Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to eliminate
redevelopment agencies and enterprise zones
baffled city and county officials who have relied
on the two programs for decades to spur
economic growth and development in depressed
areas.
Critics said the move will exacerbate the state's
flailing economy, push jobs out of California and
take important tools away from local
governments looking to eliminate blight and
improve job prospects in underserved
communities. They also expressed confusion
about which projects will be impacted.
New projects impacted
Although Brown emphasized that his proposal
will only affect new redevelopment projects, not
"bonds or commitments that have been
contractually entered into," redevelopment
officials said Monday they are still sorting out
exactly which projects would be impacted.
In Oakland, for example, city officials planned to
use redevelopment funds for a new Athletics
ballpark and transit village at the MacArthur BART
Station. Their ability to do so is now in doubt.
And San Francisco redevelopment director Fred
Blackwell said a number of planned projects in
that city, including some phases of the Hunters
View revitalization, development of affordable
housing on former freeway parcels, and
redevelopment of the Hugo Hotel at Sixth and
Howard streets, are now in jeopardy. Blackwell
called the situation "dire."
"Right now we have more questions than we
have answers," said Oakland City Councilwoman
Jane Brunner. "We need to see how exactly this is
going to work."
$2.7 billion savings
Eliminating the two programs will save the state's
general fund nearly $2.7 billion over the next 18
months, money Brown plans to use to stave off
deeper cuts to health care, trial courts and local
services. In future years, the funding - which will
increase as redevelopment projects are
completed - will be given directly to schools,
cities and counties as part of the new governor's
plan to bring government services closer to the
people. To replace redevelopment funds, the new
governor also wants to allow cities and counties
to raise some taxes with the approval of 55
percent of voters.
Mark Hill, a program budget manager with the
state Department of Finance, said cities and
counties will be able to move forward with
projects in the future - they will just have to
decide whether they want to use the former
redevelopment funds for those purposes, or ask
voters to approve taxes.
Still, Bay Area development leaders warned of
dire consequences. They said eliminating
redevelopment as an option for counties and
cities will have a long-term impact on blight, jobs
and housing. According to the California
Redevelopment Association, redevelopment
activities support more than 304,000 jobs in the
state, contribute tens of billions of dollars to the
economy and generate $2 billion in taxes every
year.
"It's cannibalizing local government," said San
Pablo City Councilman Leonard McNeil. "This is a
weak-kneed response to the budget crisis -
absconding with the economic engine that fuels
hundreds of cities across the state."
There are dozens of redevelopment projects
under way or in the pipeline in the Bay Area. San
Pablo is relying on city and county
redevelopment funds to build a 19-acre site for
retail, housing and a Doctors Medical Center clinic.
In Richmond, the city is using redevelopment
funds for downtown revitalization, a new BART
parking garage and a slew of affordable housing
projects, parks, retail areas and community
centers.
Mid-Market on hold
Most of those projects are probably far enough
along to escape the ax. But Blackwell said future
projects - such as the possible redevelopment of
San Francisco's squalid Mid-Market area - will
now be impossible to move forward.
California's redevelopment program has, since
the 1950s, allowed local governments to develop
blighted areas by borrowing against future
property taxes in those zones. In San Francisco, it
has enabled the city to build more than 25,000
units of housing and transform areas such as
Yerba Buena Center in the South of Market
neighborhood from a series of rundown
buildings and vacant lots to a cultural center and
vibrant public park.
Enterprise zones
In his budget proposal, Brown argued that the
mechanism has taken billions in revenue away
from schools, public safety and other local
programs by earmarking property tax revenues
that otherwise would have flowed to state and
local coffers. He also contended that the private
development that has occurred in redevelopment
areas would often have taken place even without
the program.
Enterprise zones, created in 1984, allow local
governments to offer tax credits to businesses
that invest in underserved and low-income areas
that meet certain requirements. There are
currently 42 of these zones in California, including
a number in the Bay Area. In San Francisco, for
example, an "enterprise zone" covering a huge
swath of the city gives businesses $36,000 in tax
breaks for every hard-to-hire worker employed.
