How Now Bow-Wow?
Das Williams to Mayors on Redevelopment Funding: Blight My Ass.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
FALLING OUT AMONG FRIENDS: Would you rather be eaten alive by a lion or a bear? Tossed out of a speeding Porsche or a Prius? Such weird ruminations flow inevitably out of the byzantine dysfunction gripping public finance these days, which increasingly has become one interminable circle jerk with no happy endings on the horizon. These conundrums came to mind during last week’s public hearing on how best to rescue Santa Barbara’s much maligned Rainbow Park, otherwise known as the Cabrillo Ball Field, from the screw-top connoisseurs and brown-bag crowd who’ve claimed it as their collective living room over the years. To make the field more inviting to a broader demographic, city parks czar Nancy Rapp was urged to build a football field on the site to accommodate pee-wee league football players — ever in search of new turf to trample and brain cells to kill — handball courts, or basketball courts. Some wanted it used as an off-leash dog park; a few wanted a path built around the perimeter to facilitate obsessive-compulsive pedestrians who might otherwise not know where to walk.
Angry Poodle
Had this conversation taken place a couple years earlier — as any fool knows it should have — it might have made a difference. But last week’s exercise in gum-flappage was strictly a case of locking the barn doors after the horses were on fire. That’s because any improvements to the field would have to be paid for by the city’s Redevelopment Agency, a $20-million-a-year governmental body charged with fighting blight. The problem here is that Governor Jerry Brown, now going mano-a-mano with a $25-billion budget shortfall, has proposed abolishing all 420 redevelopment agencies throughout the state in hopes of stealing $1.7 billion now rattling around in all redevelopment cookie jars. Given this harsh reality, little wonder, then, that conversation quickly degenerated into how much people hate the 21-foot-tall steel statue of a rectangular rainbow — Herbert Bayer’s “Chromatic Gate” — that’s called the park home since 1991.
Redevelopment agencies, it should be said, are hardly going quietly into Jerry Brown’s long good night. In fact, they’re squawking for their lives. Last week, the mayors of four cities — Santa Barbara, Goleta, Buellton, and Lompoc — held a press conference in the rain to tell Brown to keep his hands off their redevelopment agency toot-toot. But before they could get there and tell the world about all the great and essential things their redevelopment agencies are doing, at least two of the mayors — Goleta’s Margaret Connell and Santa Barbara’s Helene Schneider — encountered serious static from their friend and longtime political ally Das Williams, Santa Barbara’s newest member of the state Assembly. In unusually blunt and aggressive language, Williams told them in advance not to show up. By complaining about the redevelopment agencies, he warned them, they could fatally undermine public confidence in the governor’s broader budget plan. That includes an extension of $12 billion in tax hikes approved by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that will otherwise expire. Brown is hoping to get these tax extensions approved by California voters this June, but thus far, the Just-Say-No rump of the Republican Party have militantly refused to let the voters decide. Without the extension, Williams stated, Brown will have to balance the budget with $25 billion worth of budget cuts, as opposed to the $13 billion worth of pain and suffering he’s now proposing. To the extent mayoral press conferences about redevelopment funding complicates things, Williams notified Schneider and Connell he will hold them personally responsible. That’s strong stuff. One might have expected a former two-term city councilmember like Williams to bite his lip in a show of compassion, and then stick it to them. But instead, he delivered a forearm shiver straight to the face. Schneider declined to discuss her conversation with Williams. Connell commented, “I was a bit annoyed with Das. I was actually somewhat offended.”
Stylistics aside, everybody’s got a point in this fight. If the redevelopment agencies are abolished, Goleta will have to find $14 million somewhere else to do the necessary flood-control work on San Jose Creek so that Old Town is not ankle deep every time it sprinkles. In Santa Barbara, the Redevelopment Agency spends about $4 million a year on affordable housing, or $61 million since 1981. That’s hardly chump change, without which 1,625 units of affordable housing would not otherwise have gotten built. It’s also responsible for the construction of Paseo Nuevo (which can be seen as a mixed blessing), three new parking garages, and the refurbishment of the Granada. Williams is certainly correct that redevelopment agencies statewide have been rife with abuse, fraud, and unnecessary developer subsidies. But in harsh economic times, it’s one of the few tools available to local governments to raise revenues and prime the economic pump. Lobbyists for redevelopment districts estimate Santa Barbara County would lose nearly 2,200 jobs if redevelopment agencies were wiped out.
