Best comment to this story:

"what about a renters tax? there are millions of renters that don'e pay for services but yet get it free gratis the tax payers." -- missgarlic

What? What? Do people not realize that renters pay taxes, often higher taxes per square foot, than homeowners?

the article describes thusly Eliminating redevelopment agencies throughout the state and eliminating tax benefits for enterprise zones - moves that would "return billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities and counties and help pay for public safety, education and other services," the governor said.


it is interesting to me because first off i am on a CRA advisory board in my city. the local cra is doing some pretty cool things. Trying to go beyond just fixing//removing blighted properties and actually trying to assist with economic development. Mainly because as the recession has continued the old model of TIF assisted real estate development is not as useful anymore.

it would seem to me that it might be shortsided to get rid of these agencies. Especially in the time of a recession, when there will be even less development driven by market vs initiated by public/non-profit sector.

i understand the arguement about diverting funds to assure the k-12 priorites are met but it still seems short-sided. Especially because the neighborhoods that are usually served by CRAs are probably more effected by recession that others.

Well... I'm trying to see the budget cutting aspect of this is some variety of positive light. I've waited to see more information on the subject come out before making any harsh judgments.

The thing I dislike about it is that they're diverting property tax away from redevelopment agencies to help close a budget gap. However, I'm also aware that the reason these taxes exist is because the general population wants their tax dollars to go to their properties either directly (infrastructure) or indirectly (redevelopment, fighting blight).

I think the biggest thing here is that while redevelopment agencies rely on taxes for their basic operations, many of them generate revenue through land deals, real estate investments, business contracts and through public housing.

And the great thing about redevelopment agency money is that it is more or less discretionary-- a slush fund if you will. Since the money is often not part of the general fund, there's different stipulations and different metrics for accountability. That really enables local governments to spend on things that they might not otherwise be able to afford or would be questionably ethical budget items.

For instance (and while I do not know if it directly exists in California), airports and stadiums are often financed through redevelopment agencies. And not just the properties themselves, redevelopment agencies also pay salaries to employees of these projects from everything to police officers to janitors.

Also... to add into this, Orhan and someone else posted some points that in some areas, these agencies have motives that are not inline with the communities or cities they represent.

Some are accused of supporting inappropriate projects, some say that these agencies can also create favoritism and nepotism (through non-competitive bidding practices) and others say that they don't do much of anything.

So, I agree that perhaps these agencies should be audited and that their project lists be compared to the demographics they represent.

Certain cities [cough, cough San Bernardino] have more pressing issues than what their planning agencies propose. While I do agree "pretty things" definitely help more than they hurt, some cities have severe structural issues that really aren't being addressed.

So, perhaps, as these agencies build cases for their necessity, we might see a shift in priorities.