Governor’s Bill Calls into Question the Haste of Davis Council’s Actions to Take Out RDA Bonds –
The action added about one million dollars to the current debt service obligation of 600 thousand dollars.
The risk is that the city would lock itself into funding currently proposed projects and into taking on debt should the governor not succeed in eliminating RDA’s. However, the upside is that it would protect the city’s RDA funds should the governor succeed.
Recent reports now call this thinking into question and suggest that the city may have acted too quickly.
According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, the bill to end redevelopment would also allow the state to kill any recently approved projects, in apparent response from the Governor to all of those cities around the state that have been rushing to approve money before the state eliminates RDA’s.
Included in a bill proposed by Brown’s office that would eliminate redevelopment is language which would let the state “review the validity of the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan at any time within three years after the date of the adoption of the ordinance adopting or amending the plan, if the adoption of the ordinance occurred after January 1, 2011.”
According to the Chronicle, this means, “any plans approved after Brown’s budget was unveiled in early January could be killed by state officials anytime in the next three years — instead of the normal 90 days.”
“The current proposal allows for a thorough review of the actions cities and redevelopment agencies have been taking to sequester and fast track funds. If violations of the law are found, subsequent action can be considered and/or pursued,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Governor Brown. He then declined further comment.
This action would put cities like Davis in a potential lose-lose bind. Cities like Davis already were rolling the dice. The gamble was that the city had to approve projects that were in the pipeline and issue bonds. That meant the city would take on a debt and put most of its RDA money into projects that have been proposed at the time.
Under more normal conditions, the city and Redevelopment Agency would operate more cautiously, approving only such monies as needed to fund a given project.
However, the city felt like it had to spend this money in order to protect it. Now that goal has essentially been quashed by the governor’s proposal.
There is no assurance that the governor will succeed at eliminating RDA’s. However, now there is no upside to issuing the bonds now. Either the Governor eliminates RDA’s, in which case the approved projects are nixed and the state raids the city’s RDA funds, OR the legislation fails, in which case it is status quo.
So under the best case scenario now, the city has taken on debt and rushed projects and bonds through. And in the worst case, the state raids the funds anyway and the city’s actions did not do any good.
In the real world, things are never as simple as this and undoubtedly such an effort would meet litigation and a lengthy court process. The city may be able to use the bond money to approve the projects while the issue is tied up in court. Or perhaps the assets will be frozen until it is resolved. Hard to know.
One thing does seem clear, it is dangerous to try to anticipate these things before there is actual legislation and the process. Perhaps the city would have been better off waiting rather than being so proactive. Or perhaps not. Time will tell.
Bottom line is that the actions of council on Tuesday seemed rushed and premature. The prospects for RDA’s actually being eliminated seem remote. It seems more likely that there would be some sort of compromise and reform.
In the meantime, the city and redevelopment agency are being thrust into a bond market at a time of great risk and poor costs. Given the bond costs, we may be costing ourselves over a million dollars in bond indebtedness without developing a single project.
And all of that was the case, prior to understanding that Governor Brown would attempt to nullify the rush to spend redevelopment money by opening a clause to review projects into 2014.
The bottom line, it is not clear if it is too late to reconsider this item, but if it isn’t, the council should at least discuss whether this was the best approach before it is too late to reverse it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I always thought the letter L in “would” was gratuitous. It’s not even pronounced. Rich, how many trees could we save nationally by leading the way on this?
DG, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The Davis RDA has every right to exercise its authorities until said authorities are revoked by the legislature. Brown and the State are simply blustering because they are currently legally powerless from preventing the RDAs. The key phrase that you cite above is “If violations of the law are found, subsequent action can be considered and/or pursued…” Well, duh! The phrase holds true even at all times, even prior to the unveiling of the Brown budget.
