Yes, the “current” bonded indebtedness is beyond any corrective action. Let’s hope that any future project area “ideas” never leave the drawing board.

Ten years ago we testified for Tom Mc Clintock in his attempt to force voter approval of redevelopment activity. Didn’t pass out of committee. Polarization is “still alive and well” in Sacramento.

Brea’s financial woes prove that elected officials, at all levels of our government, know how to spend taxpayer money. Now if they could ever figure out how to live within the available revenue stream we would all celebrate.

Even with the high cost of fuel, raising sales tax may chase either or both consumers and merchants to neighboring cities.
It’s tough saying NO to special interests once you have created programs for them.

Thank you for your kind words about Alan Pilger. As Orange County Co-Director of CURE, partner of Supervisor Norby’s MORR organization, he is very knowledgable on the topics of redevelopment and eminent domain.

The costs of the redevelopment are sunk. You can’t get out of them, outside of discharging them via bankrupcy.

I have not examined the budgets, but it is possible (likely) the debt burdon is so big that if you scuttle everything outside of police and fire the office still runs a defict.

Once again, lots of ideology, little actionable substance. Except Allan’s comment which makes sense.

One actionable solution would include: Dump the redevelopment project, pass an ordinace that requires any future redevelopment project be subjected to public vote AND be revenue neutral with a sliding scale sales tax that recalculates and moves once a year. That way, if the commission gets too far out of line, somebody can raise hell about it and stop them. If it passes at all.

Allan Pilger