Comments on: Gov. Brown rebuilds redevelopment

By: Karen Renfro

Karen Renfro — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:03:01 +0000

Bad news, yes. But no surprise. This didn’t need to happen, but it did because most people who cheered when Gov. Brown and the Democrats in the State Legislature were successful in shutting down California’s 400-odd local redevelopment agencies believed Redevelopment had been abolished. Not so. The mighty body of federal, state and local law that made corporate welfare and eminent domain abuse possible in the Land of Liberty was still on the books. And, still is. Redevelopment as we know it today began with the Housing Act of 1949–a compromise between Democrats, who loved its original incarnation as a big federal program administered from Washington, D.C., and Republicans, who hated it but were willing to hand it over to the states so it could be administered locally by locally-appointed local officials. Our state legislators lost no time and in 1951 passed the California Community Redevelopment Act (Health & Safety Code Sec. 33000, et seq). Then, in 1952, California voters were hoodwinked into approving an amendment to the State Constitution called “Taxation of Redevelopment Projects” (Article XVI, Sec. 16). Remember Prop. 22? That gave California’s CRA’s more money and power. Since then, the League of Cities, California Redevelopment Association, the Association of Mayors (or whatever they call themselves), Congress, state legislatures, and the courts have been working diligently to expand its powers. The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London revolved around points of Connecticut’s unusual form of redevelopment law. We can get rid of redevelopment if we stop thinking that there is nothing we can do to abolish it. Yes, there is. We have to take the fight to a higher level. If we understand the truth about this most ignorant and stupid form of government power, that it is not wrong because it doesn’t work, but it doesn’t work because it is morally and constitutionally wrong. In this it resembles slavery and our cause is much like the 19th-century abolitionists. If you know your history you know that movement had its origins in the 18th Century and it took the abolitionists 100 years to build up their power-base. But, after the Dred Scott Decision in the 1850’s, it only took ten years before the people of the United States ratified the Constitutional amendment that abolished slavery in America forever. The pro-redevelopment lobby has never been able to win any argument where the moral and constitutional issues are raised. Redevelopment is immoral because it violates the Ten Commandments (theft, false witness, coveting, and the coveting of private property–including other people’s land) and the because it violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. We could do an end run around the entire kit and kaboodle if we mounted a nationwide campaign to adopt a properly-worded amendment that would abolish redevelopment in all its egregious forms and prevent it from coming back in any form everywhere in the country. The first thing to do is to stop saying it can’t be done. People with big causes do it all the time. Why not us?

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 02:49:09 +0000

In reply to dork. Politicians that take bribes go to jail. Why don't you grow up! And, if you don't want to be considered a facist, stop signing off as one.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 02:41:16 +0000

In reply to dork. How on earth can you consider roads, water mains, bridges, etc. expenses only and of no benefit to you! Disgusting!

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 02:38:58 +0000

In reply to dork. Of course it can. Every dollar a spender puts into the economy multiplies into more spending up the line. If you have a product or services to sell you certainly want consumers who have the money to buy them. That's how the economy works, and public-sector workers make up a large segment of the middle class, and those people have money to spend. Don't you dare consider public-sector workers irrelevant!

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:04:25 +0000

Most of the Redevelopment projects were private-sector, in partnership with the local governments. Would you rather see the skid rows and century-old, rundown houses on top of Bunker Hill now, instead of the booming business, entertainment, areas that have replaced the blight? Take a trip through CA sometime and see if you can spot areas that had used Redevelopment, vs those that didn’t.

By: Queeg

Queeg — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:55:38 +0000

Believe….a property owner hears the word “redevelopment” he flinches in abject terror

In many cases, there will never be money available to complete redevelopment projects…….so why do it? Simple……freezing property values hurts the refinance market affording owners with fix up funds…..properties slowly tail spin….some owners die or give up……..cheap sales.. …..magically there are redevelopment funds…..ain’t California dynamic…..

Hail……. El Duce,The Moose!

By: dork

dork — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:54:51 +0000

I might add that in no way can a PUBLIC SECTOR JOB EVER be an economic gain, for it is an EXPENSE to the TAXPAYERS.

By: dork

dork — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:52:56 +0000

It was a job-creator, and many broken-down neighborhoods and residential neighborhoods were rejuvenated

So if the Government STEALS my Money and then STEALS property from other citizens and gives it all to their Developer Friends to “rejuvenate” blighted neighborhoods, whereby the DEVELOPERS reap huge profits,and the Politicians receive huge Bribes, How does that help TAXPAYERS that were FORCED to foot the BILL either monetarily or through Confiscation of Property, while receiving NO BENEFIT??

We called this Fascism when I was a kid

Sig Heil

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 23:51:30 +0000

The Cities were made instant paupers with the abolishment of Redevelopment. It was never necessary, in the first place, to abolish it. It was a job-creator, and many broken-down neighborhoods and residential neighborhoods were rejuvenated with the use of Redevelopment–many of my public-sector friends lost their jobs over that action.

Brown’s dog, a big black Lab named Dharma, died. He became the caretaker of Sutter to help his sister who had to find a home for him. You are right about one thing–Sutter is cute! Old people love the same things everyone else loves–they just can’t do certain things as good any more.

By: Queeg

Queeg — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:14:45 +0000

Brown is an older gentleman with a cute doggie……older people love gummy bears and the good old days…nostalgia…..it will be amusing to see Santa Ana roll out their former grandiose redevelopment nonsense, freeze property values and increase exponetially blight in old neighborhoods!

Why again-