Redevelopment is supposed to be out of fashion. The legislative reforms passed in 1993 made it more difficult for local governments to find "blight" — and cut down on the financial incentives for using redevelopment as well. Furthermore, California's appellate courts have made it increasingly clear that they have little patience for California's redevelopment games. In three recent rulings, appellate judges have hammed local agencies for playing fast and loose with the definition of both "blight" and "urbanization." Yet a few cities and counties around the state are moving forward with large redevelopment projects — sometimes as much as several thousand acres. In some cases, these local governments appear eager to tap into redevelopment tax-increment financing as one of the few available sources of funding for public infrastructure improvements. In other cases, both cities and counties appear to be simply placing all older urban neighborhoods into project areas. As is typical, these new project areas are being met with resistance from both angry residents and county governments fearful of losing revenue — though in at least two cases, the large project areas are being proposed by counties themselves. "It's not a trend," asserted William Carlson, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. As evidence, Carlson pointed to figures from the state Controller's office showing that the creation of new redevelopment project areas has been dropping steadily since the 1980s. On average, 20 new project areas were created statewide in the three fiscal years from 1996-97 through 1998-99, compared with about 35 per year in the late 1980s. Even though the number of project areas may be small, the acreages involved are large. And so maybe there is a trend going on after all. Among the recently created or pending project areas are the following: o Stanton and Westminster, adjacent older cities in north Orange County, have both moved to place all property in their jurisdiction inside redevelopment areas. o Both Alameda County and Sonoma County have created large redevelopment areas in unincorporated, but apparently urbanized, communities — flood-prone Guerneville in Sonoma County, and Castro Valley (and a series of other communities) in Alameda County. Sonoma County has been sued by local residents. The Alameda County project consists of 3,300 acres in five non-contiguous communities; the Sonoma County project is 1,800 acres along the lower Russian River. o San Jose, which has one of the largest redevelopment agencies in the state, has greatly expanded its neighborhood-based effort, placing 18 different neighborhoods into a 9,400-acre project area that covers about one-sixth of the large city. o Upland, a small but generally affluent city in San Bernardino County, has placed some 1,600 acres of land in its older part of town in a redevelopment area — and has been sued by the county. In many cases, cities and counties are justifying these major redevelopment pushes in very different terms than we saw 10 to 15 years ago. Rather than promoting business growth, they claim older neighborhoods have housing problems that must be fixed. In other cases, the redevelopment agencies are pushing for simple public facilities improvements such as curbs and sidewalks. San Jose, for example, has committed $20 million over five years for this sort of thing in the neighborhoods. However, all this action comes in the context of three recent court cases that have taken redevelopment agencies to task for not adhering to the stricter definition of "blight" contained in the 1993 redevelopment revisions. In the most recent case, Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, the Court of Appeal found that the city had failed to provide substantial evidence not only about blight but also about the question of whether the area was predominantly urbanized. All three recent cases criticized the boilerplate manner in which redevelopment agencies and their consultants typically approach findings of blight and urbanization. In the case of Mammoth Lakes, for example, the city argued that existing blight was harming economic viability. But the court concluded that the city "could not determine from the evidence that the flat rate of tax revenues was caused by defective design or construction, inadequate lot sizes or substandard site design" — in other words, by the physical conditions that must be present to find blight. CRA's Carlson acknowledged that redevelopment agencies "have to be more careful in their analysis" than they used to be. He also said he is not surprised by an increase in proposed large project areas by counties because the redevelopment system is likely to result in less oversight of counties. Traditionally, cities have had far more motivation to create redevelopment areas because they stand to capture a great deal of property tax revenue that otherwise would flowed to counties. Counties, on the other hand, have had little interest in redevelopment because they are simply stealing property tax revenue from themselves — and, indeed, counties have usually been the agencies that hold cities accountable by suing them. But Carlson pointed out that, if counties can reach a political consensus on redevelopment, there is usually nobody to look over their shoulder and enforce the law against them. No one, that is, except angry residents of the affected area, who often object to the blight finding and fear that the government will use redevelopment to impose large changes. That's what is happening in the Guerneville area, where two sets of local residents are suing. The redevelopment project area approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in July stretches for nine miles along the Russian River from Guerneville to Monte Rio. The redevelopment plan calls for $185 million of improvements such as affordable housing projects, home repairs, sidewalks, streetlights, parks, and public buildings. This area floods frequently, and both fires and landslides are common. The area is also characterized by low-density "rural sprawl" and a plethora of "paper subdivisions" which have never been built on. The area is a weekend tourist destination for San Franciscans, but some local residents want to retain the rural feel and object to the notion that their area is both "blighted" and "urbanized." Under redevelopment law, an area must be 80% urbanized to be legal. "They must have been counting vacant lots," said Susan Lea, a lawyer living in the area who is representing several residents challenging the project area. Redevelopment has always been a controversial tool in California. It is a tempting tool for almost any city or county that's strapped for cash — the financier of public improvements or public facilities of last resort. This will probably always be true, even if California's screwy state-local fiscal situation is improved someday. The latest round of new project areas simply shows that cities and counties are going to keep using redevelopment as a tool to intervene in older neighborhoods, whether or not they are, strictly speaking, blighted, urbanized, or even incorporated. This is why the redevelopment game — even if it slows down — probably will not stop until every older area in the state is inside a project area.