Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

The "green" Brave New World that our planners and politicians envision for "One Bay Area"

 see article: Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

By Mimi Steel

Plan Bay Area will fundamentally transform the 101 cities and nine counties into urbanized, transit-oriented, high-rise developments. It is a draconian, top-down, 25-year plan conceived by unelected bureaucrats supposedly in response to a problem (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) that will already be solved (per California Air Resources Board) due to transportation technologies such as more fuel-efficient cars, electric cars and telecommuting.

The most unsettling parts of the plan deal with imposition of unfunded mandates on cities and counties. It subverts local control of land use and zoning decisions. It requires:

Cities must set aside priority development areas (PDAs) for mixed-use development (stores on first floor with housing above). Most development over the next 25 years is supposed to be in these highly restricted areas.

Cities must bear the unfunded costs that the additional populations will force on services such as schools, fire, police, etc.

 

The unique characters of most small towns will be destroyed. Towns such as Saratoga, Los Gatos, Dixon, Marinwood must all follow the same template of a downtown center with mid- to high-rise development near mass transit.

Transportation funds will go to projects such as light rail and commuter rail, which are the least cost-effective options for transportation choices.

Road repair and expansion will be neglected because the point of this plan is to get people out of their cars by purposely causing congestion and restricting parking. 

The plan presents an unrealistic and naïve vision where people live close to where they work and play. The objective is that people should bicycle, walk or take mass transit. Portland is a classic example of the disastrous results of such planning. The Cascade Institute submitted a paper against the plan, saying

" ... The draft Plan mimics the Portland strategy in most respects. ... (there are some differences) but the fundamental approach is the same: funnel most future development into a limited number of centers served by transit; spend most transportation dollars on maintenance of the existing system with capacity expansions focused on transit, not highways; and assume that transit use will increase substantially, resulting in improved air quality and reduced GHGs. However, before Bay Area officials adopt such a plan, they should consider the results from the Portland regional experience. Virtually every assumption about changing travel behavior has proven to be wrong."

The plan allows a handful of bureaucrats to make major lifestyle decisions for 7 million people in the Bay Area. This plan has been flying under the radar for two years with stakeholders (those who will benefit from the plan) providing the bulk of the input, while taxpayers, who will be footing the bill, are largely ignored or marginalized.

 

This plan is an attack on free choice, on free markets, on suburban communities and on automobiles. If people really understood the true implications of this plan, they would not want it except in a few urbanized areas such as Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose.

It is small wonder that the planners have tried to keep this largely under the radar. Media coverage has been sparse to nonexistent.

It is unfortunate when a supposed "journalists" takes a critical issue like this plan and trivializes it by demonizing the opposition. Journalists are supposed to provide facts, to inform the citizens so that they can make reasoned decisions. Watch the video of the only debate that was held in the Bay Area (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOE7Hyd5B40) and decide for yourself.

This 81 unit Apartment Building in Portland, Oregon in the background is being built nextdoor to bungalows on a tree lined street. The apartment build has no parking spaces for it's tenants in the belief that the tenants will ride bicycles or take public transit as preferred means of transportation. 

From WSJ.com

Washington's 'Fair Housing' Assault on Local Zoning

Our experience in Westchester shows what the country can expect from a new federal discrimination rule.

By ROBERT P. ASTORINO

Do you think it is a good idea to give the Department of Housing and Urban Development unchecked power to put an apartment building in your neighborhood? HUD has proposed a new rule that could do just that.

In July, HUD published its long-awaited proposal on "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" in the Federal Register. It is a sweeping set of land-use regulations that has attracted little national attention. The agency wants the power to dismantle local zoning so communities have what it considers the right mix of economic, racial and ethnic diversity. A finding of discriminatory behavior, or allegations of discrimination, would no longer be necessary. HUD will supply "nationally uniform data" of what it thinks 1,200 communities should look like.

Local governments will have to "take meaningful actions to further the goals identified." If they fail to comply, HUD can cut federal funding. Westchester County north of New York City has firsthand experience of what the rest of the nation can expect.

HUD and Westchester are battling over local zoning that arose from a 2009 settlement (signed by my predecessor) to build 750 affordable-housing units in 31 mostly white communities. Westchester is well ahead of schedule in meeting these obligations. Almost 400 units have financing and 124 are already occupied. But HUD isn't satisfied because it wants to control local zoning and remake communities.

HUD has told Westchester that any limits on the size, type, height and density of buildings are "restrictive practices."

It demands that the county sue its localities over such common zoning regulations, which are not exclusionary by any stretch of the imagination. If HUD can define what constitutes exclusionary practices, then local zoning as it is known today disappears. Apartments, high rises or whatever else the federal government or a developer wants can be built on any block in America.

This is not hyperbole. Consider that HUD's list of "restrictive practices" includes limits on density even around reservoirs that supply drinking water to New York

City's eight million residents. Who knew ensuring clean water was discriminatory?
HUD's power grab is based on the mistaken belief that zoning and discrimination are the same. They are not. Zoning restricts what can be built, not who lives there.

