State Controller Betty T. Yee announced earlier this month an expansion of the eClaim feature for the state’s unclaimed property program. Property owners will now be eligible to submit their claims for property valued up to $5,000 using the controller’s streamlined paperless electronic claim process.

“The eClaim process is simple, efficient, and can be completed in a couple of minutes,” Yee said in a press release. “An increased threshold of $5,000 will allow many more Californians to claim lost or forgotten property online and quickly receive a check in the mail.”

Unclaimed Property: Your Money Held by the State

Under state law, when there’s been no activity on an account for three years, financial institutions are obliged to report this unclaimed property to the California Controller’s Office. In turn, the controller holds the funds until it is claimed by the owner. The most common types of unclaimed properties are bank accounts, stocks, bonds, uncashed checks, wages, life insurance benefits and safe deposit box contents.

Among the biggest problems facing the state’s unclaimed property program: a lack of public awareness about where people can find their old property. Most people don’t realize they’re owed money from a forgotten insurance settlement or an abandoned stock dividend.

However, for those owners aware of the program, obtaining the necessary paperwork to prove ownership can be costly and time-consuming. Many find the hassle of paperwork not worth a small dollar amount.

Unclaimed Property: eClaim created by Chiang

To address the paperwork hassle problem, in January 2014, then-Controller John Chiang created the eClaim feature to expedite the return process for properties valued at less than $500. Later that year, Chaing increased the value to $1,000. In total, more than 315,000 properties have been returned through the Controller’s eClaim feature.

The state currently holds more than $8 billion in unclaimed property that rightfully belongs to more than 32 million people and businesses. More than three-quarters of unclaimed properties are estimated to be eligible for the new expanded eClaim feature. Yee says that by increasing the threshold to $5,000, she’ll be able to return another $9.4 million per year.

Among those who could benefit from the eClaim feature is billionaire hedge fund manager turned environmental activist Tom Steyer. The former hedge fund manager has three unclaimed properties, each valued at less than $50, dating back to his time as founder of the San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management.

LAO Report: State Can Do More

For decades, the state has made it difficult for owners to obtain their property. From 1990-2007, state law prohibited the Controller’s office from contacting approximately 80 percent of owners.

Earlier this year, the state Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report critical of the state’s unclaimed property system. The state could do a better job of finding owners, the report concluded, instead of passively waiting for the cash to be claimed.

It also argued that the state has a conflict of interest in managing the program.

“In particular, because property not reunited with owners becomes state General Fund revenue, the unclaimed property law creates an incentive for the state to reunite less property with owners,” the report found. “Now generating over $400 million in annual revenue, unclaimed property is the state General Fund’s fifth-largest revenue source. This has created tension between two opposing program identities — unclaimed property as a consumer protection program and as a source of General Fund revenue.”

Unclaimed Property: How to Search for Unclaimed Property

To find out if you have unclaimed property held by the state, go to www.claimit.ca.gov.

How much? More than the Gross Domestic Product of 100 countries, according to new data published by the State Controller’s office. In 2014, more than 650,000 state employees earned a total of $32 billion in wages and benefits.

As part of her ongoing effort to open up state government’s books, State Controller Betty Yee released the payroll figures in her latest update to the “Government Compensation in California” website. The open government portal provides self-reported payroll data for 240,736 positions in 150 state departments, 275,257 positions in 10 University of California institutions and the UC president’s office; 113,857 positions in 23 California State University institutions and the CSU chancellor’s office; and 20,316 positions in 58 Superior Courts.

The staggering amount of payroll data is matched by generous salaries and benefits provided to the top echelon of employees. Nine hundred sixty-nine state employees earned more than the President of the United States – with thousands more earning more than a quarter million dollars per year.

Highest Average Salaries: Institute for Regenerative Medicine, legislative staff

Topping the list of state agencies with the highest average salary is California’s stem cell agency. The average salary for employees of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is $117,627 per year. That’s 21 percent more than the salaries of state lawmakers, who earn $97,197 per year.

Despite having the highest average salary for any state agency, the stem cell agency boasts that it is “a good steward of the people’s money.”

“CIRM is a good steward of the people’s money – independent reviewers agree that we are lean, well-managed and effective,” the agency claims on its website. “We are delivering economic results for Californians – both at the state level, and in dozens of communities in every part of the state.”

After the state’s stem cell agency, the only other state agencies with average salaries in six-figures are employees of the State Supreme Court, Sierra County Superior Court and California Court of Appeals, according to the State Controller’s database.

