It is truly refreshing when you find “an elected official who gets it.” This is especially satisfying when it is someone from another major party whose policy positions on other issues are 180 degrees away from your own. San Diego’s Democratic Senator Christine Kehoe went to bat for property rights owners a few years ago after we testified before her joint committee hearing on “Redevelopment and Blight” that was held in San Diego. Our collective testimony led to the introduction, and eventual passage, of (Kehoe) SB 1206 which I reference during every one of my speaking engagements.
Seven months after that Hearing she wrote an article that appeared in the “Voice of San Diego” entitled “the Problem with Redevelopment.”
At this time I will share text from two paragraphs of that article and follow with her latest effort relating to redevelopment, SB 93.
“Unfortunately, redevelopment is not cheap. Just providing the state’s share of redevelopment costs state taxpayers $1.7 billion a year. The 760 redevelopment project areas in Californian take over $3.4 billion in property tax revenues away from our schools, counties, cities and special districts. Because the state Constitution requires us to provide equal funding for schools, the state must replace every dollar that schools lose to redevelopment projects. With such a financial commitment, legislators want redevelopment to succeed.
Hearings we held last year convinced me that the redevelopment laws need reform. We learned about documented abuses in Californian City, Diamond Bar, Lake Forest, Mammoth Lakes and Upland. Left unchecked, the perceptions of favoritism, cutting corners, indifference and arrogance that were generated by some of these projects will only serve to undermine our legitimate goal of eliminating blight.” Senator Christine Kehoe.
SB 93, which relates to the “use of redevelopment funds for public facilities,” is currently undergoing Amendments in the Senate Local Government Committee to make it more acceptable to the majority whose approval will be required.
Senator Kehoe wants to avoid another public works redevelopment project abuse such as the Grantville Redevelopment Project in San Diego where $30 to $40 million redevelopment dollars are being shuttled from Center City to the County.
To properly cover that project, and the lawsuit filed by the Grantville Action Group, GAG, it is best for me to cover that abuse in a stand alone post. I have spoken to Brian Peterson who heads that activist group. He informed me that GVG is meeting tonight at 6:30 p.m. at the VFW, 4370 Twain Avenue, Grantville.
Brian also told me that they anticipate a court hearing on their case by this December. You can find details of that property rights case and GAG at www.grantvilleactiongroup.com
One key issue in SB 93, that must be upheld, is that area of proposed text which addresses the physical location of public works projects. “This bill would instead authorize a redevelopment agency, with the consent of the legislative body, to pay all or part of the value of the land for, and the construction of, any building, facility, structure, or other improvement that is publicly owned and is located inside or contiguous to, as defined, the project area.”
That’s the key. The redevelopment cannot be OUTSIDE the project area.
The MORR/CURE team strongly opposes the City of Industry’s proposed construction of an NFL stadium, using redevelopment funds, to be located outside the above defined boundaries. Raiding of professional sports team to other cities must cease. In this case it is quite possible that if a new stadium is constructed in the city of Industry they might lure the Chargers away from San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium after taxpayers spent over $100 million with the original construction and follow up expansion.
One unique aspect of redevelopment in the City of Industry is the State’s 20% set-aside mandate for affordable housing (within city limits.) I am under the impression that Industry may not permit any new housing units. Further, most of their housing is city owned.
Additional SB 93 issues. “The bill would prohibit an agency from paying for the normal maintenance or operations of buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements that are publicly owned.
The bill would also prohibit the agency and legislative body from authorizing or approving the settlement of specified judicial actions that contest the validity of the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan if the settlement requires the expenditure of funds outside the project area unless the agency and the legislative body have first held a public hearing on the proposed settlement, as specified.”
Gilbert note. Representatives of the Grantville Action Group attended our MORR/CURE conference in Long Beach two weeks ago. It is networking with other groups that provides the emotional and legal support for prior, current and future victims of eminent domain abuses.
Larry Gilbert, Orange County Co-director, Californians United for Redevelopment Education, CURE
There is a business owner in my city being abused by the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, contact the Yangtze resturant and see if you can do something for them. Maybe do a story on Orange Juice blog for them.