In the 1970s, New York's highest court, in cases known as the Berenson decisions, established rules for what constitutes exclusionary zoning. Westchester's municipalities either voluntarily or through legal challenges have complied with these judicial rules. Any local zoning code also remains open to legal challenge. There are long-standing legal standards by which local zoning is judged and continually reviewed.

As required by HUD, Westchester County analyzed all 853 local zoning districts in February 2012. It found no evidence of exclusionary practices based on race or ethnicity. The county's conclusion was supported in a separate analysis by John R. Nolon, an affordable-housing expert at Pace University's Land Use Law Center.

HUD rejected the findings and cut off $17 million of federal funds to the county. The county prepared seven additional analyses, each one exploring more data as demanded by HUD. But as many times as HUD attempted to move the goal posts, the findings did not change. There is no evidence that zoning requirements on things like building size and height are racially exclusionary.

Last month HUD finally demanded—without presenting any facts—that the county accept its conclusion that there is exclusionary zoning in Westchester as a condition of releasing the funds. The agency's demand flies in the face of the July 31 "report card" issued by James E. Johnson, the federal monitor hired by HUD to oversee its 2009 affordable housing settlement. Mr. Johnson found no evidence of exclusionary zoning based on race or ethnicity.

Westchester is proudly the fourth most diverse county in New York in its population of African-Americans and Hispanics. Hispanics are the county's fastest-growing ethnic group, increasing in every community in the last census. The number of African-Americans continues to grow in contrast to an exodus from many areas in the Northeast. But HUD won't budge. Its vision for remaking neighborhoods depends on gaining control of local zoning.

The $17 million that HUD is withholding include Community Development Block Grants to help needy residents with neighborhood revitalization, new playgrounds and sidewalks, programs to prevent homelessness and, ironically, affordable housing. Westchester has sued the federal government to release these funds. Our claim is that HUD is unfairly holding hostage the communities and nonprofit agencies that administer those programs in its fight with the county. A federal judge dismissed Westchester's claim last month, saying HUD's ruling was written in a way that "excludes it from judicial review." The lawsuit is now before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

HUD has no idea how much its new rule will cost, or whether it will even work. The only economic analysis HUD has provided concerns how much it will cost communities to comply with the paperwork. HUD estimates $3 million to $9 million. The agency has not published any estimate of other effects, such as on local real-estate markets or local budgets. As stated in the Federal Register, "HUD cannot quantify the benefits and costs of policies influenced by the rule."

HUD is asking for comments on its new rule by Sept. 17. If elected officials and citizens do not want to cede control of their streets, neighborhoods and open space to Washington, now is the time to say so.

Mr. Astorino is the Westchester County executive.

Editor's Note:  Marin is under a similar agreement with HUD and Marinwood-Lucas Valley is the "test market" for implementing the changes.  We have written extensively about it.  Click on the "HUD" category in the right hand column for more info.

Marin Voice: Silencing the voice of the people

By Susan Kirsch
Guest op-ed column

POSTED:   08/14/2013 08:39:00 PM PDT

Click photo to enlarge

Susan Kirsch, a longtime resident of Mill Valley, is one of the founders of Citizen Marin, an...

IN THE DISCUSSION over the problems and promises of Plan Bay Area, one aspect of the debate was overlooked. The vote to approve Plan Bay Area was taken by a JPA — the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

JPA is an acronym that can refer to a Joint Powers Agreement, Joint Powers Agency or Joint Powers Authority. A JPA is formed when two or more public authorities (governments, utilities, transport districts, etc.) agree to operate collectively.

The first JPA was formed in the 1920s when San Francisco and Alameda collaborated to combat tuberculosis.

Over the years, hundreds of JPAs have been formed, especially in California. The Marin Energy Authority and the Marin County Open Space District are examples.

The good news about a JPA is it encourages cooperation, can leverage funding, incur debt and sell bonds.

The bad news is JPAs are not approved by the vote of the people, but are formed when public officials negotiate a formal agreement among themselves.

JPAs operate with their own board of directors, selected from among the participating agencies, not by a public vote. The back-room power that is accumulating in groups like ABAG undermines local control.

With ABAG we get a group of city and county elected officials attending public-private meetings alongside agencies that have alliances with corporations, developers, non-governmental organizations and government agencies.

ABAG and its partners have effectively created a layer of regional government that controls information, manipulates public discussion, and uses a carrot/stick approach to gain compliance.

Let's look at how the ABAG-JPA worked in Marin on July 18, when Supervisors Steve Kinsey and Katie Rice, and Pat Eklund voted on Plan Bay Area. The Board of Supervisors appointed Kinsey as its representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a separate entity. The supervisors appointed Rice as their representative to ABAG. And the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers selected Novato Mayor Eklund to represent them.

Who represented you and me? For the majority of us, the answer is "no one!"

Typical of JPAs, this failure to have directly elected representatives make decisions undermines local control in four significant ways.

In the case of Plan Bay Area:

• Neither Kinsey, Rice nor Eklund represented a constituency, other than their own small board and the Council of Mayors.

