I need to place a call to former Attorney General Jerry Brown. Now that he is our governor, and publicly suggested elimination of our 400 plus redevelopment agencies, we may have a possible Brown Act or other meeting notice violation in the great City of Los Angeles. CRA/LA misstated amount of funds in posted public notice which might be actionable.
In my last report I included an actual copy of the meeting notice which lists the requested sum to be approximately $885 million dollars. They have now issued a MEMORANDUM with the word REVISED in bold caps and underlined.
This REVISED document reads:
“TO: CRA/LA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CHRISTINE ESSEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
STAFF: DALILA SOTELIO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF OPERATIONS.
SUBJECT: COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES FOR PAYMENT OF APPROXIMATELY $930,000,000 FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN CRA/LAFUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED 31 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS.
This MEMORANDUM contains four recommendations and 19 pages of projects, some of which I shall list for our discussion.
My issue is the after the fact increase of $45 million dollars for this noticed public meeting.
At the same time Gary Grant, a fellow redevelopment agency watchdog in Riverside County, called today inviting me to attend a “special meeting” in which their agency, wishing to protect their public trough, in spending redevelopment money before the governor can shut down these agencies. Based on governor Brown’s proposal they have scheduled a “special” meeting for Tuesday, January 18th to add another $155 million of redevelopment agency bonded indebtedness.
The Press Enterprise covered this special meeting. Here is a brief excerpt.
“Board of Supervisors Chairman Bob Buster said Friday that county officials do not know the ultimate extent of any potential changes to redevelopment. “We have been heavily dependent on redevelopment, and now we are seeing its vulnerability,” Buster said. “We need to talk about not just the current situation, or crisis, but also redevelopment over the longer term.” Buster said the bonds would not go to fund any speculative or unworthy projects.”
Link. http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_rivco16.4ead9ba.html
Our MORR/CURE property rights group is very familiar with supervisor Bob Buster having blocked a major eminent domain effort in Lakeland Village/Wildomar.
Let’s return to the list of proposed redevelopment projects in Los Angeles.
In a review of the CRA/LA listing some that caught my eye included:
Page 19. South LA Watts Corridor. “Amendment to expand existing boundaries of existing project area, extend the time period for eminent domain in the existing project area, and establish eminent domain on non-residential properties in the expanded boundaries.” Investment $895,000.
What did we warn voters about in the bogus Prop 99 property rights fight?
Your business, family farms, multiple unit properties and non owner occupied homes will NOT BE protected against eminent domain. Prop 98 did offer that protection however we were outspent and lost. The result is that our fight continues until the governor shuts down these agencies and our legislature enacts protection found in other states for our peace of mind.
Page 16. LA Harbor. “Various programs and project to attract new retail to vacant space along Pacific Avenue” Investment $5,000,000.
Notice no project has been identified.
Page 13 double dipping. Hollywood and Central listed first for $1,000,000 and repeated as the fourth project with the identical description for $2,000,000. “Streetscape along major corridor including trees and art work.”
Page 10. Hollywood & Central. “Provide improvements on the Walk of Fame.” Investment $500,000.
Until further review I will not comment on the $35,000,000 for “development of 120,000 sf museum and parking facility to house the Broad Collection. Project includes ancillary uses such as storage and conservation areas and offices. Museum endowment to be $200 million.” This is the fourth listed project on page 1 of 19.
My hesitation on that listed expenditure is based on prior information where the philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad were building this museum with their own funds. As it contains offices and storage space I am not sure if this becomes a public or private museum. It will be located on Grand Avenue in downtown LA.
What this demonstrates is that redevelopment agencies across our state will be engaging in similar acts to “beat the clock” as the governor seeks to address our state’s financial challenges with his proposals.
Why not? I’d rather keep those dollars in my neighborhood rather than sending them to the black hole known as Sacramento. Let the agencies run up debt and move sorely needed cash into the General Fund- the debt service can be structured for a 100-year payback period…or don’t set any pay back period, who cares? The debt can be paid over an infinite period of time and the school districts can stop whining about not having enough money once all these agencies are foreclosed on. I’d enjoy a one last cash infusion of redevelopment money as long as it was going to be used to fund infrastructure improvements. I’d like to see some of the parks in my neighborhood refurbished.
Hector.
The debts created by these redevelopment agencies must be paid off within 30 to 40 years depending on how they are approved. You cannot spread it out for 100 years.
At the current time redevelopment “bonded indebtedness” in Ca is around $90 billion and rising. Those funds could have been used to compensate true community needs rather than building sports complex’s for billionaires. Check out San Diego and Santa Clara/San Jose to see that this is happening TODAY, not 10 years down the road.
One issue related to job losses that many readers do not recognize are not the obvious jobs going off shore to Asian nations. We have had cities in OC competing with each other for auto dealerships that would steal from your neighbor such as in Fullerton many years ago. While the workers probably kept those jobs, Fullerton lost sales tax revenues.
I recall Assemblyman Tom Torlakson supporting redevelopment until a big box store wanted to move out of Martinez, a city in his district. His reaction was to co-author AB 178.
AB 178. Here are the details. “The bill prohibits a city, county or redevelopment agency from providing financial assistance to an auto dealership or a big-box retailer, defined as any store over 75,000 square feet, that is relocating from one community to another within the same market area.
The bill provides for exceptions if the receiving community offers the community that is losing the business a sales taxsales tax, levy on the sale of goods or services, generally calculated as a percentage of the selling price, and sometimes called a purchase tax. It is usually collected in the form of an extra charge by the retailer, who remits the tax to the government.
….. Click the link for more information. revenue-sharing agreement.
“It makes no sense to start an expensive bidding war with a neighboring community in order to lure a big-box retailer already located in the same market area,” Runner said. “Since the taxpayers in both communities are equally utilizing these big retail stores and auto malls, there is no reason to waste taxpayer dollars in an attempt to move these stores a couple of miles down the road.”