As with all zero-sum games, no one wins without someone else sucking a tailpipe. In this case, it’s the school districts. And it’s the county government. Redevelopment agencies work by short-stopping tax revenues that would otherwise go to other government agencies — like schools, counties, and mosquito control districts — and then using those funds to fight “blight,” the latter being a term open to the most creative interpretations. If Santa Barbara’s Redevelopment Agency did not exist, school chief Brian Sarvis estimates his district would have received $6 million in additional property revenues a year. Given that Sarvis is looking at a possible $10-million shortfall, that’s real money. According to the county’s Number Cruncher-in-Chief Bob Geis, redevelopment agencies cost the county’s general fund $8 million a year. With the county facing a $72-million shortfall, $8 million would buy a number of life preservers for the widows and orphans who will otherwise get chucked overboard. Faced with these choices, it’s hard to argue the money should be spent giving the grounds of the downtown library a $2-million face-lift rather than keeping school nurses, health professionals, and counselors staffed at current levels of exhaustion.
In the meantime, maybe Republicans will come to their senses and agree to tax the oil companies. At the very least, we should ignore calls to remove the rainbow statue from Rainbow Park. It’s not that I’m a big fan. But last I heard, at the end of every rainbow, there’s a pot of gold. Right?
Related Links
Comments
Blight is an interesting word. It is subjective. I would suggest that the City's renowned RDA has actually created more blight than it corrected. Perhaps downtown is a chamber of commerce dream but it really has created blight outside the district in the form of neglected, overused and abused neighborhoods.
The troublesome downtown bar/nightclub "entertainment" district is the blight offshoot of the RDA Paseo Nuevo project that actually deprives property rights of the immediate area.
The much celebrated downtown parking garages create freeway adjacent blight all the way from Santa Barbara to Ventura. Ordinary L.A. solutions with over-planted view obstructing landscaping details are still blight adjacent to polluting and ever expanding roadway and freeway widening projects. Noise and air pollution, that is blight.
Aside from the focus of visual blight there is political blight. City council members are so overly-focused on 3 blocks of downtown that anyone with a blight issue outside that narrow district have representational blight.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's be clear. Das real agenda is to control the marbles himself, meaning at the state level now that he is no longer local.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When are you going to be "clear?" What's your "real agenda?"
Read the article again, and maybe you'll get the gist of it: if they don't take the RDA funds, they will get no GOP help in extending the GOP taxes, which will result in worse cuts to things more important than the RDA projects. Like education.
Das is just doing his job.
How in the world did you ever got the notion to call yourself John Locke? Why not Albert Einstein? The irony would be equal.
rambler (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if "JohnLocke" sits around in a powdered wig and pointy shoes..
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If the redevelopment agencies are abolished, Goleta will have to find $14 million somewhere else to do the necessary flood-control work on San Jose Creek so that Old Town is not ankle deep every time it sprinkles."
Huh? Hasn't been wet in Old Town for 13 years, after the Pine/Thornwood drainage was fixed and the culverts have been kept clear.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This debate needs to start citing real figures on how much new money the local school districts and the municipal General Funds will get in property tax revenue instead of the current Redevelopment Agencies.
The "blight" and RDA "corruption" rhetoric is lowbrow bull feces and a waste of time and electrons.
How much mo monee are we talkin' about, and who would get it instead if Redevelopment is abolished? The State budget advocates need to do more than a simple "just trust us" approach.
PS, Nick, "Mosquito Control Districts" hardly will gain by this proposal, but thanks for the plug. They have their own Benefit Assessment Districts for nearly all their revenue.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 3, 2011 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Das is a professional politician bent on the acquisition of power and spending authority. He demonstrated this time and again while on the SB council, most recently totally abandoning his long-expressed support for bulbouts and miniroundabouts commenting that he wouldn't let something so trivial damage his career. But somehow it wasn't trivial until he was running for higher office, more power, etc. etc. He has allowed people to think he is Hispanic for political advantage and lived illegally in subsidized housing. All public record. His life experience is limited to lobbying and serving on Taxin' Jackson's staff. He is not what we need in public office.
I agree that RDA's at the very least need more oversight, preferably by a citizen committee, not policiticians who are typically looking to spend other peoples' money. And if cutting them altogether means returning property taxes to their source for eventual allocation to education, then by all means cut them. Of course, getting govunionemployee compensation under control would do a lot to solve the long term budget problem, but since Moonbeam and Das are owned by their union contributors that is very unlikely.
I adopt the name John Locke because, like him, I favor maximum individual responsibility, maximum personal freedom, and minimal government. And my shoes may be pointy,but my head is not.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
David_Pritchett; RDA property taxes would be diverted back to the State (of Cali) just like other property taxes. It would be nice to hold all property taxes locally for eternity but we do live in a State with dire obligations. It is time to sea-saw back to funding the State's priorities. Later we can go back to frivolous local spending (affordable housing excluded.) I don't know for sure but if you check you might find that State-wide there are less enlightened communities that don't fund mosquito districts but rely on state sources of funding.