• Not directly representing a constituency, they have no accountability for the outcomes of their decision.

• The plan and the vote were tightly controlled by unelected ABAG staff.

The vote on Plan Bay Area is behind us. However, the next challenge is emerging.

Senators Darryl Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Mark DeSaulnier, D-Walnut Creek, have introduced SB1, the Sustainable Communities Investment Program, which creates a Sustainable Communities Investment Authority. The SCIA, a JPA, will be a mechanism to implement Plan Bay Area.

SB1 authorizes the establishment of Investment Areas and Investment Plans. Cities and counties that form SCIAs will operate with appointed, not elected members. Its boards will draft policy, issue bonds, borrow money, and use tax increment financing provisions.

All of this will be outside the public eye.

Among many concerns, one is that this new JPA's first audit occurs five years into operations, with no provision to make the findings public.

JPAs like ABAG and SCIA cloud — no, close the window of government transparency. The public is left uninformed, and awareness and commitment to the common good is eroded.

Another JPA will nudge the needle a little closer to "One Bay Area government, diminishing the pesky voice of the people who care about the quality of life in their community and want a vote in determining its future.

Susan Kirsch, a longtime resident of Mill Valley, is one of the founders of Citizen Marin, an organization that raised objections to Plan Bay Area's impact on Marin land-use planning and loss of local control.

How Marin Was Ruined

San Francisco Bay Area Citizens protest SB-1 and Darrell Steinberg responds in 2013.

Skeptical Citizens are not buying SB-1- California's Redevelopment Land Grab Legislation in 2013.
The Measure was tabled but new MORE POWERFUL land grab legislation passed this year HERE

The colorful Jimmy Fishbob Geraghty watches over the proceeding.

Density Bonus considerations threaten quality of life in the Bay Area

December 3, 2013 by Richard Eber

The term “density bonus” in urban planning might seem to be an innocent expression used by architects to explain how they can build more units on a given building site than existing zoning ordinances might allow. While this text book terminology would appear to be of little consequence, the ramifications of how density bonus elements are implemented are at the forefront in the battle to determine where people in the Bay Area will reside in the next quarter century.

With the loss of redevelopment agencies by the State of California after Jerry Brown took office, there is less public funding available to finance Project Development Areas (PDAs). Most of these PDA’s are intended for locations in close proximity to BART Stations. They are supposed to reduce carbon foot prints, encourage use of public transportation, conserve open space, and provide affordable housing for the less wealthy residents of California.

These density bonus goals are the center piece of the recently adapted blueprint by regional governmental agencies Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), that were incorporated into the Plan Bay Area. In order to take care of the government’s priorities, granting density bonus points to plans to increase the number of residents to infill their PDAs has become a necessity.

Mandating these requirements to gain suspect social economic, and environmental benefits, density bonus enables developers to make money on volume, not quality. Consequently, a large percentage of affordable and low income houses could be constructed in PDAs. These numbers would start at about 20% to over 50% of the units that the State’s regional government agencies wants from these developments. Not what cities want.

Density Bonus considerations also have their own baggage. In addition to income considerations, the social engineers in Sacramento want other factors including ethnic background, age, marital status, and physical limitations to be factored in to determine who should occupy these “public palaces,” not to mention special consideration for members of the welfare industrial state including teachers, first responders,municipal workers represented by powerful unions. Somehow this added “diversity” will lead to improved quality of life for all concerned.

Density Bonus impact on housing construction

Without density bonus, it is much more difficult to attract entrepreneurs to construct housing that meets State guidelines. As a rule of thumb, a developer needs to obtain approximately three times the cost of what they are paying for land in order to break even on a project. This equation can be slightly altered depending on permit fees, environmental impact reports, and other opportunity costs.

If a builder is asked to charge less than market rates or do construction projects that are more costly, companies must be compensated. The easiest way to do this is for a construction project bid to build more units than local zoning ordinances allows by:

1. Build higher, wider, and more densely than general plans allow

2. Reduce square footage so additional dwellings can be constructed, as well as smaller dwellings

3. Relax parking standards for each unit in order to cut costs and encourage use of public transport like daily trips to Safeway

This is where density bonus policies become the primary tool to achieve the State’s social objectives. Unfortunately, the consequences that will impact communities are not factored, as if these plans are designed to fail.

Presently, there is strong local control monitoring this type of this type of local development. An example would be the recent downsizing of a previously approved housing complex in downtown Lafayette by its City Council. Residents complained that increased congestion merited reducing the number of units that were to be built. In Walnut Creek, another case foreshadowing problems created by density bonus projects, lack of parking for a project resulted in the builder having to install a car elevator to increase available spaces for apartment dwellers.

Cities having power in such matters may become a thing of the past under proposed legislation in the State Senate. Co-sponsored by Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), SB-1, if passed, would allow PDA administrators to have ultimate authority determining the size and scope of individual projects.

