Hard Times for California Redevelopment Agencies
California's redevelopment agencies are among many state functions feeling the budget crunch, though some defenders of private property are happy to see them hurting.
Details from the L.A. Times:
...many of California's 397 active redevelopment agencies are headed for uncertain times. They've been battered by state budget cuts that are slated to take nearly $2.1 billion during the next two years. This could force them to abandon projects and maybe shut down entire agencies....Some critics say it's time cities pared down their redevelopment activities and let the property tax money that fuels them go to schools and counties to be spent on direct services. Los Angeles County officials estimate that their general fund loses about $380 million in diverted property taxes because of redevelopment efforts, though proponents said that figure is overstated..... Though they deal in vast sums of taxpayer money, have powers of eminent domain and include some of the state's landmarks, the mechanisms of redevelopment areas and the agencies that run them are obscure to most voters and many lawmakers, experts said..... The Community Redevelopment Law of 1951 gave redevelopment officials the power to use a portion of property tax money to partner with private developers to encourage development of housing and commercial projects to improve blighted areas.
With the power of eminent domain, what some call "redevelopment" others call "stealing private property." As the Times story points out:
The city of Cypress ignited a nationally watched controversy when it tried to seize church-owned land to build a Costco....The city of Indian Wells, a rich enclave near Palm Springs, used redevelopment money to build a 36-hole championship golf course surrounded by a resort. Other cities have tried to declare acres of empty farmland blighted so they could hold on to any property tax increases from future development.
A set of eminent domain foes explain why they think California Redevelopment Agencies power to seize, or threaten to seize, private property is dangerous.
The Kelo v. New London decision, in which the Supreme Court controversially upheld eminent domain for public economic improvement project such as California Redevelopment Agencies rely on.
The Los Angeles Business Journal with an August 2008 story of a local scrap metal dealer fighting for his business, which was taken by the L.A. Community Redevelopment Agency.
The image associated with this post was taken by Flickr user ax2groin. It was used under user Creative Commons license.