Lowest paid employees: Conservation agency, commissions on disability and women

Progressive Democrats have near universal control over state government, but you wouldn’t know it from the average pay of some state agencies.

The lowest paid average workers represented agencies focused on the environment, women and people with disabilities. According to the state’s 2014 payroll data, the average salary for the 11 state employees at the California Commission on Disability Access was just $15,213 per year, slightly more than the $14,494 average salary paid to the four employees at the Commission on the Status of Women.

The small number of employees arguably skews the data. However, that’s not a factor for the 3,500 employees of the California Conservation Corps, who earned an average wage of just $12,973 per year. Easily one of the most efficient state agencies, the department responsible for “protecting and restoring California’s environment and responding to disasters” paid out less than $2,000 per year in average retirement and health care costs per employee.

UC, CalPERS top list of highest paid employees

In contrast to workers at the California Conservation Corps, coaches at state universities earned big bucks. Last year, the Top 10 state employees all earned more than $1.6 million each. This millionaires club was dominated by coaches at the UC campuses.

As the Los Angeles Times noted last month, “UCLA head football coach Jim Mora earned $3.5 million in 2014, followed by basketball head coach Steve Alford at $2.7 million. Khalil Tabsh, an obstetrician at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, earned $2.3 million and Ronald Busuttil, a transplant surgeon at the Westwood campus, earned $2.2 million.” In all, 28 UC employees earned more than $1 million in total compensation.

Excluding employees of the UC system, the highest salaries were paid out to investment officers with the state’s retirement systems. CalPERS’ chief investment officer took home nearly $740,000 in 2015 — 40 times more than an employee earning the state’s $9 per hour minimum wage. To put the compensation for CalPERS’ highest-paid employee into perspective, it would take just 10 days to match the annual salary for the state’s in-home support service workers, who provide care and support for the elderly and people with disabilities.

The Top 10 highest-paid state employees, excluding the University of California system, are:

1. Chief Investment Officer of California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $739,594
2. Senior Investment Officer, California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $651,444
3. Senior Investment Officer, California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $650,694
4. Dentist, Department of Developmental Services: $628,218
5. Chief Physician and Surgeon, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation: $563,572
6. Chief Investment Officer, California State Teachers’ Retirement System: $562,528
7. Physician and Surgeon, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation: $559,297
8. President and CEO, State Compensation Insurance Fund: $549,254
9. Chief Executive Officer, State Teachers’ Retirement System: $534,613
10. Senior Investment Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System: $522,556

California’s state payroll data has been viewed more than 8 million times since disclosure began in 2010. The controller’s office will provide more updates later this year, which will include more state and local agencies.

Late last month, Chiang launched a new pilot program to aid victims of wage theft in California. The new program will use the state’s Unclaimed Property Law to recover wages wrongly withheld by employers. That’s yet another new program launched in the final months of Chiang’s eight-year term as the state’s chief financial officer.

“Since becoming controller in 2007, I have used old laws in new ways to protect working families,” Chiang said. “We’re using a 55-year-old statute to compel immediate payment from unscrupulous businesses that have fleeced their employees of earned wages for years.”

Unclaimed Property Law: Applying old law in new way

Chiang’s program applies the state’s unclaimed property laws to cases in which employers wrongly withheld money owed to their employees. Under California’s Unclaimed Property Law, the state controller is responsible for collecting property that has failed to reach its rightful owner. That usually means lost or forgotten property — such as savings accounts, security deposits, uncashed checks and safe-deposit box contents.

Under the new program, a targeted group of companies will be asked to transfer any unpaid wages more than a year old to the state treasury. The state controller’s office then will return those funds to the employees. A study by the UCLA Labor Center estimates that, between 2008 and 2011, as much as $390 million has been taken by employers.

“These exploited workers often face retaliation from their employers when attempting recovery of wages and, too often, still wind up with nothing after a difficult and lengthy legal process to prove their claim,” Chiang explained. “By adding my office’s resources to the fight, I hope to boost the efforts of those seeking the pay and the justice that they are owed.”

For the pilot program, California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su, a partner in the wage-theft pilot program, identified six companies that owe wages that have been unpaid for longer than one year:

• All American Pet Company Inc., owing $15,600 in unpaid wages.
• Fresno Protein Processors Inc. / Apple Valley Farms Inc. / Valley Protein Inc., owing $247, 594.
• Far East Café LLC /Chop Suey Café, owing $41,114.
• Elk Grove Ford, owing $72,141.
• Gary Mario Bertolatti / Irish O’Sullivans, owing $48,042.
• Stoneridge Motor Inc. / Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge, owing $54,309.

