Redevelopment is dead after more than six decades as a multibillion-dollar government economic development tool.
Or is it?
'); } -->
Redevelopment is dead after more than six decades as a multibillion-dollar government economic development tool.
Or is it?
Dan Walters: California redevelopment still has a faint pulse
Dan Walters: Redevelop in state, but set tight limits
Dan Walters: Tangled political web could trap California cities on redevelopment
Dan Walters: Legislative mischief on 'trailer bills' becomes easier
Dan Walters: California's 'wall of debt' is really a mountain
As the decree to kill redevelopment takes effect, the Capitol is buzzing with efforts to bring it or something like it, or some substitute back.
Gov. Jerry Brown nixed redevelopment advocates' efforts to delay its execution by 10 weeks, supposedly to give the 400-plus local agencies more time to make an orderly shutdown, but in reality to keep it alive in hopes of a reprieve.
"I don't think we can delay this funeral," Brown said, making it clear that he'd veto any extension bill.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who had voted for redevelopment's death sentence last year, popped up with Senate Bill 654 to let cities retain the low-income housing funds that redevelopment agencies had amassed, rather than having them distributed to schools and other local governments.
If enacted, it would hold back $1.4 billion, eating into money that Brown wants from redevelopment's demise by shifting their funds to school districts.
Last week, on the last day of redevelopment's legal life, Steinberg was unable to move the bill through the Senate as an urgency measure, which would have required a two-thirds vote.
He said he may reconstitute it as a budget "trailer bill," which requires only a simple majority vote. Even had the bill passed, however, its fate at Brown's hands was uncertain.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, meanwhile, has introduced his own redevelopment modification measure.
The bigger question mark is whether Brown and legislators will create some substitute for the money that redevelopment agencies have lavishly spent to underwrite commercial development, such as hotels, auto malls and restaurants.
Brown has indicated that he'd look favorably upon expanding cities' power to finance infrastructure improvements, but not the direct subsidies to private developers that had become targets of criticism.
One approach under study is to loosen the rules governing "infrastructure financing districts," which can issue bonds and repay them from increases in property taxes in project areas. That's similar to redevelopment, but the districts are more limited in scope and, under current law, require approval of two-thirds of local voters.
Two pending bills, including one to underwrite the upcoming America's Cup boat races in San Francisco, would eliminate the voter approval requirement, but Brown is unlikely to go there.
Backers of the concept are hoping, however, that he might accept lowering the voter threshold to 55 percent, similar to that for school bonds, or even to a simple majority.
Politicians are trying to redevelop redevelopment, so to speak.
SanLuisObispo.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. See our full terms of service here.
Here are some rules of the road:
You should also know that The Tribune does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at webmaster@thetribunenews.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.
If you submit a comment, the username of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to webmaster@thetribunenews.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.
About comments
Reader comments on SanLuisObispo.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Tribune. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.