A mere proposal simply has no force or effect. The Davis RDA has a duty to the citizens of Davis to exercize its authorities to the best of its ability until said authorities are revoked. To wait around cowering in fear that the authorities may some day be revoked is pitiful. I commend all 4 council members for their resolute actions to date in protecting the interests of the citizens in the face of a withering propaganda storm eminating from the Capitol.
IMHO, Brown is the one to blame here. By proposing such a drastic change as eliminating RDAs altogether, w/o really thinking the ramifications through, he has caused cities to have to act too quickly in a “use it or lose it” scenario – caused only by “hizzonor – Mr. Moonbeam’s” flawed and ill conceived proposals. Even our own Lois Wolk has attempted some sort of compromise to soften the blow of eliminating RDAs.
I attended the Brown Bag Lunch discussion put on by DDBA the other day. City staff made a presentation showing how much our city has been improved through the use of RDA funding. Frankly, you would not even recognize the place from what Davis used to be. Our city has been pretty responsible in its use of RDA funding generally. And bc of it, our downtown is very vibrant, bustling and active, improving everyone’s property values throughout the town – which generates more tax revenue. Why should our city be “punished” bc other cities have not used their money as wisely?
As for schools needing more money? Schools will always claim a need more money. They are like a bottomless pit that can never be filled. From website:http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement
“A basic comparison of long-term spending trends with long-term measures of student academic achievement challenges the belief that spending is correlated with achievement. Chart 4 compares real per-pupil expenditures with American students test scores on the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading examination from 1970 to 2004. While spending per pupil has more than doubled, reading scores have remained relatively flat.”
Clarification: Doing away w RDAs is rationalized as a way to better fund our schools.
Frankly, you would not even recognize the place from what Davis used to be.
Many parts of Davis have barely changed in the last couple of decades. They are the parts that actually have blight.
DS: “Many parts of Davis have barely changed in the last couple of decades. They are the parts that actually have blight.”
Such as? And how does that take away from the fact that many parts within the designated RDA area of Davis have been vastly improved? And that includes improvements to South Davis and Olive Drive, from what city staff noted at the presentation. I did ask city staff the question of how and who set the designated RDA area in the first place, but they really could not answer my question. So I have to assume the City Council at one time approved a resolution, when it set up its RDA, what the boundaries of the RDA area would be…
As for schools needing more money? Schools will always claim a need more money. They are like a bottomless pit that can never be filled. From website:http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement
“A basic comparison of long-term spending trends with long-term measures of student academic achievement challenges the belief that spending is correlated with achievement. Chart 4 compares real per-pupil expenditures with American students test scores on the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading examination from 1970 to 2004. While spending per pupil has more than doubled, reading scores have remained relatively flat.”
Elaine,
Without defending the Davis School system, we all now that Prop 13 has changed how schools are funded, and gutted local control.
As a Davis taxpayer, I would like to have the opportunity to decide between schools and RDA. I don’t disagree about the schools and spending more money, but RDAs are similar in the sense that they attempt to spend all the money they have, regardless of the value of the project. If my choices are more parcel taxes for the schools and keep RDA or reduced parcel taxes for schools and no RDA, I’ll choose the latter.
“DG, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The Davis RDA has every right to exercise its authorities until said authorities are revoked by the legislature.”
I don’t dispute that they have the right, the question is whether it was the prudent action to take.
“Brown and the State are simply blustering because they are currently legally powerless from preventing the RDAs. The key phrase that you cite above is “If violations of the law are found, subsequent action can be considered and/or pursued…” Well, duh! The phrase holds true even at all times, even prior to the unveiling of the Brown budget.”
I’m not following you here.
“A mere proposal simply has no force or effect. The Davis RDA has a duty to the citizens of Davis to exercize its authorities to the best of its ability until said authorities are revoked.”
The question is whether this was a fiscally prudent move.
“To wait around cowering in fear that the authorities may some day be revoked is pitiful. I commend all 4 council members for their resolute actions to date in protecting the interests of the citizens in the face of a withering propaganda storm eminating from the Capitol. “
On the other hand, maybe it will just end up costing the citizens a million dollars.