Source: Http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F11%2FMN2P1H6U2L.DTL
redevelopment agencies and enterprise zones
baffled city and county officials who have relied
on the two programs for decades to spur
economic growth and development in depressed
areas.
Critics said the move will exacerbate the state's
flailing economy, push jobs out of California and
take important tools away from local
governments looking to eliminate blight and
improve job prospects in underserved
communities. They also expressed confusion
about which projects will be impacted.
New projects impacted
Although Brown emphasized that his proposal
will only affect new redevelopment projects, not
"bonds or commitments that have been
contractually entered into," redevelopment
officials said Monday they are still sorting out
exactly which projects would be impacted.
In Oakland, for example, city officials planned to
use redevelopment funds for a new Athletics
ballpark and transit village at the MacArthur BART
Station. Their ability to do so is now in doubt.
And San Francisco redevelopment director Fred
Blackwell said a number of planned projects in
that city, including some phases of the Hunters
View revitalization, development of affordable
housing on former freeway parcels, and
redevelopment of the Hugo Hotel at Sixth and
Howard streets, are now in jeopardy. Blackwell
called the situation "dire."
"Right now we have more questions than we
have answers," said Oakland City Councilwoman
Jane Brunner. "We need to see how exactly this is
going to work."
$2.7 billion savings
Eliminating the two programs will save the state's
general fund nearly $2.7 billion over the next 18
months, money Brown plans to use to stave off
deeper cuts to health care, trial courts and local
services. In future years, the funding - which will
increase as redevelopment projects are
completed - will be given directly to schools,
cities and counties as part of the new governor's
plan to bring government services closer to the
people. To replace redevelopment funds, the new
governor also wants to allow cities and counties
to raise some taxes with the approval of 55
percent of voters.
Mark Hill, a program budget manager with the
state Department of Finance, said cities and
counties will be able to move forward with
projects in the future - they will just have to
decide whether they want to use the former
redevelopment funds for those purposes, or ask
voters to approve taxes.
Still, Bay Area development leaders warned of
dire consequences. They said eliminating
redevelopment as an option for counties and
cities will have a long-term impact on blight, jobs
and housing. According to the California
Redevelopment Association, redevelopment
activities support more than 304,000 jobs in the
state, contribute tens of billions of dollars to the
economy and generate $2 billion in taxes every
year.
"It's cannibalizing local government," said San
Pablo City Councilman Leonard McNeil. "This is a
weak-kneed response to the budget crisis -
absconding with the economic engine that fuels
hundreds of cities across the state."
There are dozens of redevelopment projects
under way or in the pipeline in the Bay Area. San
Pablo is relying on city and county
redevelopment funds to build a 19-acre site for
retail, housing and a Doctors Medical Center clinic.
In Richmond, the city is using redevelopment
funds for downtown revitalization, a new BART
parking garage and a slew of affordable housing
projects, parks, retail areas and community
centers.
Mid-Market on hold
Most of those projects are probably far enough
along to escape the ax. But Blackwell said future
projects - such as the possible redevelopment of
San Francisco's squalid Mid-Market area - will
now be impossible to move forward.
California's redevelopment program has, since
the 1950s, allowed local governments to develop
blighted areas by borrowing against future
property taxes in those zones. In San Francisco, it
has enabled the city to build more than 25,000
units of housing and transform areas such as
Yerba Buena Center in the South of Market
neighborhood from a series of rundown
buildings and vacant lots to a cultural center and
vibrant public park.
Enterprise zones
In his budget proposal, Brown argued that the
mechanism has taken billions in revenue away
from schools, public safety and other local
programs by earmarking property tax revenues
that otherwise would have flowed to state and
local coffers. He also contended that the private
development that has occurred in redevelopment
areas would often have taken place even without
the program.
Enterprise zones, created in 1984, allow local
governments to offer tax credits to businesses
that invest in underserved and low-income areas
that meet certain requirements. There are
currently 42 of these zones in California, including
a number in the Bay Area. In San Francisco, for
example, an "enterprise zone" covering a huge
swath of the city gives businesses $36,000 in tax
breaks for every hard-to-hire worker employed.
Source: Http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F11%2FMN2P1H6U2L.DTL
0 comments:
Post a Comment