SB-1

Under SB-1 these PDAs would be able to impose special property taxes and issue bonds(!) to do work in areas under their jurisdictions without a direct vote of the people. In addition they would have the power to designate single family homes as “blight” and be able to condemn such properties as they feel is appropriate. Granting density bonus would be determined by the State and Regional Agencies.

In the last legislative session, SB-1 was passed by both Houses but did not become law because of a veto threat from the Governor. It is expected that the legislation will be approved once again in 2014 with minor changes to be made so Jerry Brown would agree to sign the bill into law.

The problem for cities, especially suburban locales in Contra Costa County, is that if density bonus is bestowed to developers doing projects in congested downtown areas or near BART stations, the impact on these communities will be drastic. This is why there is so much opposition to the One Bay Area Plan in parts of Marin County, the Peninsula, Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, and San Ramon. There are indications that this discontent may be spreading to less affluent cities, as well.

Major concerns exist not only on the impact on infrastructure such as parking, traffic, sewer, water, as well as overburden fire and police services, and also added enrolment in public school systems. Missing in the One Bay Area Plan is a way for individual cities to pay for civic improvements without reducing the quality of life for existing residents.

With the One Bay Area Plan there seems to be a chasm between the big cities on the Hwy 80 corridor where the “stack and pack” model is intended to work and the suburbs. The major difference is that in the big cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, residents can use public transportation to get around as opposed to Contra Costa where the automobile is still the preferred manner of conveyance.

There is a growing perception that the State Government wants to discourage automobile use wherever they can. Determining where and how people live with density bonus programs seems to be a handy way for them to achieve this objective.

Instead of offering contrasting life style decisions up to each community, the Plan Bay Area is exactly that (One Plan). Those who do not desire to live in apartments and condos nor abandon their single family residences, are being challenged by unelected central planners who want to impose their utopian visions and questionable science on families who reside in the suburbs. Density Bonus is the planning tool to accomplish this aim.

This is where the battle lines are being formed in determining the future landscape of California. Thus far, the Democratic Super Majority in the California Legislature has been able to prevail with their surrogates at ABAG and the MTC gaining authority to manipulate and intimidate local communities to meet their urban planning objectives. What remains to be seen is if disenfranchised residents can persuade current office holders to change their policies; or alternatively, replace them with elected officials who will.

Editor's Note: SB-1 was tabled in 2013 and has been replaced by an aggressive set of Redevelopment Bills  like SB 628 which allows redevelopment and taxation WITHOUT finding a cause of blight!  This is eminent domain on steroids and will drastically impose government directives over the free will of the people.  We will Save Marin Again!

Redevelopment: A Tale of Two Cities- Eminent Domain for Smart Growth?

Recently Supervisor Susan Adams and other Marin county Supervisors removed the Marinwood Priority Development Area first proposed by Supervisor Adams on August 7, 2007.  It includes all land with 1/2 mile of the 101 corridor in Marin.  This will likely be superceded by a new redevelopment law, if passed as projected will have the same effect as a priority development area.  Property can be seized by "eminent domain" if they are determined to have "inefficient land use patterns" i.e.  less than 20 units per acre density.  All land east of Las Gallinas will be threatened.

We are in the midst of a major power grab of California property rights, not seen in our lifetimes.  It is time to fight against this intrusion on our California way of life and preserve liberty for future generations. We must defeat this Plan Bay Area and restore our freedoms.

If you live in the shaded area your home may be subject to eminent domain.  PDAs are no longer needed

New Law mandates "Transit Oriented Development" and taxes YOU to pay for it! (and you can't stop it)

READ CAREFULLY-THIS BILL COULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR PLANNING EFFORTS-  Serious government overreach!

Assemblyman Marc Levine voted for this Bill!

What is Marc Levine thinking!?

 

SACRAMENTO WATCH, CONTINUING---Keep Your Eyes On SB628!!!

Here's a rewrite of last year's stalled Senate Bill 1 that's just as scary---unless you don't mind unelected bureaucrats of the Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) being given increased power to refashion local communities in the transit oriented development (TOD) mode AS WELL AS TAXING LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY FOR IT.

This bill would create a new and potentially revolutionary financing mechanism to fund TOD projects without voter approval. As currently written, this is an act to add Section 53395.7.5 to the Government Code, relating to local planning.  It passed both the Assembly and the Senate in 2013 and has now been amended by the Assembly and passed again on July 3, 2014.  It has just been sent back to the Senate, where it is expected to pass again with the Assembly amendments shown below.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 628, as amended, Beall. Infrastructure financing: transit priority projects.

Existing law establishes the Transit Priority Project Program, and authorizes a city or county to participate in the program by adopting an ordinance indicating its intent to participate in the program and by forming an infrastructure financing district. Existing law requires a city or county that elects to participate in the program to amend, if necessary, its general plan, and any related specific plan, to authorize participating developers to build at an increased height of a minimum of 3 stories within the newly created infrastructure financing district. Existing law exempts from these provisions a city or county that has adopted specified language in its charter, or by ordinance or resolution. Under existing law, a transit priority project that meets specified criteria is designated as a sustainable communities project, and is thus exempt from certain environmental review requirements.

