] allows local governments to use locally generated property tax revenues to create jobs, build affordable housing and rebuild neighborhoods.
  • “Tax-increment financing originated in California more than 50 years ago, and most other states have since adopted this powerful tool for creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods.
  • “In 2012, California eliminated tax-increment financing for local housing and development projects, resulting in the considerable loss of 300,000 jobs, including 170,000 construction jobs, and more than $41 billion in economic activity.
  • “JEDI will allow cities throughout California to use locally generated property tax revenues to create jobs, building affordable housing, rebuild neighborhoods and fund public schools.
  • “JEDI will put thousands of Californians back to work and generate billions of dollars in new tax revenue for public schools without raising taxes or increasing state debt.”

Jobs claim in dispute

A study commissioned by the California Redevelopment Association concluded that redevelopment was responsible for the creation of about 304,000 jobs in 2006-07.

The LAO disputed that claim in a 2011 study titled, “Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?” (The LAO’s answer was “yes.”)

“While redevelopment leads to economic development within project areas, there is no reliable evidence that it attracts businesses to the state or increases overall regional economic development,” the study found. “[R]edevelopment may cause some geographic shifts in economic development, but does not increase the overall amount of economic activity in a region.

“The independent research we reviewed found little evidence that redevelopment increases jobs. Studies in Illinois and Texas, for example, found that their redevelopment programs did little more than displace commercial activity that would have occurred elsewhere in the region.”

The LAO said that the CRA study “vastly overstates the employment effects of redevelopment areas” due to three flaws:

  • “It assumes that redevelopment agencies participate in all project area construction – even if the redevelopment agency was not a participant. “We find implausible the report’s implicit assumption that no construction with solely private financing would have occurred within a redevelopment area in the absence of the redevelopment agency.”
  • “It assumes that private and public entities participating in redevelopment agency projects would not invest in other projects. Most redevelopment agency projects include significant financing from private investors or other public agencies. The CRA implicitly assumes that these private and public partners would not invest in other economic activities in the state.
  • “It assumes other local agencies’ use of property tax revenues would not yield economic benefits. The property tax revenues that currently support redevelopment would flow over time to schools and other local agencies in the county. The CRA implicitly assumes that these other local agencies’ use of property tax revenues would not result in any economic activity.”

Time Structures, the research firm that performed the CRA study, wrote a point-by-point rebuttal to the LAO’s contentions:

  • “The construction expenditures included in the impact analysis were limited to those that involved agency participation. The study actually includes 32 percent of the total construction activity that occurred within the project areas during the 2006-07 fiscal year. Had the LAO exercised due diligence prior to offering their conclusion on this point, they would have been obligated to take a very different position.
  • “Redevelopment projects do leverage a significant amount of private capital – in our study we found that for each public dollar invested in a project, six private dollars are invested. The LAO seems to imply that this private capital is just sitting there awaiting a project; however, construction involves a good deal of borrowed capital. Construction loans are difficult to get for what are perceived as risky projects in blighted areas.
  • “The economic benefits estimated in the study were limited to those arising from the redevelopment-assisted construction activity only. No benefits were calculated for the direct employment and income of agency employees or the multiplier effect arising from that income. We make no assumptions about any economic activity of other local agencies since we didn’t study such a transfer.”

Effect on education

There is also a debate on whether the Jobs and Education Development Initiative would help education.

The LAO analysis of the initiative states that there would be no effect on schools in the short term because the schools’ funding deficit due to shifting fund back to redevelopment would be made up from the state general fund. “Therefore, the measure likely would increase state education costs by around $1 billion per year, but would have little or no net effect on nonbasic aid districts,” according to the LAO.

Over the long term, funding for some school and community college districts “could be reduced potentially by a few hundred million dollars to a few billion dollars per year,” the LAO states.

Responded the initiative’s campaign spokesman, Stu Mollrich, “We believe that the initiative will increase funding for education by stimulating job creation, which increases revenues for the state’s general fund.”

The League of California Cities has not taken a position on the initiative, according to Executive Director Chris McKenzie. But if it passed, few organizations would be happier.

