With Governor Jerry Brown proposing to do away with the state’s nearly 60-year-old redevelopment agency funding system — whereby jurisdictions can get a cut of property taxes to fix up blighted neighborhoods — cities around California are scrambling to spend their dough before the budget ax falls. But in Goleta, a young city whose Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has plenty of critical work on the immediate horizon, the governor’s gutting would spell certain disaster and trap the Old Town area in its problematic, flood-prone past.
So says Vyto Adomaitis, the City of Goleta’s director of redevelopment, neighborhood services, and public safety. “When you look at Santa Barbara and the community it has become over the years, a big part of that is because of redevelopment,” he explained of his city’s neighbor, where the Paseo Nuevo mall, parking lots, and State Street enhancements were all made possible with RDA monies. “We would like the opportunity to improve our community, too.”
For Goleta’s redevelopment zone — which was created by the County of Santa Barbara in 1998, includes 1,006 parcels, and covers 595 acres along Hollister Avenue roughly between Highway 217 and Fairview Avenue — the “flagship project” is a $25-million flood-channel improvement for San Jose Creek, $14 million of which comes from RDA funds. By drying up the threat of flooding for Old Town, which was mostly underwater during the storms of 1995 and 1998, property owners in the area could once again get proper insurance and be encouraged to redevelop their businesses. If the governor’s proposal goes through, said Adomaitas, “That project would not happen.”
Additionally, the city was planning to use RDA funds to improve traffic circulation on Hollister; build connections for Ekwill and Fowler roads to Fairview that will open up the ocean-side blocks of Old Town and allow for street festivals on Hollister; and build parking structures to foster more business activity in the area. And Adomaitas is quick to remind that plenty of critical RDA work has already been done in Old Town, including improvements on 37 homes, refurbishments to 49 storefronts, and the building of Sumida Gardens, a 200-unit apartment complex with 34 affordable units. “It’s not a very large area, but these monies and these projects are needed to make Old Town a better place to live and do business in,” said Adomaitas, who understands complaints that other RDAs across the state might be using their money for more frivolous projects like theaters, but maintains that Goleta’s are all of the nuts-and-bolts variety.
So how likely is it that Brown’s RDA slashing — which would only backfill about $1.7 billion of the state’s $25-billion budget shortfall and be specifically spent on underfunded MediCal and court services — will come to pass? “That’s the $25,000 question,” said Adomaitas. “It’s of great concern to me, and I don’t think it’s a bluff.” Based on the actions of places like Long Beach (where the city is quickly trying to spend nearly $1.2 billion in RDA monies), Los Angeles (a $930-million spending scramble), and San Mateo ($34 million at stake), the fear is very real — although the actual details of RDA death remain a mystery, because the proposed legislation has not yet been made public, leaving plenty of constitutional and legal questions to linger.
While Goleta’s flood project is the immediate concern, RDA proponents like Adomaitas are really scared of what these cuts would mean in the long term. “What happens next year if you take out an economic engine that helps create investment opportunities, redevelops properties in need of help, builds affordable housing, and creates jobs? What will take the place of this tool?” he asked. “The answer is nothing. … If we lose the redevelopment funds for Goleta, it will be devastating to Old Town.”
To further emphasize this dire situation, the City of Goleta is hosting a press conference at 10 a.m. on Friday morning at the Goleta Valley Community Center with speakers from the private and public sectors. The public is invited to attend.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Brown's budget proposals are ridiculous, because a few members of the opposition will not vote for the budget and Californians will not vote for higher taxes, and very possibly, permanent taxes. So what is Brown's real budget? This budget is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California.
EarlRichards (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2011 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The floods in 1995 and 1998 were largely due to inadequate cleaning of the creeks and dumping... and old refrigerator and an old car blocked the San Jose creek culvert, I recall.
The new plan for a totally concrete San Jose Creek channel couldn't get Army Corps of Engineers support because they judged it was not needed.
Ekwill and Fowler have been a boondoggle... the real traffic need is at Calle Real and Fairview.
Why the private sector needed public RDA money to build the profitable Sumida Gardens complex escapes me... I'd like a subsidy for my ideas too.
The few cases of rehabilitating delapidated buildings might make sense. But Brown's point is RDAs should have to go through the same financing mechanism that schools, airports, etc go through... pass a bond! The diversion of tax $ to RDAs is grossly unfair to all those other higher priority activities.
So, Goleta, you are making the wrong arguments here. You should be telling us why folks won't vote for bonds to cover Old Town Redevelopment, if the ideas are so good, and why Old Town Redevelopment is more important than schools and cops and fire departments.
Brown knows all this... he was Mayor of Oakland, after all.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2011 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with pardal.
Kill the RDA and redirect the money to education. Or better yet, back to the local govs, like Brown said he'd do during his campaign.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Be scared so I can keep my job.
Granted, we would of had money for fun stuff like this if Bush hadn't bankrupted the country with his foreign war excursions, but since we are a broke nation, state, and city, we need to cut back on the unnecessary spending like the RDA's. Brown was a mayor, and he is right on this one. Schools need the money more than city bureaucrats need to create fun projects like a new facelift to the library or a new mall or parking lot. None of that stuff is crucial or even really wanted. It's make-work for people who need a job.
One thing we're learning from all this is just how self-serving local governments have become. They don't mind if children have shorter school-years to pay for their excess.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2011 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow I agree with John Locke.. has his account been hacked?
EZK (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2011 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RDA need to be shut down.
The thinking behind RDA's was that by eliminating blight the surrounding properties would increase in value and therefore be 'revenue neutral" to the agencies the money was being diverted from --primarily schools and safety.
This did not work out. Instead schools and safety are suffering while we repair bridges and build affordable housing and pay salaries for heads of redevelopment and their staff.
Ask the Voters -- RDA or increase Schools and Safety.
Let's put that on the state ballot!
loneranger (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2011 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm for education, safe bridges and affordable housing. The fact that someone would be against "safe bridges" is bizarre to say the least.
EZK (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow I agree with John Locke.. has his account been hacked?
SezMe (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2011 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)