This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district, the issuance of bonds, and the establishment or change of the appropriations limit with respect to a transit priority project. The bill would require a city or county that uses infrastructure financing district bonds to finance its transit priority project to use at least 25% of the associated property tax increment revenues for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the supply of lower and moderate-income housing available in the district and occupied by persons and families of moderate-, low-, very low, and extremely low income. The bill would require the district to implement these affordable housing provisions in accordance with specified provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions governing infrastructure financing districts. The bill would require the adoption of an ordinance that would require the replacement of designated low-income dwelling units, upon their removal from the district, within 2 years of their displacement. The bill would set forth the findings and declarations of the Legislature, and the intent of the Legislature that the development of transit priority projects be environmentally conscious and sustainable, and that related construction meet or exceed the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) The transportation sector contributes over 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the State of California.

(2) Greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology and by the increased use of low-carbon fuel. However, even taking these measures into account, it will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation.

(3) California local governments need sustainable funding sources to accommodate transportation and land use planning and to develop projects that are consistent with the state’s climate, air quality, and energy conservation goals.

(4) Existing law authorizes cities and counties to create infrastructure financing districts (IFDs) and utilize related tax-increment financing for infrastructure improvements in local jurisdictions.

(5) Tax-increment financing of transit priority projects, through the use of IFDs, will provide a new tool for green development to help achieve the sustainable communities strategy and regional transportation plan goals of Senate Bill 375 of the 2007–08 Regular Session of the Legislature (Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008), as well as the greenhouse gas reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 of the 2005–06 Regular Session of the Legislature (Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006).

(6) Recent studies of transit ridership in California indicate that people who live within a one-half mile radius of transit stations utilize the transit system in far greater numbers than does the general public living elsewhere.

(7) Greater use of public transportation, facilitated by the development of transit priority projects, will increase the development of walkable, mixed-use communities; increase the use of public transit, intercity rail, and future high-speed rail services; improve local street, road, and highway congestion; provide viable alternatives to automobile use; and decrease transportation-related emissions.

(8) Investment in local transit priority project development can improve local and regional economies by providing appropriate commercial and residential development opportunities, including job creation through the construction of related facilities, and job creation through employment opportunities associated with related entertainment, retail, residential, and other mixed-use development.

(9) Expediting the process for local governments to create IFDs to implement transit priority projects will provide significant environmental and economic benefits to local jurisdictions and help meet the state’s climate, air quality, and energy conservation goals.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the development of transit priority projects throughout the state be environmentally conscious and sustainable, and that related construction meet or exceed the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 (commencing with Section 101.1) of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or its successor code).

SEC. 2.

 Section 53395.7.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:

(a) The district may finance any project that implements a transit priority project pursuant to Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.

(b) With respect to an infrastructure financing district proposed to implement a transit priority project pursuant to Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, an election is not required to form an infrastructure financing district, issue bonds, or establish or change the appropriations limit pursuant to this chapter.

(c) (1) At least 25 percent of all revenues derived from the property tax increment under this section shall be used for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the supply of lower and moderate-income housing available in the district at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and occupied Code. Units funded pursuant to this subdivision shall be restricted to occupancy by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, and extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law, the district shall implement this subdivision in accordance with Section 33334.2 and all other applicable affordable housing provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code), to the extent not inconsistent with this chapter.

(d) The district may provide for the receipt of tax increment funds pursuant to this chapter, for purposes of a project subject to this section, provided that the local government with land use jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance that requires does both of the following:

(1) Prohibits the number of housing units occupied by extremely low, very low, and low-income households, including the number of bedrooms in those units, within the territory of the district at the time the district is established from being reduced during the effective period of the infrastructure plan.

 

Redevelopment Resurrection?

Redevelopment Resurrection?

Jerry Brown signals the return of abusive local agencies in a limited form.

23 May 2014

Sometimes the right things happen for the wrong reason, such as when California governor Jerry Brown signed budget legislation in 2011 to shut down the state’s ham-fisted redevelopment agencies. Brown’s opposition to redevelopment had nothing to do with fidelity to private-property rights or disdain for eminent-domain abuse; it was a fiscal expedient to find money in a tight budget year. The agencies had siphoned 12 percent of the state’s budget annually from traditional public services—public education, firefighting, and the like—and directed it toward local economic-development projects. They also distorted local economies, subsidized developers, and abused property owners. Now that the state’s budget outlook has improved at least superficially, the agencies could make a comeback.

Over the last three years, Brown vetoed several bills that would have revived the redevelopment agencies in one form or another. Earlier this month, though, the governor unveiled his revised May budget, which suggested a much brighter fiscal picture. Officials are now talking about how to squirrel away surpluses and pay down debt. And theredevelopment agencies’ supporters are stepping up efforts to resurrect their favored program.

