Five years ago, when state courts

But Brown never really made clear if he shared this critique — or if he just thought that during a budget crisis, the $1.7 billion he could take could be put to better use. He had used redevelopment while mayor of Oakland, but he also had to be aware of redevelopment abuses involving dubious blight declarations and the diversion of 12 percent of all state property taxes to various redevelopment projects. 

Now it is clear that Brown was driven by fiscal pressures. Last year, he signed Assembly Bill 2, which allows local governments to expand and better fund entities called a “Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities.” Last week, he signed AB2492, a companion bill that defines circumstances in which local taxes can be diverted for which projects — and it appears to encourage the same sort of mischievous declarations of blight that drove critics mad in redevelopment’s previous California incarnation. Both were authored by Assemblyman Luis A. Alejo, D-Salinas.

Successful businesses could be declared blighted

Under the latter measure, blight can be declared — and land seized for economic development purposes — if median income in a defined area is lower than 80 percent of the median income either “statewide, countywide or citywide.” Critics such as Marko Mlikotin of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights say this would give developers and their political allies a tool to declare many thriving businesses, churches or public offices as blighted so their land could be conveyed to the developers for projects that are pitched as helping the local economy. Such diversions were allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 on a 5-4 vote in the Kelo v. New London case.

Chris Norby, a former state assemblyman, Orange County supervisor and Fullerton mayor, chronicled the misuses of redevelopment in California in his 44-page 2007 analysis, “Redevelopment: The Unknown Government.” Here’s a short excerpt:

Redevelopment subsidies are not distributed evenly. Major developers, NFL team owners, giant discount stores, hotels and auto dealers receive most of the money. Small business owners now must face giant new competitors funded by their own taxes. …

Costco [received] over $30 million in subsidies in Orange County alone, extrapolated to $300 million statewide. Wal-Mart has gotten over $1 billion in public handout nationwide, with an estimated $100 million in California. Pro sports also profit from lavish subsidies. The Raiders got $7 million from Irwindale just for opening negotiations on a new stadium site (never built). In 1995, the Raiders returned to Oakland, lured by $94 million in public subsidies. The Chargers have gotten $134 million in seat guarantee pay offs courtesy of San Diego taxpayers.

While redevelopment apologists claim to be “rebuilding” our cities, barely 19 percent went for actual real estate development, and another 5 percent for land acquisition, much of it still vacant.

Significantly, $580 million — 11 percent — was spent on administration, most of it for redevelopment staff salaries. This provides a lucrative bureaucratic base that redevelopment staffers seek to preserve and expand.

Poor families evicted at developers’ behest

Norby’s research showed that many cities targeted areas with inexpensive housing for redevelopment, forcing evictions and reducing housing stock.

When Anaheim “improved” its working class Jeffrey-Lynne neighborhood, it forced existing apartment owners to sell to Southern California Housing Corp. Half of the units were demolished, over 400 tenants evicted and those that remained saw their rents doubled. Public subsidy: $54 million.

The Brea Redevelopment Agency demolished its entire downtown residential area, using eminent domain to force out hundreds of lower-income residents. Much of its housing money has since been spent on mixed-use projects that are really more commercial than residential. The agency gave $649,000 in housing funds to a largely retail development that will include only eight loft apartments.

Some of Norby’s criticisms were confirmed by a 2011 Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

Defenders of redevelopment counter that bad projects shouldn’t be held against good projects.

The redevelopment of San Diego’s Gaslamp area downtown is often held up as the crown jewel of California redevelopment. In the 1970s, the area was crime-ridden and seedy. Now it is a haven for towering hotels, trendy restaurants and bars, and the Petco Park baseball stadium.

Many cities which rely heavily on sales taxes for revenues also tout their use of redevelopment to open up “Mile of Cars”-style areas full of lucrative vehicle dealerships.

Redevelopment is back in California.

Four years after Governor Jerry Brown led the effort to eliminate redevelopment agencies, the governor has changed his mind, signing legislation to restore the controversial institutions and their power to use eminent domain.

Earlier this month, Gov. Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 2, which grants local governments the power to create new entities to stimulate economically-depressed and crime-ridden areas. Beginning January 1, community revitalization authorities will have broad powers to issue bonds for the purpose of investing tax funds in infrastructure, affordable housing and economic revitalization projects. These new government entities formed by cities, counties and special districts will also have the power to use eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

In addition to reviving redevelopment agencies, Brown signed into law Senate Bill 107, which amends the dissolution process for the old redevelopment entities.

“These important new measures enacted today will help boost economic development in some of our most disadvantaged and deserving communities,” Governor Brown said in a press release. “California owes a debt of gratitude to Speaker Toni Atkins for her leadership on these issues over the years. Without her tireless efforts, these bills would never have passed.”

Property rights advocates disappointed with Brown’s decision

Property rights advocates, who had hoped for a veto, expressed their disappointment with Brown’s decision.

“Unfortunately, the powerful have prevailed over the vulnerable,” the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights posted on its Facebook page. “As in the past, the combination of eminent domain and the potential for profit will only lead to abuse, wasteful spending and public corruption.”