Essentially, the state controller’s office has interceded on behalf of the employees and demanded the businesses pay up or face hefty interest payments and fines for “willful refusal” to hand over property under the Unclaimed Property Law.

“We were very intrigued when the controller first approached us about using the Unclaimed Property Law to help victims of wage theft and have been impressed by the creativity and commitment that we witnessed while working with his staff,” said Matthew Sirolly, directing attorney at the Wage Justice Center. “It is heartening to have the controller join us in the fight to ensure that California’s wage protections have real teeth.”

Another hit to the state’s businesses

Not everyone is embracing Chiang’s tough approach to employers that steal from their employees.

“As if California employers were not already besieged with wage-hour class actions and agency complaints, the state’s controller has now decided to get in on the action,” lamented Michael Kun, a lawyer at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. and co-editor of the Wage & Hour Defense Blog. “But, at the very least, it is yet another reminder to employers doing business in California that they need to get up to speed on the state’s intricate wage-hour laws and take steps to ensure compliance.”

Labor leaders sided with Chiang. “Wage theft hurts not just workers, but responsible businesses that are playing by the rules,” said California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski. “It hurts our middle class. It’s an affront to justice. We’re very fortunate to have strong, creative leaders like Controller Chiang who are willing to go the extra mile to help workers in need and hold unscrupulous companies to account.”

This isn’t the first time Chiang has used the state’s Unclaimed Property Law to take on businesses behaving badly. In 2008, Chiang launched audits of national insurance company practices. That investigation led to an agreement by 19 life insurance companies to restore an estimated $266.7 million in unpaid benefits to Californians, and an estimated $2.4 billion nationally.

Chaing withheld pay from budget-challenged state lawmakers

There’s an irony to Chiang’s novel wage-theft program. He withheld wages owed to state lawmakers after they failed to pass an on-time, balanced budget.

In 2010, voters passed Proposition 25, which reduced from two-thirds to a majority the number of legislators in each chamber of the California Legislature needed to pass a budget. But it also adopted a new rule that state lawmakers forfeit their pay if a balanced budget isn’t passed on time.

When state lawmakers failed to pass a balanced budget on time in 2011, Chiang withheld their paychecks. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association backed Chiang’s decision.

Democratic lawmakers sued, and in 2014 an appeals court ruled that Chiang overstepped his constitutional powers when he withheld their pay for 12 days.

The state’s chief financial officer announced Monday a new open-data website that provides Californians with more than a decade’s worth of financial data for local governments.

The site, ByTheNumbers.sco.ca.gov, includes more than 13 million fields of financial data for 450 incorporated cities and 58 counties.

For example, click on: the 2013 City Revenues.

“We’re moving government accountability and transparency out of the analog dark ages into the digital era where information about how much your city or county is spending and borrowing is available with a keystroke,” Chiang said in a press release announcing the website’s launch. “By providing balance sheet details for every California municipality on one website and allowing users to slice and dice the information to spot trends and analyze spending, I hope to empower communities to become more involved in civic decision-making.”

Tool for citizen activists, government watchdogs

Since 1911, the Controller’s Office has been required by state law to track financial data and budget allocations for local government bodies. However, that important data largely has been kept away from meaningful public access — left in nearly unusuable paper documents.

The controller believes the new website will make it easier for citizens to look up data, download raw numbers, create charts and search for other financial data. Among the data at citizens’ fingertips: local government revenues, expenditures, liabilities, assets and even fund balances.

The immense amount of data will allow citizen activists and government watchdogs to peruse data for their hometown and, in turn, question how their government officials are spending public funds.

Praise from local governments

Even local government leaders, who will face increased scrutiny about their finances with the website’s creation, have praised the open-data effort.

“The State Controller’s new open-data website is a significant step in enhancing transparency in government at all levels,” said Matt Cate, executive director of the California State Association of Counties. “It provides the public with the tools to better understand and engage in our government process. We applaud the Controller for utilizing state-of-the-art technology to develop a tool that puts valuable public information right at the fingertips of our residents.”

That sentiment was echoed by his counterpart at the League of California Cities. “We commend the Controller for finding an effective way to make key city financial data much more accessible and useful to taxpayers and local agencies alike,” said Chris McKenzie, the LCC’s executive director.

