Blogs

The California Assembly and Senate are expected to vote on the budget proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The trailer bill concerning redevelopment, AB 101, emerged from committee today. If enacted, it would codify the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the winding down of their activities under "successor agencies" and oversight boards. Agency activities would effectively end July 1.

After weeks of stalemate and tough talk -- on both sides -- the California Redevlopment Association has announced an alternative to Gov. Jerry Brown's intention to eliminate redevelopment. The CRA announced today a compromise plan that would preserve the architecture of redevelopment while allowing the transfer of certain funds to schools (at the expense of affordable housing), thus easing the state's deficit.  

As of Wednesday afternoon, March 9, here are the following results from local elections related to land use in California: 

Beverly Hills Measure 2P - Approved; Measure 3P - Rejected

2P Two Hours of Free Parking Initiative; approved, 3,168-1,963 

3P Three Hours of Free Parking for Residents of Beverly Hills, Measure 3P; rejected, 1,436-3,539

The debate over the fate of redevelopment has called into question the usefulness of redevelopment in places such as, say, Coronado or Palm Desert. But there is no doubt that blight still infects large swaths of the state's major cities -- and that those cities are deeply concerned about the fate of their redevelopment agencies. 

In response to the release of a draft bill that would make the elimination of redevelopment official, the mayors of the state's nine largest cities today sent a stern letter [.pdf] to Gov. Jerry Brown asking him once again to reconsider his intention to eliminate their redevelopment agencies -- along with nearly 400 others across the state. 

 As expected, supporters of redevelopment in California wasted no time responding to a scathing report released today by State Controller John Chiang. This afternoon California Redevelopment Association re-iterated its longstanding contention that redevelopment creates jobs, stokes local economies, and provides a net economic benefit to the state despite what Gov. Jerry Brown claims is a $1.7 billion annual drain on state coffers. 

Throughout the now eight-week battle over the fate of redevelopment, both sides have issued claims about the efficacy -- or lack thereof -- of redevelopment but have relied on scant data to do so. Today the empirical analysis of redevelopment has, according to the office of State Controller John Chiang, become quite a bit clearer. 

Five weeks ago Chiang initiated a limited-scope review of redevelopment and today released findings that are highly critical of redevelopment. Among other criticisms, the findings directly contradict claims that redevelopment is responsible for the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs -- because, according to the report, agencies have done little, or nothing, to track job creation. 

With apologies to Sir Isaac Newton, we may finally find out what happens when an irresistible force runs headlong into an immovable object. 

The following is the first of an occasional series of thoughts on "super density" and the future of cities.

Poor George Will. He's getting kicked all over the blogosphere for a recent Newsweek column in which he said liberals love trains because they are a way to control the masses, while conservatives love cars because they provide freedom.

What happens when you go through years of planning and actually building TODs, only to have the T suddenly vanish?

This is the question on the San Francisco Peninsula and in the South Bay, where Caltrain is proposing radical service reductions and the closure of numerous stations.

It's also a question that other places are likely to confront as public budgets grow more austere and the Republican Party ramps up its attacks on seemingly all transportation that doesn't involve automobiles.

As debates and hearings over the fate of redevelopment have raged on, the Governor's Office has been drafting legislation that would eliminate redevelopment much as the governor has proposed. A strongly worded preamble lays out the case for the governor's position, and, in anticipation of potential legal battles, it claims that "the Constitution does not explicitly state that redevelopment agencies must exist and, unlike other entities such as counties, does not limit the Legislature's control over that existence." 

Proposition Thirteen.

There, I said it. But I'm not the only one uttering those words during the ongoing discussion of the State of California's enormous budget gap. Just maybe, we can no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

The state's fiscal problems are as big as an elephant, and the reasons for them are legion. But, make no mistake, the largest contributor to those problems -- by far -- is the system created by and in reaction to Prop 13.

I'm sure that by now plenty of people would be willing to kill redevelopment just to put an end to the ping-pong match of debate that has surrounded the governor's budget proposal. While all very civil and often enlightening, it's a debate that has relied on a handful of studies against redevelopment (most prominently Michael Dardia's 1998 PPIC study, "Subsidizing Redevelopment in California") and a single study in favor of redevelopment (the California Redevelopment Association's 2009 study, based on earlier work by the private firm Time Structures [doc]).

After meeting, apparently unsuccessfully, with Gov. Jerry Brown several weeks ago to ask him to back off of his plan to eliminate redevelopment, the mayors of the state's ten largest cities are reportedly lobbying for a compromise. The mayors' plan would preserve revelopment while also generating $1.7 billion to help offset the state's deficit. That is roughly the amount of property tax increment that the governor hoped to recover by doing away with redevelopment entirely.