Under the new law, local governments can create community revitalization investment authorities in areas where the annual median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percent higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights warns that this criteria is ripe for abuse by big developers.

“Community Revitalization Investment Authorities introduce the worst form of corporate welfare,” the group said. “They allow taxpayer dollars to be used to forcibly seize private property from unwilling sellers to make way for private development. Today was a major setback for private property rights in California.”

Bipartisan support for Redevelopment 2.0

The measure to revive redevelopment agencies received bipartisan support in both houses of the state Legislature. AB2 passed the State Assembly on a 58-15 vote with the support of a half-dozen Republicans, including outgoing Asssembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen.

“Today, we celebrate a major victory for our state’s most disadvantaged communities with the governor’s signature of Assembly Bill 2,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, the bill’s author. “For three years I have worked diligently with the governor’s office and Assembly leadership to create policy that will serve as a new effective tool to help and uplift disadvantaged communities throughout the state. I want to thank the governor for his leadership and thoughtful consideration on redevelopment. This is the right thing for jobs, economic development and affordable housing in California.”

The bill passed the state Senate on a 29-10 vote — with the support of four Republican Senators: Tom Berryhill of Twain Harte, Bob Huff of Diamond Bar, Sharon Runner of Antelope Valley, and Anthony Cannella of Ceres.

Only one senator, Republican Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, spoke in opposition to the bill.

“This is the resurrection of the redevelopment agencies – the failed redevelopment agencies,” he said. “They absolutely exploited and will continue to exploit – under the provisions of this bill – the seizure of private property under eminent domain.”

Eminent domain mentioned 21 times

Eminent domain is mentioned in the bill 21 times. The Legislative Counsel’s bill digest explicitly states, “The bill would authorize an authority to acquire interests in real property and exercise the power of eminent domain.”

Although the bill subjects private property to eminent domain, government agencies will receive a special carve-out from the practice.

“Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be acquired without its consent,” the bill states.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

California has moved one step closer to the return of redevelopment and the controversial power to seize private property through eminent domain.

The state Senate approved legislation Wednesday that would give local governments the power to create new entities, known as community revitalization authorities, to stimulate economically-depressed or crime-ridden areas. Assembly Bill 2 would grant these new government agencies broad powers to issue bonds for the purpose of investing tax funds in infrastructure, affordable housing and economic revitalization projects.

“Redevelopment was a multi-purpose tool that focused over $6 billion per year toward repairing and redeveloping urban cores, and building affordable housing, especially in those areas most economically and physically disadvantaged,” argues the bill’s author, Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, according to a legislative analysis. “Since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, communities across California are seeking an economic development tool to use.”

However, property rights advocates warn that the bill’s language contains no restrictions on eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

“Today, the state Senate passed a land grab bill that will make it easier for government to seize homes, businesses and places of worship by eminent domain!” the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, an opponent of the bill, posted on its Facebook page.

4 GOP Senators Join Democrats to Pass AB2

Republican Senator Anthony Cannella of Ceres, who introduced the bill on the Senate floor, argued that AB2 will provide economic stimulus to disadvantaged communities.

“This will grow jobs, reduce crime, repair deteriorating and inadequate infrastructure, clean up brownfields and promote affordable housing,” he said.

With Cannella’s support, the bill passed on a 29-10 vote — with the support of all but one Democrat and four Republicans, including Sen. Tom Berryhill of Twain Harte, Sen. Bob Huff of Diamond Bar and Sen. Sharon Runner of Antelope Valley.

Under the bill, a Community Revitalization Investment Authority could be created by a city, county or special district if certain conditions are met. The first requirement is that the area have an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percent higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

Private Property Rights Threatened

Only one senator, Republican Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, spoke in opposition to the bill.

“This is the resurrection of the redevelopment agencies – the failed redevelopment agencies,” he said. “They absolutely exploited and will continue to exploit – under the provisions of this bill – the seizure of private property under eminent domain.”

Eminent domain is mentioned in the bill 21 times. The Legislative Counsel’s bill digest explicitly states, “The bill would authorize an authority to acquire interests in real property and exercise the power of eminent domain.”

Although the bill subjects private property to eminent domain, government agencies would receive a special carve-out from the practice.

“Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be acquired without its consent,” the bill states.

Sen. Bob Huff: “We led the charge to save redevelopment”

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

Huff, who until recently served as Senate GOP leader, downplayed the “scare stories” of eminent domain abuse by private property advocates and reminded his colleagues of his past work with Sen. Rod Wright to save redevelopment agencies.

“We led the charge to protect redevelopment because it was one of the few economic developments that cities had,” Huff said on the Senate floor in support of AB2. “It was also one of the few ways to generate revenue for our affordable housing.”

With the Senate’s approval, the bill returns to the State Assembly for concurrence, where it is expected to pass with widespread support.

In May, AB2 passed by a 63-13 vote – without a single member – Republican or Democrat – voicing opposition. A dozen Assembly Republican lawmakers, including Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen, joined the Democratic majority in backing the bill.