Formed by a 1940s-era law designed to channel money into urban slums, redevelopment agencies became a means for cities to subsidize tax-generating auto malls, hotels, and shopping centers—especially after 1978’s property-tax-limiting Proposition 13 curbed the locals’ ability to raise taxes on homeowners and businesses. Here’s how it worked. The agencies would declare an area blighted and then float bonds to pay for new infrastructure in the targeted neighborhood. The “tax increment”—the growth in property-tax revenues following the creation of the project area—would be used to pay off the debt. Cities gained tax revenue from the new shopping centers and hotels.

The controversies surrounding redevelopment came to a head in 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that local governments could use eminent domain for “public benefit”—even if that benefit happened to enrich private developers. (In California, redevelopment agencies often grabbed properties to help developers build tax-generating projects that would fill their coffers.) After Kelo, more than 40 states passed at least modest reforms to check eminent domain’s excesses. But the Golden State’s idea of “reform”—shepherded by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association—was a ballot initiative merely restricting eminent domain in residential neighborhoods.

In 2010, redevelopment supporters passed another initiative, this one protecting the agencies’ funding from being raided by the legislature. Brown outsmarted them by simply shutting down the agencies over the objections of most Republican lawmakers, who, despite their property-rights rhetoric, argued that the move was an assault on local control. But earlier this year, Brown said he could support expanded use of Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs)—projects that used the same tax-increment financing mechanism as the defunct redevelopment agencies, but with tighter restrictions and for a limited number of projects. IFDs can wield eminent domain, but they require the consent of other affected bureaucracies. Under the old redevelopment arrangements, cities could create an RDA and swipe tax dollars from other agencies at will. So the IFDs offer protections for other government agencies—but nothing for property owners. Brown has no objections to them, as long as revenues for public schools and other traditional public services remain untouched.

Meantime, an attorney with the law firm of Rutan & Tucker has filed a state initiative that would revive the old redevelopment regime, with even fewer limits. The measure would repeal the agencies’ elimination, remove past caps on debt limits, broadly expand blight definitions, and reduce affordable-housing requirements. Though some cities support the measure, many political observers suspect it is really intended to prod recalcitrant Democrats into restoring the redevelopment agencies in some form.

Redevelopment’s foes worry about these efforts to revive the program, but their voices are mostly absent from the public debate. When California voters have heard about RDAs lately, it’s usually from figures like Tim Donnelly, a Republican assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate from the Southern California mountain town of Twin Peaks. Donnelly had been sharply critical of Brown—not for trying to revive redevelopment, but for shuttering the RDAs in the first place. (Donnelly backed away from his RDA support after it became an issue in the campaign.) In all likelihood, redevelopment will come back in the form of expanded Infrastructure Finance Districts. Brown has been forthright about his intentions, and unless the economy collapses again, Californians should have no reason to expect a change of heart from the governor. The big question is what will happen after Brown finishes his final term. That’s when California will need to have a real debate about redevelopment

.

Steven Greenhut is the California columnist for U-T San Diego. He is based in Sacramento.

Gov. Jerry Brown seeks redevelopment replacement

• 
  

By JOHN HOWARD
CAPITOL WEEKLY

March 2, 2014, 3:54 PM

Two years after Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature dismantled California's $5 billion-a-year redevelopment program, Brown wants to bring some elements back, but he's offering less money, a different name and a change in local voters' approval.
The crux of Brown's plan is to expand the reach of the rarely-used, little-known infrastructure finance districts. The districts, or IFDs, have taxing authority and are created with voter approval. They rely on property tax dollars and focus on highways, transit and sewer projects, libraries, parks and child care centers.
Brown wants to add to that list urban “infill” development, affordable housing, development to encourage use of public transportation and former military bases, and what his office calls “necessary consumer services.”
Many of the additions overlap with projects once carried out by redevelopment agencies, first authorized by the state after World War II to combat urban decay and blight.
The notion of using IFDs has some support in the Legislature, where a number of lawmakers have authored IFD-related bills.
“It does make sense,” said Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who authored a major IFD bill, SB 33. “It gives local government a financing tool for public projects ... and the infrastructure finance district does not take money from the schools, or from any other agency without its agreement.”
The administration's plan is the culmination of the furious politicking that has wracked the Capitol since Brown first proposed in 2011 to abolish redevelopment agencies to help solve state budget woes and free up funds for other cash-strapped public needs.
Some 400 agencies across the state were formally eliminated in early 2012, over the objections of many cities and counties where officials argued that they would be left without a vital financing tool for much needed projects.
Dozens of municipalities sued the state over the move, including Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Brown's new proposal could provide a way to settle many of the court cases.

