According to this January 3 Sacramento Bee report, one of Governor Jerry Brown’s cost-cutting proposals is to eliminate state redevelopment agencies:
In a major reduction, Brown would wipe out hundreds of local redevelopment agencies, which use property taxes to spur projects in blighted areas. State leaders in 2009-10 took $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies, though voters in November approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that presumably blocks such transfers in the future.
Brown wants to eliminate redevelopment agencies altogether; it is not clear whether that would require voter approval. He intends to use the money to offset state budget costs for one year and then give the money to counties and schools thereafter.
How would that work out for Glendale? Reports surfacing at the end of the year and picked up by the Glendale News-Press show the city hasn’t been a good steward of public redevelopment funds, authorizing suspicious construction expenses for developer ADI’s low-income housing projects.
What if cities up and down the state (and in Glendale) didn’t employ bureaucrats to compete for local tax dollars diverted to Sacramento and then awarded back to the best-pitched projects? Would a private property owner obtaining a straight business loan from a commercial bank make the same business decisions municipal governments have made to approve low-income housing projects? The simple answer to the last question is “No”; but elected officials, in their defense, are faced with meeting state-imposed incentives and requirements in order to get their fair share of public funds.