.
.
.
.
.
RDAs days are numbered
While we continue to lobby Republicans to eradicate redevelopment agencies in our state, CRA/LA has supported AB1250, a new Bill sponsored by Assembly Member Luis Alejo whose co -author is Sen. Rod Wright.
My initial objection, as I start reviewing their proposed legislation, is found in the first paragraph of the Legislative Counsel’s Digest where it reads: “The community redevelopment law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight, as defined, in blighted areas in those communities known as project areas.” Blight. As defined by whom?
While the media references redevelopment agencies, does the average person understand their Mission?
“Under the Community Redevelopment Law, a blighted area must be predominantly urbanized with a combination of physical and economic conditions that are so prevalent and substantial that they can cause a serious physical and economic burden which can’t be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action, without redevelopment.
A blighted area must have:
At least one of four conditions of physical blight AND at least one of five conditions or economic blight, OR subdivided lots with irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development.
Besides meeting the physical and economic conditions of blight, a blighted area may also have inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, or utilities.
The four conditions of physical blight are:
Unsafe or unhealthy buildings.
Factors that hinder economic use of buildings and lots.
Incompatible uses that prevent economic development.
Irregular and inadequately sized lots in multiple ownerships.
The five conditions of economic blight are:
Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments.
High business vacancies, low lease rates, high turnover rates, or excessive vacant lots.
Lack of neighborhood commercial facilities.
Residential overcrowding or an excess of adult businesses.
High crime rate.
Let me take us back to a prior legislative effort, and initial text that I supported, known as SB 1206 as authored by S.D. Sen. Christine Kehoe. Let’s truly define blight and take it out of the eyes of the beholder. Specifically let’s add “metrics” as follows:
“This subdivision describes economic conditions that cause blight:
(1). Depreciated or stagnant property values, as used in this paragraph, “depreciated or stagnant property values” means that the annual rate of increase in the assessed valuation of real property within the project area is less than 50 percent of the annual rate of increase in the assessed valuation of real property in either the community or the county in seven our of 10 previous fiscal years.
(2) Abnormally high business vacancies or abnormally low lease rates. As used in this paragraph, “abnormally high business vacancies” means that the vacancy rate for commercial and industrial uses in the project area is greater than 200 percent of the vacancy rate for similar uses in either the community or the county. As used in this paragraph, “abnormally low lease rates” means that the average value of the monthly leases for commercial and industrial sues in the project area are less than 50 percent of the average value of the monthly leases for similar uses in either the community or the county.
(3) An inadequate number of necessary commercial facilities. As used in this paragraph, an “inadequate number of necessary commercial facilities ” means that the number of neighborhood commercial facilities per 1,000 residents of the project area is less than 50 percent of the number of similar facilities per 1,000 residents in either the community or the county.
(4) Residential overcrowding. As used in this paragraph “residential overcrowding” means that the percentage of overcrowding dwelling units in the project area is greater than 200 percent of the percentage of overcrowded dwelling units in either the community or the county. As used in this section, “overcrowded” means exceeding the standard prescribed in Article 5 (commencing with Section 32) of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
(5) An excess of bars and liquor stores that has resulted in significant public health or safety problems. As used in this paragraph, an “excess of bars and liquor stores ” means that the number of retail liquor licenses per 1,000 residents in the project area is greater than 200 percent of the number of retail liquor licenses per 1,000 residents in either the community or the county.
(6) An excess of adult-oriented businesses that has resulted in significant public health and safety problems.
(7) A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. As used in this paragraph, “high crime rate” means that crime in the project area is greater than 200 percent of the crime rate in either the community or the county, as measured by either the California Crime Index prepared by the Department of Justice, pursuant to Sections 13010 and 13012 of the Penal Code, or the Uniform Crime Reporting Program operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This is just a quick list of suggestions that would need to be added if we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud and abuses by our 400 plus redevelopment agencies.
This past March every Democrat in the State Assembly was receptive to shutting down all of our RDAs. As such none of the 52 Dem’s in SAC, who cast their AYE votes on AB101 should balk at these suggestions.
As time permits I plan to read the entire Bill and add future inputs.
The so-called ‘blighted area’ referred to specifically in luis alejo’s RDA issue, is the ongoing project of one George Ow, a million dollar investor … he promises an industrial park with over 200 jobs to come with it … over a period of 10-20 years … the area of ‘blight’ is a beautifully green agricultural area planted with lettuce at this time and previously with strawberries … if you build an industrial park and no one comes, does that mean the project was a bust??????????? 🙁 Mr Ow has been a great contributor to alejo’s many campaigns and as such … favors do need to be repaid …
In his series Huell Howser did not video losers or bogus redevelopment projects.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. Huell was TOLD which RDA project’s to video on behalf of the CRA which paid him for that series.
The key word in your remark is “promise.” Pfizer “promised” to bring jobs to New London, CT when taking Susette Kelo’s property that was not blighted.
In the Opinion of the Court one of the Justices pointed out that it is not their responsibility to guarantee that projects succeed or fail. That is solely the judgement of the agency involved in the “taking.”
As to “blight” let me suggest viewing my two part YouTube video’s exposing Mission Viejo’s “bogus” redevelopment agency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4PFelorZjE Part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW9WxxZSpzg Part 2 of 2
Assemblyman Alejo is attempting to use this change to re-define prime agricultural land on the Manabe-Ow property outside Watsonville, CA as “blighted” to benefit his longtime financial backer, Santa Cruz developer George Ow, Jr. If successful, Ow will receive millions of dollars in RDA funds. No mystery about that for those who live here.
Joe. The key will be the decision of the CA Supreme Court which will be ruling on whether legislative passage of ABx1-26 and ABx1 27 are legally binding.
You might consider attending our next MORR/CURE conference being held in SF on Oct 22nd. We have members who are experts in redevelopment law who will gladly speak to you on your specific local issue. I will provide conference info later.