“We were big supporters of the former redevelopment program, which studies showed provided 300,000 private sector jobs and $2 billion in state and local tax revenue each year,” McKenzie said. “But it no longer exists, and most cities have had to devote countless hours and resources to the unfortunate dissolution process.”

‘Significant expansion of government power’

The Institute for Justice, a pro-property rights law firm, released an analysis that called the redevelopment initiative “one of the most significant expansions of government power in decades.”

“Redevelopment in California had nothing to do with creating jobs or improving education,” said IJ attorney Bill Maurer in a statement. “Resurrecting it would endanger private property and undermine the state’s fiscal stability. … It would divert money from schools and community colleges and give it to unelected governmental agencies and their politically connected business allies. The governor and the state legislature were right to end this system in 2011.”

State Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, agreed. “California property owners were finally able to rest easy once the governor did away with redevelopment agencies in 2011,” he said. “Reviving this system again exposes homes, small businesses and places of worship to eminent domain abuse.”

“Prior to being dissolved in 2011, redevelopment agencies turned California into one of the worst states in the nation for eminent domain abuse,” according to the IJ. “Tens of thousands of acres of property were declared blighted and subject to condemnation. Those displaced were often poor minorities and the elderly.”

The initiative needs 504,760 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Supporters have until July 21, 2014 to collect the signatures.


Write a comment
  1. Queeg
    Queeg 15 April, 2014, 19:51


    Your local globalists hard at work!

    Look for stadiums and big box complexes providing all those ball cap and apron jobs with no benefits EXCEPT those generously provided by government, for free, of course.

    This is pitifully more laughable than doomer arguments about bullet trains to nowhere….

    Reply this comment
  2. Dancquill
    Dancquill 16 April, 2014, 07:07

    I would call this corrupting crony socialist move “The Empire Strikes Back”. The FBI is investigating The SFO Board of Supervisors for their links to the Leeland Yee corruption scams, but it should be expanded State wide.

    Reply this comment
    • Dancquill
      Dancquill 16 April, 2014, 07:23

      Ooops I would ALSO call this corrupting crony socialist move “The Empire Strikes Back”. The FBI is investigating The SFO Board of Supervisors for their links to the Leeland Yee corruption scams, but it should be expanded State wide.

      Reply this comment
  3. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 April, 2014, 21:28

    The wipe-out of the Redevelopment Agencies turned municipalities and counties from solvent entities into paupers overnight–thousands of jobs were lost in all areas where there were Redevelopment Agencies. Without Redevelopment, the former Bunker Bill of downtown Los Angeles would still be a skid row, instead of the beautiful area it now is, with the Walls Fargo Center, CalPlaza Buildings, the CalPlaza Watercourt; Omni Hotel, Senior Citizen Apartments, and more. Continue to keep Redevelopment away, and watch the deterioration continue.

    Reply this comment
  4. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 April, 2014, 21:32

    My municipality was able to turn a full, blighted city block into a big box Costco. Costco pays its workers decent wages. It has been a win-win for the City and for all of the consumers who come to our city to spend money there. If you ever have a houseful of company and don’t know how to feed them, go to Costco. It can feed an army.

    Reply this comment
  5. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 16 April, 2014, 21:33

    I should add: Costco pays decent wages and benefits. It was made possible by Redevelopment.

    Reply this comment
    • Rex the Wonder Dog!
      Rex the Wonder Dog! 17 April, 2014, 20:51

      RDA’s had NOTHING to do with Costco, ZERO.

      Put your PIPE DOWN.

      RDA were a GOOD IDEA when they first started, but they morphed into GIANT scams. The City of Coronado was getting RDA money because it was “blighted”, if one of the wealthiest communities in the entire US is considered “blighted” by CA law, then the law is broken, and those scam RDA’s need to stay gone!

      Reply this comment
      • Bill Gore
        Bill Gore 18 April, 2014, 16:41

        My former community of Allied Gardens in San Diego was declared ‘blighted’ based on some graffiti on a dumpster behind an Albertsons. In the loading area. The local RDA then had a “charette” planning meeting to which they invited carefully selected ‘stakeholders’. At the charette it was decided that there was a ‘nexus’ between the blighted Allied Gardens area and the blighted downtown RDA, which was about 3 yards wide and 12 miles long, and extended the length of the San Diego Trolley, from Allied Gardens to downtown San Diego. Based on this nexus it was decided to transfer the tax increment from Allied Gardens RDA to downtown, for improvements to streets, etc. Conicidentally, some big developers were planning new mega hotels in that area. This crap with the RDA’s is just a HUGE scam and it just goes on and on.

