I am biased and this is personal...that's my disclosure. That being said, this is about more than me...a very liberal Democrat who, ironically, voted for Jerry Brown...and in many ways regrets that decision. No, there's no way in hell I would have ever voted for $74-a-vote Meg either...but I'm not thrilled with much of what Jerry is doing...particularly this:
Jerry Brown won, he killed redevelopment in California.
California Supreme Court allows redevelopment money grab
The Gov did not campaign on this - although it was clearly in his plan - because he would have been defeated because of it. This is a short sighted gimmick to help "save" the oh-so-dysfunctional CA budget, but one that I believe will make matters worse when it comes to jobs and local economies and will actually do nothing to actually help the local communities to the extent promised - such as saving jobs for the teachers and firefighters that helped kill it - because the state will just keep stealing what they need, especially considering the windfall is going to be far less than originally anticipated.
Mostly, it is truly a sad day for those who need affordable rental housing in California, or for those first time homebuyers who would have no other way to ever purchase their home without a little bit of assistance (and there are those who are responsible folks!), for homeowners who may need a little low-interest help to keep their roof over their head - literally, as in needing some deferred maintenance assistance like a new roof or code compliant electrical upgrades.
And...given that now communities are going to have to vote to allow for any tax funding to support lower income housing - you tell me where that's actually going to happen? Anyone involved in building affordable, workforce housing can tell you that it's a rare community that welcomes "those people" into their neighborhoods...never mind that "those people" are their kids teachers, the desk clerk at their doctor's office, the checker at their grocery store, the gal who gave them a mani-pedi last weekend, the new firefighter and his/her young family, the children's librarian, or the barrista who fixed their vente double-carmel macchiato this morning.
Beyond the squiggle...
And this is also terrible news for those who's construction jobs rely upon redevelopment projects, for downtowns and other blighted areas to that try to focus on keeping the community clean and thriving, for new small merchants who need help with business assistance guidance, for economic development efforts that help to maintain a diverse and viable tax base to help fund parks and recreation programs, libraries, police and fire.
This is part of what I said on a Calitics post back in January when we first heard about this extreme suggestion:
I am a municipal employee who's position is substantially funded with RDA housing funds, as are the most of my colleagues...so my bias is up front. But I've been here a long time and know that we do good work in our city with RDA. Those funds have been a huge reason we've been able to better protect our community by seismically upgrading or rebuilding our oldest fire stations, build a new police station, support the construction of many affordable housing developments, provide grants to service providers who focus on providing affordable housing and other housing specific assistance, eliminate a blighted parking structure in the heart of downtown and replace it with a new structure and a cinema that helped strengthen our downtown, help support building a diverse retail mix that provides a mixed tax revenue to help sustain economic vitality...and many, many more things.
It is true, there have been RDA abuses and questionable uses around the country, but there have been a LOT of successes as well...and I believe those far outweigh the abuses. I think there's a lot to be said for the efficiency of use from some of the smaller agencies.
A huge problem is that this killing of RDAs has happened so quickly without giving RDAs actually time to plan (the legislation put everything on hold for RDAs within 2-4 months of initial proposal back in spring of 2010)...instead, it sent RDAs into reflexive preservation mode. There were efforts to reform RDA before the CA legislature with many different bills proposed. But in the end, and to the surprise of many involved, the CA legislature was so rushed to get a budget approved they rushed through terrible language at the end that conflicts with the stated intent of many legislators. There are HUGE and complex legal issues that are not adequately addressed in either the legislation the court upheld or the initial proposal by the governor and it's going to be a mess to try to address the long-term issues with existing programs and projects.
I'm not a scholar on all financial minutiae of all the ramifications. There are many articles about Redevelopment out there on the interwebs, but you can start here by reading both pro and con here:
CA Legislative Analysts Office:
Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?
Protect Our Economy
Redevelopment: Mend It, Don't End It
All in all...the personal part is the nearly 15 jobs that will be lost in our city government...and maybe even mine. But more emotionally, the work and meaning of the work that we did for our neighbors and our community: the housing projects that will no longer be built, the nonprofit agencies who got grants to help people with covering that gap in their rent payments that help keep them housed. Grants to other service agencies that are providing housing for homeless families, victims of domestic violence, mentally ill adults, or adults trying to change their lives through substance abuse recovery programs.
This all hurts...and certainly won't help California.