Chiang’s open government track record

This isn’t the only open-data website published by the state controller.

Last December, CalWatchdog.com reported on the success of publicpay.ca.gov, which tracks public employee payroll data for hundreds of thousands of public employees in California. Chiang built that website with no additional state budget funds or expanded statutory authority. By comparison, it took 55 government contractors and $394 million in taxpayer funds to build President Obama’s online health-insurance marketplace.

In 2010, following the high-profile corruption case at the City of Bell, Chiang didn’t wait around for local governments to clean up their acts. He ordered cities, counties and special districts, under Government Code sections 12463 and 53892, to share salary and other wage information with his office. Initially, some local governments balked, then dragged their feet in disclosing the payroll data. In the years since, the State Controller’s office has boosted the compliance rate to 99 percent.

Taxpayers can expect more transparency. Later this fall, Chiang’s office plans to introduce further upgrades to the website that will provide data for each of California’s approximately 130 pension systems.

That pension data can’t come soon enough. This week, an audit by Chiang of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System found that taxpayers are responsible for nearly $800 million in obligations from “legal” pension spiking.

With more citizen watchdogs analyzing data provided by the controller’s office, taxpayers will be better positioned to combat pension abuses.

Treasurer’s race

Chiang, a Democrat, is term-limited out of the controller’s office and is running for state treasurer. His Republican opponent in November is Greg Conlon, an accountant and former president of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Conlon is campaigning to advance pro-growth tax strategies, reduce the state’s pension-fund debt and improve the state’s bond ratings.

The campaign to replace Chiang as controller pits Democrat Betty Yee, a member of the Board of Equalization, against Republican Ashley Swearengin, the mayor of Fresno.

Board of Equalization member Betty Yee holds an 861-vote lead over Assemblyman John A. Perez, D-Los Angeles, for the final spot in the November run-off against Republican Ashley Swearengin.

What’s taking Lake County so long? According to Jim Miller of the Sacramento Bee, Diane Fridley, the Lake County registrar, “is on light duty following surgery and has only a skeleton staff to help with the ballot work.”

Average error rate: 1 in 6,400 votes

There’s been some speculation that the magic number is 645 votes. Recounts are rare, but the best available information comes from a study by The Center for Voting and Democracy, which analyzed statewide recounts from 2000-2009. According to the study, “In the five cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote (fewer than one for every 6,400 votes cast).” Applying that rate to the current state controller’s race yields a potential 645 vote change.

But, there’s another piece of new data for political analysts to chew on: the recount in the 31st Congressional District.

San Bernardino County Error Rate: 1 of 1,278 votes

Third place Republican congressional candidate Lesli Gooch, who was just 209 votes behind Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, requested a recount in her Inland Empire-based race. Gooch was hoping to set up an all-Republican general election against first place finisher, Paul Chabot.

Gooch already has abandoned the recount in San Bernardino County. “Day one of the recount, which cost the Gooch campaign $6,330, tallied 1,278 votes and saw Gooch gain one vote on Aguilar,” writes Nikie Johnson of the Press Enterprise.

CD 31 applied to state controller’s race

That’s an error rate of 0.0782 percent (1 out of 1,278 votes), and if applied to the state controller’s race, would produce a statewide change of 3,156 votes. More than enough for Perez to make up ground on Yee. But, there’s no way to guarantee that the errors are in Perez’s favor. Yee is just as likely to see a recount add to her vote total.

To be clear, the sample size of CD 31 is incredibly small — too small to confidently project the error rate statewide. Again, the average margin shift from the study by the Center for Voting and Democracy, which analyzed more data, showed a change in 1 out of 6,400 votes cast.

Perhaps the more important number from the 31st Congressional District recount, which properly scales to the state controller’s race, is the cost of a recount. Gooch spent $6,330 to pick up one vote. If you apply that rate statewide, it would cost Perez $5.4 million to gain the 861 votes that he is currently down (861 votes x $6,330 = the cost to gain one vote).

Projection: Perez down as many as 434 votes

The latest projection published in Scott Lay’s The Nooner shows Perez down as many as 434 votes and up as many as 43 votes, once Lake County finishes counting. That would mean a recount cost of $2.74 million for Perez and $272,190 for Yee. As of the last campaign finance report, Perez had $1.8 million in cash on hand.