        Reply this comment
  6. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 18 April, 2014, 00:12

    I beg your pardon! We have a Costo because of Redevelopment. Without it, we would have a city block of dilapidated, empty, strip mall stores. My city has many other improvements that were made possible due to Redevelopment. Any City, no matter how rich it is, is susceptible to blight. You don’t know what you are talking about–you can put your pipe down!

    Reply this comment
    • Rex the Wonder Dog!
      Rex the Wonder Dog! 18 April, 2014, 18:06

      You have “A” Costco, good for you. Your BS claim was that COSTCO, not your ONE Costco, was due to RDA.

      RDA’s are a scam and they are GONE. Bye Bye.

      Reply this comment
  7. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 18 April, 2014, 18:08

    Any City, no matter how rich it is, is susceptible to blight.

    There is not ONE SQUARE FOOT of Coronado that has blight. You obviously have never been there.

    I bet you claim Bel Air, Holmby Hills and San Marino have blight too.

    Reply this comment
  8. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 18 April, 2014, 21:44

    Read my post again Rex. You will see that I was extolling my Costco, which was made possible by RDA. I have been to Coronado several times. It is a navy town–nothing compared to Bel Air, Holmby Hills and San Marino. Have BA, HH, and SM been doing developments with RDA?

    I don’t even know yet, whether or not I would support this particular initiative. I would need to know all the details first.

    In the meantime, I live in an area that has been devastated by the abolishment of RDA, in that thousands of people have lost their jobs. There needs to be a solution for that.

    Reply this comment
  9. Leotis Ahmad Jones
    Leotis Ahmad Jones 22 April, 2014, 13:16

    Redevelopment big scam for the rich, loved by superdumb supporters.Redevelopment means no development without redevelopment. Ban it.

    Reply this comment
    • Dancquill
      Dancquill 22 April, 2014, 15:04

      RDA’s are an insider game that benefits the power of the city in that nothing big generally can get done with all the regulations, fees and permits necessary but the city planners and pols can go around all the crap they have laid in front of the rest of us, Not Connected, wanna be “upstart” builders. The RDA sanctifies the political bureaucrats and the insider builders corporations collusion. Our rotten economy and job environment is largely the result of pols and bureaucrats.. taxes and regs. I say, deal with THAT.

      Reply this comment
  10. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 23 April, 2014, 21:10

    City planners and inspectors have to abide by the same regulations for Redevelopment projects as for non-redevelopment projects. Nothing would have gotten done in my area without Redevelopment, because the City-Business partnership is necessary to carry everything out and provide the necessary funding. I personally don’t have a problem with people making money, wherever they work, as long as everything is legal. If they don’t bring back Redevelopment they will have to find an alternative, because without something to bring back the jobs, the cities will go bankrupt. The loss of Redevelopment was just one factor that helped push San Bernardino over the edge.

    Reply this comment
  11. Really?
    Really? 26 May, 2014, 13:13

    People, by “socialist” I hope you mean capitalist!?!? This is about opening new markets through gentrification- that is NOT a socialist agenda by “government”, it is a logical extension of plutocracy and corporate welfare. Better jobs and development initiatives are possible, and that requires real public processes and PUBLIC investment where the voice of local people is paramount. Public investment creates jobs, widens the impact of ‘development,’ and improves economic growth far greater that corporate contracts. Governments need to invest in wages, social services and give small local groups the incentives to invest in their future. The easy way out will prove the worst for our community!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Pressure grows for CA $15 minimum wage

  The California Legislature this year boosted California’s $8 per hour minimum wage to $9 in July 2014 and $10

Media: A crisis of content?

Oct. 7, 2012 Katy Grimes: A story in the Sacramento Bee Saturday reported that Israel’s liberal press is on the

Berkeley's Reactionary Recyclers

MAY 18, 2011 By K. LLOYD BILLINGSLEY When cities outsource services to save money, they often take heat from workers.