ua-9539515

Under guise of ‘affordable housing,’ abusive agencies might be making a comeback

http://new.vote29.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/comminity-center.jpg

Share with:

 

The City of Twentynine Palms is but one example of redevelopment abuses and mismanagement of local government. The above two sketches are taken from the City of Twentynine Palms’ homepage. They are not directly related to the below headline story, California Policy Center | By Steven Greenhut. They directly relate to city’s bond-redevelopment abuses. These proposed and unnecessary duplicate buildings (above) were never build. Nothing was built. All along, the city (population 26,049 (2016)) defied many of the state attorney general and the state financial director’s mandates. The city council created an annual redevelopment bond repayment, including expenses, consultants, consulting firms, principal and interests, dividends to (local) investors, administrative costs, and attorney fees of all told over $33.5 million for local property owners — without a vote.  The contract law firm for the city encouraged the city to take out a redevelopment debt. They did. The city’s Costa Mesa law firm materially benefited from their legal advise with an outright large payout of bond money as well as a percentage of bond. The below California policy center discusses cities incurring massive debt without a vote. The end result thus far: Plans of 29 Palms redevelopment were thrown after years of planning, because of nonconforming legal complications. Now the city with the same majority on the council commences all over again on downtown renewal — paying many of the same said entities for a new plan. 

California Policy Center | By Steven Greenhut |

Sacramento – In the seven years since Gov. Jerry Brown shut down California’s redevelopment agencies, their defenders have managed to resuscitate their image. Never mind that these controversial agencies ladled out corporate welfare, wantonly abused eminent domain on behalf of developers and diverted $5 billion annually from public services. A new bill would bring them back to life, and its supporters would have us believe they’re the means to resolve California’s housing crisis.

That argument is bizarre given that “redevelopment” actually helped cause the current housing shortage because it overvalued the construction of sales-tax-generating big-box stores at the expense of home construction. Sure, redevelopment law required agencies to set aside 20 percent of their proceeds to build subsidized apartments, but the relatively small number of redevelopment-created units pales in comparison to the havoc wreaked by the land-use distortions caused by these agencies.

Revisionist history is part of human nature, but rarely do the history books get rewritten so quickly. Before lawmakers embrace the Pollyanna view of redevelopment, they need to remind themselves why these agencies were created – and why the state ultimately shuttered them.

The answer to this last question: the agencies failed to accomplish their primary mission of blight removal and ended up imposing severe financial restraints on the state budget.

<snip>

So redevelopment posed myriad problems. First, the agencies ran up enormous debt without the vote of the people. The agencies are gone, but successor agencies still exist with the sole purpose of paying off the debt.

<snip>

The new redevelopment bill, Assembly Bill 3037 by David Chiu, D-San Francisco, doesn’t allow cities to unilaterally take other agencies’ tax funding but won’t be able to stop these new agencies from spending money in questionable ways and hiding a lot of what they do from the public.

California Policy Center full text.

Share with:

Liked it? Take a second to support Cactusthorns on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.