EZK; John Locke was a mixed bag of hypocrisy then as well as now. Probably owns slaves or at least profits from slavery.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Be careful, or he'll change his name to Ayn Rand.
rambler (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If there was a time the RDA funds were being used wisely in Santa Barbara, it surely isn't still going on now. Now the housing authority is using that money to purchase housing for the homeless. How does that improve the property values in the surrounding areas? After all, that is how the use of RDA funds is justified......they remove the blight which ultimately increases property taxes, which is why its justified to spend tax dollars to benefit private and non-profit businesses.
Das is right to ask the local mayors to tone down the rhetoric. Are the mayors going to complain when the other services suffer additional cuts because they refused to cooperate in the budget process or will they acknowledge that their refusal to do away with the RDAs only contributed to the problem?
And no, it is not a waste of time to discuss the corruption. All of the social services agencies and non-profits in town that elected Schneider are the very ones with their hands out asking for money to purchase buildings so their programs can operate with artificially low office/space expenses and inflated salaries. All the while not benefiting a single taxpayer in the process. The people who don't want to look under those rocks are most likely in on it or ignorantly furthering that agenda.
WilliamMunny (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article! Good perspective!
Analysis of RDA's and their history, don't support their existence very well.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good analysis! Williams was elected to represent the citizens of this area, not to be Brown's lapdog. I agree with Connell that his lecturing was offensive, but what's new: he's been lecturing the rest of us ever since he got on the City Council. She and Goleta just have not had that pleasure before now when he feels superior not just to Santa Barbarans, as before, but to everyone in the district.
As for the RDA monies, not everything should go to schools. Sarvis doesn't seem to recognize that a large number of us taxpayers think that the schools need to do a better job before they can get even more of our property taxes. I favor keeping RDA $ here, not sending it to Sacramento. Goleta has large infrastructure needs, including the Old Town and creek flood basin areas. Their money should be used for those purposes.
citti (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its not the government's job to improve or preserve property values . See article on Goleta "beautification." Low income housing is indeed encouraged by the US Constitution (tho not in our modern vernacular or concept.) however. Better to have people in homes of any kind than on the streets where some commentators would be in a tizzy over as well. And don't forget the large population of working homelesss who have problems finding affordable housing due to the greed of real estate speculators and the like.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could the Indy do an article showing exactly where the RDA $20M/year money would go if the City of SB RDA was terminated? And maybe interview the receiving agencies to understand where they would possibly spend the money?
I do not think much of it would go the the State of CA. Because our school district is very close to basic aid and receives very little state funding I believe we would get to keep most if not all. I believe the $20M would go roughly as follows:
$6M to SB schools
$8M to County of SB
$2M to City of SB
$4M to various special districts.
Maybe this would mean more library hours, more police on the street, more school programs -- instead of brick sidewalks, and affordable housing.
Let's at least know where the money would go-- not some 'unidentified' State projects.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>>"And don't forget the large population of working homelesss who have problems finding affordable housing due to the greed of real estate speculators and the like."<<
So move to Bakersfield. Nobody owes them a home on the beach.
Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
Pinatubo,
All kidding aside, I think there are things you'd really like about Bakersfield.
I think you'd really like the politics there. Very, very Red. The DNC's office is a phone booth. Its the Land of Big Oil, and Big Agriculture, which are two industries I'm sure you support.
The people themselves are very nice, and there are lots of churches. The schools on the west side of highway 99 are pretty good. Housing is cheap... lots of vacant homes for sale. You could probably buy a few of 'em.
Its a little hot and dusty sure, but the pollution is not as bad as everyone says. Speaking Spanish helps, but that's true in a lot of places.
So, don't be quick to rule it out, OK?
wondering (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pinatubo can't move, Pinatubo is located in the Philippines.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill's right. If I move, magma will flow out and annihilate dozens of Filipino villages. Are you sure you guys want that?
Pinatubo (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Force Ridley Tree to pay for redevelopment of baseball field, since her charity has blighted the park.
lovechop (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2011 at 2:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
loneranger is correct here and makes my point.
Until we know just how much money and which local agencies would get it instead of RDAs, this is just a wankfest for wannabe dead philosophers looking for any excuse to complain about the government.
Just a tip here on the real estate market: the more homeless people off the streets and in actual homes, the more valuable and less blighted the nearby affected real estate becomes.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 7, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)