Responding hurriedly to Gov. Brown’s stunning, unanticipated cost-saving budget proposal this week to eliminate redevelopment agencies throughout the state — now — the five elected officials who serve on the City Council/Redevelopment Agency in Culver City, will convene in emergency session on Saturday afternoon at 2 in Council Chambers.
City Hall officials have been walking around dazed this week over the overwhelming tonnage of the announcement, its explosive implications and its possibly imminent implementation.
They question whether Mr. Brown’s intended action is Constitutional and asserted at the same time that it violates the spirit of Prop. 22, a local-funding measure, heavily approved by the voters two months ago.
City Hall suggested that the Brown scheme “should be further vetted on constitutional grounds,” adding this plea:
“We encourage the governor and legislators to reflect on what the voters have repeatedly communicated at the ballot box on the importance of protecting local government funding.”
City Councilman Andy Weissman said Mr. Brown’s drastic proposal “is bad for the state, bad for communities and particularly bad for Culver City. The Redevelopment Agency provides funding to be able to do a whole host of infrastructure and other amenities that the city would not be able to do.
“Further, I don’t believe this move going to be of any great financial benefit to the state. It is not as though it is going to solve its deficit problems.
“It will have significant detrimental effect on communities that have active, viable redevelopment agencies.”
Impact on Culver City
The potential disappearance of redevelopment agencies “would dramatically alter the landscape,” Mr. Weissman said. “The ability of the Agency to remove blight and promote economic development is something that the city and the state do not have the same rights to do.
“In Culver City, much has been redeveloped, there still are places where redevelopment would be valuable. Under the governor’s plan, those areas no longer would be able to take advantage of what redevelopment has to offer.
Mr. Weissman spotted a single ray of light. “The governor’s proposal does not have the potential to kill current projects,” he said. “The monies are protected for every project the Agency is committed to doing.”
With the state Legislature scheduled to take an up-or-down vote as soon as Tuesday, Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld said last night City Hall that time is short and action is imperative.
“We are going to conduct hearings Saturday on a cooperation agreement and other related implementation agreements to fund redevelopment projects jointly through the Redevelopment Agency and the city,” he said.
Formulating a Fight-Back Plan
“We will be talking about projects important to the community that were identified by the Agency during our budget cycle last year.”
Choosing his words gingerly and diplomatically, Mr. Blumenfeld said that “we will focus on projects that may be affected by the state’s decision to reduce local redevelopment authority.
“Our intent is to ensure we have the ability to carry out the projects that have been identified in these agreements.”
Earlier in the day, Mr. Blumenfeld’s office issued a rare press advisory in which he stoutly defended the accomplishments, the necessity and the mission of Community Development, the key division.
Boasting of Results
The department’s defense was tinged with irony because on Sept. 30 a wing of the state Senate criticized Culver City for having failing to provide sufficient housing for low-income persons and families since the late 1990s.
Yesterday, Mr. Blumenfeld’s office said that the Redevelopment Agency has been able to assist 3,300 very low, low and moderate income households “so that residents may live affordably in decent, safe and sanitary housing units. The Agency is also working on three housing developments that will produce nearly 60 affordable new construction units over the next two years. Without financial assistance from the Agency’s 20 percent Housing Set-Aside Fund, these projects could not be built. Further examples of the success of collaborative redevelopment efforts include the revitalization of Downtown Culver City and the extensive reconstruction of Westfield Culver City, a regional shopping mall. Westfield Culver City generates approximately $3 million in revenues annually for the city and at least $15 million in revenues for the state.”
Charging that the sweeping scheme violates Prop. 22 in spirit, Mr. Blumenfeld served up another ironic moment about the initiative that was supported by 61 percent of California voters:
Last year, Gov. Brown was state Atty. Gen. Brown when he approved the following summary of Prop. 22:
“Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, local government projects and services.”
Once again Sacramento is seeking to take funding from local governments, Mr. Blumenfeld said, even though “Prop. 22. constitutionally prohibits the state from requiring a community redevelopment agency to remit property tax to or for the benefit of the state or any other jurisdiction directly or indirectly. “Prop. 22 clearly states clearly states that it shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of prohibiting the state from taking or borrowing these revenues.
“The governor’s proposal raises other constitutional issues as well.”
To the question “what is redevelopment?” Mr. Blumenfeld gave this response:
“Redevelopment has been around since the 1950s. It is a tool for building things. It builds and improves communities. It spurs job growth and taxes.
“It is the most significant provider of infrastructure, urban development and affordable housing in the state. Successful redevelopment projects are among the many reasons Culver City is a wonderful community to work, shop, dine and to call home.”
