WHY THE REPUBLICAN SILENCE ON BROWN’S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE RDA’S?
By Katy Grimes
There’s mostly silence coming from Republican legislators on Gov. Brown’s budget plan proposal for eliminating redevelopment agencies. The plan would take $1.7 billion dollars from city redevelopment agencies, and redirect the money to school districts, counties and the state to help close the budget deficit.
On the surface, the plan appears to be a real cut and a sincere attempt to eliminate RDAs, which is a good thing.
I assumed that Republican legislators would have something positive to say about the plan, since many Republicans think “redevelopment” has always been code for “legal theft, eminent domain abuse and publicly funded subsidies for large developers.”
However, nearly every Capitol Republican staff member I’ve spoken with recently has been non-committal and provided carefully worded responses, instead of the support I expected for Brown’s proposed elimination of the agencies. Apparently, mum’s the word.
“We don’t want to say anything yet,” was the word from Republican Assembly Minority leader Connie Conway’s office. “Yes, Republicans are working on it, but don’t want to put anything out there too hastily.”
Another assemblymember’s communications director would only speak on the proviso of anonymity: “We are going to wait to see if there is a reaction to recent attempts by agencies to cash in at the last minute. Once options on how to deal with it come up, then we’ll comment … I hate to put anything out there incomplete.” He even said they are “awaiting instruction.”
I understand not wanting to jump to conclusions when the capitol policy people haven’t yet responded, but Republicans are supposed to be reformers. Reformers like budget cuts.
As expected, Fullerton Assemblyman Chris Norby’s staff spoke positively about Brown’s redevelopment cuts. Norby literally wrote the book—“Redevelopment: The Unknown Government”—on redevelopment reform, and updates it annually.
“We are getting much the same response,” said Dave Titus, Norby’s chief of staff. “A lot of people are keeping it close to the vest right now.”
Because the redevelopment process is complicated, it might be understandable that some legislators would be reluctant to comment until the full ramifications of the cuts are known. However, many legislators come from city government, and very clearly understand how the redevelopment process works, and that it is a system wrought with abuse, waste and fraud.
What is well known in Sacramento is the rift between city government representatives and the state.
After he presented his budget proposal, it was reported that Brown told city officials that now is not the time for “turf wars.” He challenged city officials to get out of their “narrow perspectives” and realize that everyone is in a tough situation as the state attempts to fill the $25 billion budget gap.
Brown’s decision to cut redevelopment agencies is serious; once the agencies are eliminated by the governor, they don’t exist any longer.
We can be thankful the finance department has read Norby’s books, and subsequent updated reports. Norby clearly outlines the problem with excessive bond debt, vague definitions of blight, eminent domain abuse, tax shell games, and subsidies to business that all exist within redevelopment agencies.
Norby is the founder of Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform (MORR), a statewide coalition to end abuse by redevelopment agencies, abuse of eminent domain and public subsidies to private development. I highly recommend his books and reports as well—excellent reading material for budget hawks.
If Republicans don’t support a substantial structural cut such as eliminating redevelopment agencies, then what do they embrace as real reform?
READ NEWS, INVESTIGATIONS AND PERSPECTIVE AT CALWATCHDOG.COM
11 Comments
Cutting the RDA means cutting government funded corporate (and ol’ boys’ buddies) special interests. That is why the Republicans have nothing to say.
As a card-carrying fiscal conservative, I strongly support this proposal. Despite that the Long Beach RDA has accomplished some small amount of good in our city, I think the macro negatives far outweigh the micro positives.
For me, the bottom line is that local RDA funds always run the risk of being raided by the state (and most particularly OUR state) in recurring efforts to address its own fiscal ineptitude. Given the persitent tax-and-spend related (and democrat-driven) debt in Sacramento, I think we’re far better off managing our local money ourselves -in simple trust accounts if nothing else- outside the complex and convoluted rules, regulations and laws that currently govern RDAs.
Still, I do not fault people in government, of any political stripe, for choosing to withhold comment on a matter until as many of the facts as possible can be known. There is a lot to be said for circumspection and for due consideration, and even more to be said against knee-jerk reactionism, most especially when it comes to public policy.
If more of our state elected officials practiced more of the former, and less of the latter, I think we would all be a lot better off.
“There is a lot to be said for circumspection and for due consideration, and even more to be said against knee-jerk reactionism”
too bad you dont follow your own advice.
Do you have any evidence to support your allegation, howardx? Or, as I suspect, are you still just scampering about the room and metaphorically kicking at the ankles of the grown-ups?
“Still, I do not fault people in government, of any political stripe, for choosing to withhold comment on a matter until as many of the facts as possible can be known. There is a lot to be said for circumspection and for due consideration, and even more to be said against knee-jerk reactionism, most especially when it comes to public policy.”