If our math’s right, that’s a very big number. California Democratic Party coffers are full, but that’s still money that could be used to pick up legislative seats in November. Even an outside benefactor, who could independently pay for a recount, would face criticism for spending heavily on the endeavor.

California State Controller Results, as of Friday June 27

While the rest of us nurse our election night hangovers, the partner with GoCo Consulting is usually on his way to a registrar of voters office to monitor ballot counting for a race that remains undecided. In 2007, Camp oversaw the recount in which Janet Nguyen flipped the results to become Orange County’s youngest county supervisor. As rare as recounts are, that alone makes him an expert witness.

Here at CalWatchdog.com, we’re closely monitoring the too close to call race for state controller. We were the first to predict that the race was likely headed for a recount. As of Wednesday, June 25 at 4:00 a.m., Board of Equalization member Betty Yee holds an 865-vote lead over Asm. John A. Perez, with just three counties and a grand total of 6,167 ballots left to count in the state. Lake County, which holds 98 percent of the remaining ballots, will decide which Democrat claims the final spot in the November run-off against Republican Ashley Swearengin, who finished first and already is guaranteed one of the two slots on the ballot.

But before that happens, a recount is all but certain. To help explain the ins and outs of a recount, Camp shares his five observations on recounts. 

1. There’s no rhyme or reason to it.

If someone says they have a strategy for winning a recount, Camp says they’re lying to you.  “There’s no rhyme or reason to it,” he says. “Recounts are a crap shoot no matter what.” That’s especially true at a statewide level, where you can pick and choose which counties to recount. “What do you do?” In the controller’s race, Camp says Perez might theoretically start recounting in Los Angeles where he did the strongest. Then again, Camp could easily make the argument for the opposite strategy. That’s because…

2. Human error is the biggest factor.

Human error is the single biggest factor in a recount, according to Camp. “There’s no bias, it’s usually just incompetence,” he says. Statistically speaking, mistakes are inevitable. And changes aren’t due to malicious acts by registrars of voters. With 4 million votes, a few hundred tabulated ballots is well within the realm of statistical possibilities. How do you know which registrar of voters — which county– is more likely to have experienced errors, and more importantly, which candidate benefited from those errors? Camps says you don’t.

Recounts are rare, but the best information we have comes from a study by the Center for Voting and Democracy, which analyzed statewide recounts from 2000-2009. According to the study, “In the five cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote (fewer than one for every 6,400 votes cast).”

3. Start: We’re down. Stop: We’re ahead.

At a statewide level, California’s recount procedures allow candidates to pick and choose where and when the recount happens. “You can start in a certain county, and then stop,” Camp says. That means candidates could go into a county, start counting, hope the results flip, and then stop their recount. Of course, then the previous winner could restart their own recount in another county and hope the results once again flip back.

4. Recounts are completely unfair.

All of this picking and choosing makes recounts in California unfair. “It’s completely unfair unless they do a re-canvass of the whole state,” Camp says. That would be expensive, and under state law, it’s the requester who must pay. Perez raised more money for his controller campaign, but Yee is an important voice for the state’s Asian American community, which could raise the necessary funds to keep her competitive with Perez.

5. Practice the phrase, ‘Your honor’

Because recounts are “completely unfair,” Camps concludes, “It all gets challenged in court.” That means this race ain’t over even after it’s over and recounted. And that could be very bad for Democrats. An extended recount and ensuing court battle will only exacerbate the divide between Perez and Yee supporters.

Whichever Democrat wins will be deemed illegitimate by the losing side. Asian Americans, who see their influence waning, will be especially jaded if they believe Perez stole it in a recount.

That’s because, under state law, ballots must be received by the local registrar of voters by Election Day, not postmarked that day or en route to an elections office.

“California doesn’t have the infamous hanging-chad or butterfly ballot,” Paul Mitchell, vice-president of Political Data Inc., wrote in a recent op-ed piece in the Sacramento Bee. “Piles of ballots are marked ‘too late’ because the mail arrived after Election Day.”

Sacramento County Registrar of Voters Jill Levine, who has been tracking the number of “too late to count ballots” statewide, estimates that as many as 20,000 otherwise valid ballots in the June 3 primary were received too late. With more than 4 million ballots counted so far, these “too late to count” ballots make up less than half a percent of total votes cast statewide.

“The only thing worse than not voting is people trying to vote and having their ballots go uncounted,” Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, told the Associated Press.

