Governor’s redevelopment elimination plan is a Draconian
measure
If ever there was a Draconian approach in dire economic times,
it’s Gov. Jerry Brown’s idea to eliminate local agencies designed
to uplift the economy.
More than 400 municipalities throughout California
– including Hollister’s – face the possibility of losing their
redevelopment agencies. Brown, in trying to fill a $26.6 billion
budget, has proposed killing the agencies and redirecting the funds
to core services such as education. The move would save an
estimated $1.7 billion, while it would le
ave uncertainty in such Hollister RDA properties as the former
Leatherback Industries site and redevelopment of the 400 block
downtown.
Governor’s redevelopment elimination plan is a Draconian measure
If ever there was a Draconian approach in dire economic times, it’s Gov. Jerry Brown’s idea to eliminate local agencies designed to uplift the economy.
More than 400 municipalities throughout California – including Hollister’s – face the possibility of losing their redevelopment agencies. Brown, in trying to fill a $26.6 billion budget, has proposed killing the agencies and redirecting the funds to core services such as education. The move would save an estimated $1.7 billion, while it would leave uncertainty in such Hollister RDA properties as the former Leatherback Industries site and redevelopment of the 400 block downtown.
Making RDA advocates’ job even harder was a report put out by the state controller’s office detailing gross abuses in recent years by 18 chosen RDAs, some finding ways to maneuver funds for use at their discretion. Hollister’s RDA doesn’t have a clean record itself. Council members in 2008 questionably moved about $1.2 million from the RDA-owned courthouse sale into the depleted general fund, which is used for discretionary and personnel costs. Revenue from such a sale is supposed to funnel back to the RDA, but Hollister officials devised an arbitrary, theoretical formula based on potential sales tax revenue that the location – previously planned as a civic center site – could have gained if someone developed it as a viable commercial property.
They basically rewrote the rulebook.
Under the current regulations, meanwhile, it is likely that most municipalities aren’t perfect, but that is because the oversight regulations are weak.
Instead of merely eliminating the programs, though, why not first examine some potential solutions involving the severe tightening of those regulations overseeing redevelopment agencies? As things stand, there also is virtually no accountability standard for RDAs. The release of the recent controller’s office report appears to have been timed to coincide with the governor’s proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies, to bolster his case, but such documentation of abuses is rare. The state would be wise to admit its part in harboring such a belief among RDA officials – that there is an endless stream of money – and examine the possibility of fortifying the oversight of these local agencies and how they spend taxpayers’ money.
Start by more narrowly defining the prospective uses of RDA funds. Shun attempts to bend the rules and enforce them without exception. Ensure there are strict regulations, and that local municipalities understand the state is watching, at all times. And above all, require that these jurisdictions maintain qualitative and quantitative data that can be used to measure progress or failure.
As intended, redevelopment agencies can function as foundations, as consistent mechanisms to keep local economies humming. They have served as reinvestment tools in good times and bad.
In such critical times, it makes more sense to strengthen these avenues toward prospering, rather than pulling the plug on the program.