John, no offense, but if politicians started making that a habit, we wouldn’t have Obamacare. Repubs are probably taking a breath for a moment for a number of reasons. One being what John mentioned, and another owing to the fact that a lot of repubs despise democrats right now, and applauding something of their doing, however useful, gives them a bellyache.
It’s like being an art/crafts teacher, charles manson is one of your students, and he approaches you with a meticulously constructed “birth of jesus” diorama, soliciting your approval. You might pause as you consider your options to praise his work, or say “fuck you charlie” in front of a brilliant representation of the virgin mary. I mean… I’d take pause. It’s a toughie.
As a card-carrying fiscal liberal (actually it’s a certificate), I completely agree with Mr. Greet about the dissolution of the RDA. I’d go further and say there are no examples of lasting improvements to downtown Long Beach courtesy of the RDA.
Just empty lots, expensive planter screens, and public art that makes you appreciate empty lots.
And considering you have the terrible twins of Lowenthal and Garcia embracing a 13% reduction in parking thanks to the DUI bike lanes, I’d say more funds should be forfeited.
The rest of the stuff about “tax and spend” and “democrat-driven debt”…well, it’s never too off-topic to get in a shot at them. You left out public sector pension costs. Oh wait, that’s your pension.
Hi Andy, I’m sure you realize that as a taxpayer, I too help to support (not simply benefit from) my public safety pension. And so do many members of my immediate and extended family.
I hope you will agree that every worker, public and private sector alike, should have the right to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from his or her employer. My current pension is the direct result of the lawful collective bargaining process that occurs between my former labor organization and duly elected and appointed city officials.
Just as in the private sector, it is an organization’s management (in this case duly elected and appointed city officials) that is responsible for keeping labor city employee costs down and manageable. If you are dissatisfied with the performance of our elected and appointed city officials in this area, then you should take that up with them, and not with those current and former city employees who, as stated, have done nothing more than to avail themselves of their right to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from their employer.
Yep. I’m all for librarians and trash collectors to have a good pension.
Just pointing out you didn’t mention it, while pitching the rest of the “democrats=wasteful spending” talking points, which generally include union (collective bargaining) bashing.
Please remind your friends at the Ayn Rand fan club of your valid points.
Andy: Many, many things impact our state and local budgets in both positive and negative ways. Am I to be taken to task for failing to mention each of them, or only those things that afford you a chance to scoff?
I think there is a perfectly reasonable and objectively verifiable basis upon which to assert that our persistent tax-and-spend related debt in Sacramento is, indeed “Democrat-driven.” This is not to say that many Republicans have not been complicit (willingly or not) in that chronic fiscal malfeasance. But since it is, in fact, the Dems, rather than the Reps, who have held majority control over the state’s purse strings for many, many years now, this truth becomes far more than a simple “talking point.” It is, in fact, the single greatest reason for our state’s persistent financial woes.
You may disagree and you have every right to your opinion. However, I submit that whether it is a Dem controlled tax-and-spend legislature, inept or ineffective Rep. governors, or both, we, collectively, elect these people or, through our ignorance and/or apathy, allow these people to be elected.
In short, we get the government we deserve. So I think *all* voters, of all political stripes, should start taking a good hard look in the mirror and deciding just what sort of state we want to leave our heirs and then finally start voting accordingly.
Andy, I like your style. Don’t ever change.
When John says “collectively bargain” he means veiled and real threats, intimidation, and under-the-table payoffs.
When he says “duly elected officials,” he means corporate and local real estate developer stooges.
Just want to keep things clear.
The fact is, if I’m running either for the Mayor, or Council of the City of Long Beach, and I have $2 million dollars for campaigning, and you have 50K, unless I murder someone on video and post it on YouTube during the election, I will win that election. You won’t. That’s how things work around here.
So kindly stop rolling your eyes into the back of your head. and shaking your magic beads while spewing ancient rhetoric that has no place in modern civilization. It makes you look silly and desperate.
Hi Jason. We elect people who, in turn, appoint others to represent our interests in the collective bargaining process we engage in with our public employee unions. If we are ever dissatisfied with the results of that process, we retain not only the right, but the obligation, to require those we elect to appoint better negotiators and if they do not, to remove them from office and replace them with others who will do so. Shame on us if we do not exert more constructive control over our elected representatives.
As for our electoral process itself, to the degree that we fail to think critically about each candidate and issue, regardless of how many campaign dollars are spent, is the degree to which we, ourselves, remain complicit in whatever poor public policy decisions are made on our behalf.
These are neither magic beads nor ancient mysticism, Jason. They are purely and simply constitutional facts. That somer have allowed themselves to forget these facts and permit some in government to presume to dictate terms to *us* is not the fault of those in government, but of those who put them there.