I’m starting to lose my patience. DG, you make the argument above that the Council decision has jeopardized the entire community because the RDA has been put on notice by Brown that projects in violation of the law may be unwound by the State. Duh, such was the case even before Brown proposed his budget. I don’t need Brown or you to warn me that breaking laws has adverse consequences.
The RDA may continue to pursue projects so long as the projects comply with the laws governing RDAs. Next you’ll be warning me that jaywalking may lead to arrest and fines. The answer is simple, don’t jaywalk. We can still cross the street, we simply use crosswalks. You and Brown are making a pretty nutty argument.
DG, you fail to explain how how the RDA has made an imprudent move. And you fail to explain how the RDA decisions to date “will just end up costing the citizens a million dollars.” All you’ve said is “don’t break the law otherwise there may be consequences.” You have yet to explain how the RDA has broken the law.
DG, I am at a complete loss. To your knowledge, has the Davis RDA violated any current laws? Can it be that you are arguing that the Davis RDA cannot act at all for fear of violating some future law? Is that your positions?
Don Shor:
Define “blight” and name specific “blighted” places in Davis. I don’t expect an answer for quite some time 🙂
AS, your position makes sense to a point, but you fail to make the connection that dissolving the RDAs and more funding for the schools. Brown’s budget does not afford you the opportunity to “As a Davis taxpayer…decide between schools and RDA.” Quite the opposite is the case. Brown’s budget specifically states that no additional funding will go to schools in the first year following the dissolution of the RDAs. Brown’s budget fails to state with any specificity what becomes of the RDA funding after year 1. The battle between schools and RDAs is a canard. I am not making this up. Read the LAO analysis.
“DG, I am at a complete loss. To your knowledge, has the Davis RDA violated any current laws? Can it be that you are arguing that the Davis RDA cannot act at all for fear of violating some future law? Is that your positions? “
DT: I’m not arguing that the Davis RDA has violated current laws or will violate future laws. What I am suggesting is that if the Governor passes his plan, taking out bonds will not secure the money and that if the Governor does not pass his plan, we do not need to take out the bonds, so we didn’t need to act.
[i]”Doing away w RDAs is rationalized as a way to better fund our schools.”[/i]
Perhaps someone has made this argument. However, the Guv’s proposal will not affect the level of school funding at all. It would also be neutral with regard to counties.
Currently, some amount of money collected within an RDA is passed through to the schools. Insofar as that is less than the schools would have had absent the RDA, the state kicks in the rest.
By getting rid of the RDA, the state will save money. It will effectively be taking the net money which is now going to the RDA. At the same time, the counties and the schools will be unaffected by this change.
It’s pretty obvious why this is attractive at the state level and unattractive at the local (or RDA) level. Brown is trying to make it easier to solve the state’s budget trouble. And because such a large percentage of RDA expenditures have been on things like affordable housing projects (designed to enrich the politically connected developers and housing managers) and things like pro sports stadiums (such as is going on right now in Santa Clara, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego), Jerry Brown must have figured that getting rid of the RDAs would not be an unattractive option.
Brian: blight for RDA purposes has very specific definitions. Without much difficulty, I’m sure you can find two or three parts of Davis that qualify. Do you need links for the definitions?
[i]Rich, how many trees could we save nationally by leading the way on this? [/i]
One hundred billion trees.
This might surprise most people: the price of newsprint in the last year has gone up substantially. And there has been no supply shock. A part of the explanation is just the weak U.S. dollar, as newsprint prices are quoted in U.S. dollars. So as the dollar falls, all commodities traded in dollars go up in price. But that is not the full explanation.
I would have thought, with fewer people subscribing to newspapers and magazines and with electronic communication marginally taking the place of printed communication and with the poor economy, the price of newsprint would be as low now as it has ever been. But that is not the case.