Controller’s race could be decided by few hundred votes

Most races, especially at the statewide level, are decided by a margin of hundreds of thousands of ballots. But this year’s “too close to call” race for state controller could come down to just a few thousand, maybe even a few hundred, votes statewide.

“In some cases we are seeing one to one-and-a-half percent of the ballots being late,” Mitchell told KPCC. “And we’re looking at a controller’s race that right now is separated by eight-one-thousandth of a percent.”

As of Monday, June 23, Republican Ashley Swearengin has secured the top spot in the November run-off, in which only two candidates will be on the ballot. So that spot is not at issue.

For the second spot on the ballot, Board of Equalization member Betty Yee leads Assemblyman John A. Perez by 843 votes, a margin of two hundredths of one percent (0.02 percent). Both are Democrats.

The outcome is likely to decided by Lake County, which holds 83 percent of the state’s unprocessed ballots from the June 3 primary.

But does it matter?

But for all the legitimate concerns about the principle of any valid votes being discounted, could the “too late to count” ballots decide the outcome of an election? The current race for state controller, which is projected to be the second closest race in California history, is the perfect test case.

KPCC assembled a list of the ten counties with the most “too late to count” ballots. These counties account for roughly three-quarters of all late ballots in the state, according to the preliminary figures. With the overall election results for each county, CalWatchdog.com can project how those votes would have gone. To be sure, this is an imperfect projection.

The Top 10 counties are split right down the middle — Perez beat Yee in five, Yee beat Perez in five. The chart below shows how many votes Perez or Yee would have gained over their opponent in each county.

The overall projected vote difference: Perez would have gained another 76 votes, if those late ballots were counted. But as of the current statewide count, that still would not be enough to overcome Yee’s current 843-vote margin.

Again, that’s an inexact estimation based solely on geography. There are other factors to consider, such as race, age and political party, all of which could produce a more accurate projection and show that the late ballots disproportionately affected one of the state controller candidates more than the others.

Postal system

Mitchell’s firm, which conducted an analysis of the “too late to count” ballots from the 2013 Los Angeles city election, found late votes were tied to the postal routing system. San Fernando Valley voters, whose mail is processed in Santa Clarita, had a greater chance of seeing their vote arrive later than those in downtown.

In its analysis of the 2012 election, the state’s leading election data firm found that more than 30,000 voters statewide had their ballots invalidated because they were too late to count. Half of these voters were under the age of 30, according to Political Data Inc.

You can expect another analysis of this election’s late ballots, which could shed some light on whether John Perez or Betty Yee would have been helped by those ballots. That’s after Lake County finishes its count, Secretary of State Debra Bowen certifies the final election tally, and we go through a grueling recount.

Until then, just like the results itself, it’s just too soon to know whether those projected extra 76 votes would have made the difference.

State Controller John Chiang Monday entered the fray over redevelopment agencies with a new report labeling them not accountable. It looked at only 18 agencies, but their experience is typical of that of agencies across the state.

The report comes as Gov. Jerry Brown has called for the agencies’ elimination, which would save $1.7 billion of a $25 billion budget deficit. But the period examined actually was a previous fiscal year, July 2009 to June 2010.

The report begins with a useful history of redevelopment agencies that will come in handy as the debate unfolds. Redevelopment first was authorized by state law in 1945 with the California Community Redevelopment Act.

Historically, that coincides with the rise “urban renewal” schemes across America. Instead of improving cities, these commonly turned perfectly livable but run-down areas into abstract schemes imposed by government to help private interests, such as developers. The worst example is Detroit, where “urban renewal,” including vast clearances of slums and the construction of expressways that divided and destroyed once-vibrant communities, has combined with other maladies to effectively destroy the city.

Some findings from Chiang’s report:

* All of the 18 redevelopment agencies reviewed had reporting deficiencies.

* All of the 18 redevelopment agencies’ independent auditors failed to identify major audit violations and did not include all required information in the audit reports.

* Under current legal standards, virtually any condition could be construed to be blight.

That means they can condemn your home, your business, your neighborhood, even your whole city as “blight” — seize it using eminent domain — for any reason or no reason.

That means anything they say about how great a redevelopment project supposedly will be never can be verified.

* Significant differences exist among redevelopment agencies for accounting for planning and general administrative costs.

Why isn’t it standardized?

All these reasons show why redevelopment in California should be ended. Zero it out of the state budget. The real blight isn’t “slums” that serve people’s needs, but redevelopment itself. It’s an assault on property rights, a destroyer of communities and an attack on the American way of life.

March 8, 2011