View as one page     1 | 2 | 3 | 4   Next

(page 2 of 4)

Santa Rosa in its lawsuit hopes to recoup $7.4 million, which stemmed from loans the city made to three redevelopment areas. The redevelopment agency was abolished before the loans were repaid, leaving the city on the hook.
Sonoma County is also locked in a legal battle with the state, having won a lower court ruling last year in its bid to keep $14 million in funding for its two largest redevelopment projects, in Roseland and along Highway 12 in Sonoma Valley.
The ruling is now up on appeal.
Under the governor's proposal, Santa Rosa and the county would need to resolve their legal cases with the state before being allowed to set up an infrastructure finance district.
The Finance Department, the state office that actually writes the governor's budgets, posted the governor's proposal Feb. 21 in the form of a so-called “trailer bill,” a measure tied to the budget that takes effect only if the main budget bill is approved. Typically, a budget may carry a dozen trailer bills that reflect agreements reached to win passage of the main bill.
The Finance Department in its January budget proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year said the governor's “goal is to maintain the IFD focus on projects which have tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents of the IFD project area.”
Unlike redevelopment agencies, local entities such as fire and community service districts affected by IFD projects have the option of participating or not, “ensuring the impacted local agencies have a voice in whether they will contribute their revenue to those projects and, if so, how their revenues will be used,” the administration said. Cities and counties are the most likely entities to create IFDs.
Schools are specifically barred from participation in IFDs. That prohibition is crucial, because under a state law approved by voters in 1988, school funding is guaranteed by the state and the schools must be kept financially whole. The impact of redevelopment on school funding played a role in Brown's move to eliminate the redevelopment agencies.

View as one page     Prev   1 | 2 | 3 | 4   Next

(page 3 of 4)

“I think it's a start. It's not going to have a strong impact, at least in the beginning. But it doesn't hurt,” said Cindy Trobitz-Thomas, former redevelopment and housing director in Eureka. During her stint there, she helped coordinate a $60 million waterfront restoration and improvement project.
“A lot of redevelopment activities fell under the radar,” she added. “It was really difficult to differentiate what was going on. This is really a claim about transparency. When you establish an IFD, issue debt and collect taxes, it is a much more open process in terms of what's going on with tax dollars.”
In their calls to end redevelopment agencies, critics, including Brown, pointed to cases of financial waste and abuse, where property tax funding was being used for all sorts of projects, including a controversial $17 million upgrade of a Palm Desert golf course.
In raw dollars, the IFDs represent a smaller price tag, although it's too early to say how small.
“It's less lucrative,” Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties. “From a county perspective, we think it's a better approach than the old (redevelopment) model,” she added. “Whether or not it's a feasible tool, I really can't say at this point. But we like the idea of the taxing entity having to say, 'We will contribute' or 'No, we will not contribute.'”
The governor's proposal would lower the threshold for voter approval of IFDs and local projects from 66 percent to 55 percent. Under redevelopment, city and county leaders typically established redevelopment areas and launched projects without going to the electorate, Hurst noted.
Infrastructure finance districts have been seldom used since they were authorized by the state in 1990. A major exception was the Legoland project in Carlsbad in San Diego County 15 years ago, a Senate analysis said. Another example was the IFD created in 2012 in San Francisco in connection with the America's Cup yacht races. There appear to be none in Sonoma County.

View as one page     Prev   1 | 2 | 3 | 4   Next

(page 4 of 4)

At least a half-dozen bills related to IFDs, including Wolk's and another bill, SB 1 by Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, were moved to inactive status last fall by the Assembly Majority Leader — and soon to be speaker — Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, after the governor let it be known that he wanted to craft his own plan for 2014.
Another bill, AB 229 by Assembly Speaker John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, was also derailed, while SB 628 by Sen. Ed Beall, D-San Jose, actually was approved by both the Senate and Assembly and was headed to the governor's desk when it was retrieved.
The abolishment of redevelopment programs touched off what has proven to be an enduring political and legal fight between the state and local governments.
Through mid-February, a total of 181 lawsuits had been filed by municipalities challenging the state's move on various grounds.
Of those cases, 82 were decided in the state's favor, six have gone against the state, five partially favored the state and 49 remain active pending Superior Court hearings, according to the state Finance Department. Another 39 suits were filed but are not active, said Finance Department spokesman H. D. Palmer.
Brown's proposal says that local governments could take advantage of the expanded IFDs only “on the conclusion of any outstanding legal issues between the successor agency, the city or county that created the (redevelopment agency) and the state.” Other requirements include audits by the state controller and approvals from the Finance Department.
Does that mean Brown's proposal, in its present form, could clear the decks of litigation by requiring warring parties to resolve their legal differences?
“We believe so,” Palmer wrote in an email.

View as one page     Prev   1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Two years after Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature dismantled California's $5 billion-a-year redevelopment program, Brown wants to bring some elements back, but he's offering less money, a different name and a change in local voters' approval.

The crux of Brown's plan is to expand the reach of the rarely-used, little-known infrastructure finance districts. The districts, or IFDs, have taxing authority and are created with voter approval. They rely on property tax dollars and focus on highways, transit and sewer projects, libraries, parks and child care centers.

Brown wants to add to that list urban “infill” development, affordable housing, development to encourage use of public transportation and former military bases, and what his office calls “necessary consumer services.”

Many of the additions overlap with projects once carried out by redevelopment agencies, first authorized by the state after World War II to combat urban decay and blight.
The notion of using IFDs has some support in the Legislature, where a number of lawmakers have authored IFD-related bills.

“It does make sense,” said Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who authored a major IFD bill, SB 33. “It gives local government a financing tool for public projects ... and the infrastructure finance district does not take money from the schools, or from any other agency without its agreement.”
The administration's plan is the culmination of the furious politicking that has wracked the Capitol since Brown first proposed in 2011 to abolish redevelopment agencies to help solve state budget woes and free up funds for other cash-strapped public needs.

Some 400 agencies across the state were formally eliminated in early 2012, over the objections of many cities and counties where officials argued that they would be left without a vital financing tool for much needed projects.

Dozens of municipalities sued the state over the move, including Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Brown's new proposal could provide a way to settle many of the court cases.
Santa Rosa in its lawsuit hopes to recoup $7.4 million, which stemmed from loans the city made to three redevelopment areas. The redevelopment agency was abolished before the loans were repaid, leaving the city on the hook.

Sonoma County is also locked in a legal battle with the state, having won a lower court ruling last year in its bid to keep $14 million in funding for its two largest redevelopment projects, in Roseland and along Highway 12 in Sonoma Valley.

The ruling is now up on appeal.

Under the governor's proposal, Santa Rosa and the county would need to resolve their legal cases with the state before being allowed to set up an infrastructure finance district.
The Finance Department, the state office that actually writes the governor's budgets, posted the governor's proposal Feb. 21 in the form of a so-called “trailer bill,” a measure tied to the budget that takes effect only if the main budget bill is approved. Typically, a budget may carry a dozen trailer bills that reflect agreements reached to win passage of the main bill.

The Finance Department in its January budget proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year said the governor's “goal is to maintain the IFD focus on projects which have tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents of the IFD project area.”

Unlike redevelopment agencies, local entities such as fire and community service districts affected by IFD projects have the option of participating or not, “ensuring the impacted local agencies have a voice in whether they will contribute their revenue to those projects and, if so, how their revenues will be used,” the administration said. Cities and counties are the most likely entities to create IFDs.

Schools are specifically barred from participation in IFDs. That prohibition is crucial, because under a state law approved by voters in 1988, school funding is guaranteed by the state and the schools must be kept financially whole. The impact of redevelopment on school 
funding played a role in Brown's move to eliminate the redevelopment agencies.

“I think it's a start. It's not going to have a strong impact, at least in the beginning. But it doesn't hurt,” said Cindy Trobitz-Thomas, former redevelopment and housing director in Eureka. During her stint there, she helped coordinate a $60 million waterfront restoration and improvement project.

“A lot of redevelopment activities fell under the radar,” she added. “It was really difficult to differentiate what was going on. This is really a claim about transparency. When you establish an IFD, issue debt and collect taxes, it is a much more open process in terms of what's going on with tax dollars.”

In their calls to end redevelopment agencies, critics, including Brown, pointed to cases of financial waste and abuse, where property tax funding was being used for all sorts of projects, including a controversial $17 million upgrade of a Palm Desert golf course.

In raw dollars, the IFDs represent a smaller price tag, although it's too early to say how small.
“It's less lucrative,” Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties. “From a county perspective, we think it's a better approach than the old (redevelopment) model,” she added. “Whether or not it's a feasible tool, I really can't say at this point. But we like the idea of the taxing entity having to say, 'We will contribute' or 'No, we will not contribute.'”

The governor's proposal would lower the threshold for voter approval of IFDs and local projects from 66 percent to 55 percent. Under redevelopment, city and county leaders typically established redevelopment areas and launched projects without going to the electorate, Hurst noted.

Infrastructure finance districts have been seldom used since they were authorized by the state in 1990. A major exception was the Legoland project in Carlsbad in San Diego County 15 years ago, a Senate analysis said. Another example was the IFD created in 2012 in San Francisco in connection with the America's Cup yacht races. There appear to be none in Sonoma County.

At least a half-dozen bills related to IFDs, including Wolk's and another bill, SB 1 by Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, were moved to inactive status last fall by the Assembly Majority Leader — and soon to be speaker — Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, after the governor let it be known that he wanted to craft his own plan for 2014.

Another bill, AB 229 by Assembly Speaker John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, was also derailed, while SB 628 by Sen. Ed Beall, D-San Jose, actually was approved by both the Senate and Assembly and was headed to the governor's desk when it was retrieved.

The abolishment of redevelopment programs touched off what has proven to be an enduring political and legal fight between the state and local governments.
Through mid-February, a total of 181 lawsuits had been filed by municipalities challenging the state's move on various grounds.

Of those cases, 82 were decided in the state's favor, six have gone against the state, five partially favored the state and 49 remain active pending Superior Court hearings, according to the state Finance Department. Another 39 suits were filed but are not active, said Finance Department spokesman H. D. Palmer.

Brown's proposal says that local governments could take advantage of the expanded IFDs only “on the conclusion of any outstanding legal issues between the successor agency, the city or county that created the (redevelopment agency) and the state.” Other requirements include audits by the state controller and approvals from the Finance Department.

Does that mean Brown's proposal, in its present form, could clear the decks of litigation by requiring warring parties to resolve their legal differences?

“We believe so,” Palmer wrote in an email