The price of newsprint late in 2008 peaked at about $750 per ton. That was up $200 from its low earlier in 2008. From peak to trough, the price of newsprint fell to $450 a ton around September of 2009. Since that nadir, the price has steadily climbed. Today a ton of newsprint costs around $625, which is more than it cost before the economy tanked.
The explanation, beside the U.S. dollar, is China. Their economy is continuing to grow, and they are importers of forest products like pulp, lumber and newsprint. And while we are substituting electronics for our former use of paper, they are adding new readers of magazines and newspapers and books and they are adding people to mailing lists for things like junk mail.
ERM: City staff made a presentation showing how much our city has been improved through the use of RDA funding. Frankly, you would not even recognize the place from what Davis used to be. Our city has been pretty responsible in its use of RDA funding generally
My apologies for repeating points made on earlier threads, but I’d like to summarize my problem with the response of city staff, DDBA members, and others to the RDA issue.
I have no problem with the projects that have been accomplished by means of RDA funds. The point I have made is that they are almost entirely downtown. My concern is that the action taken by the council may lock the RDA into funding for the projects listed, and that no further funds are likely to be available for projects in other parts of town. Thus the current action by the city council could further deprive other parts of town of the benefits of development funds.
Those funds are generated by the difference between property taxes (based on property values) from the time the RDA is founded, going forward. Unfortunately, property values are now dropping. Were a new RDA to be created, or the current RDA to be expanded, it is likely that the property tax differential would be far lower going forward than it has been. So it will be difficult to capture RDA-type funding for projects outside of the current RDA area.
The blighted areas I have referred to are in East Davis, where there are two shopping centers that have been neglected for decades. Look up the definition of blight (here is one summary: [url]http://fontana.org/FAQ.aspx?QID=129[/url]) and you can see that the area along L Street between 2nd and 6th, and the popsicle-colored shopping center on 8th Street, would certainly qualify as blight. Certainly far more than any part of the downtown or much (all?) of the portion of South Davis in the RDA area.
DTBusinessman suggested on another thread, unless I misunderstood him, that projects in East Davis would be somehow considered or funded. Nothing on the list that I saw on the other thread, to which I posted jpg links, seems to be in East Davis. I am unaware of any proposed project that might enhance the property values and commerce in East Davis. Probably the shopping center on Arlington and Lake could be considered blighted as well.
Some have made the point that if the funds aren’t locked in to development projects, they will just disappear into the general fund (i.e., payroll and pensions). But that makes another point: we could very well get to the point that development projects are being funded while city maintenance crews are being laid off, potholes aren’t getting filled, and parks aren’t being kept up. At that point, sidewalk bulb-outs and visioning workshops will seem pretty wasteful when the basics aren’t being kept up.
Finally, it is frustrating that every interest group affected by the budget changes proposed by the governor seems all too ready to oppose any change, but also unwilling to explain how they would balance the budget. Cities that are moving aggressively to protect RDA money are making the process of fiscal reform more difficult.
DS, I never wrote or meant to imply that projects in East Davis would somehow be considered for RDA funding. That’s not legally possible since East Davis is not in the RDA district.
I have taken issue with those that said no Olive Drive projects were being considered for RDA funding. The Olive Drive assertion is factually incorrect. There are at least 2 Olive Drive projects currently being considered. Separately, I agreed that parts of East Davis were in need of redevelopment. However, dissolving the RDA does NOTHING to promote redevelopment in East Davis.
DS makes a good point “that every interest group affected by the budget changes proposed by the governor seems all too ready to oppose any change, but also unwilling to explain how they would balance the budget.” I acknowledge that I’m included in this group. I don’t pretend to know which state programs deserve being cut or trimmed. I do know something about the Davis RDA. Since I know somethin about the Davis RDA, I wonder why it is necessary to propagate misinformation about a program if it’s so deserving of being dissolved. It has been 6 weeks or so since Brown has unveiled his budget and in this time not one argument for the dissolution of RDAs has withstood examination. The misinformation, propaganda, and faulty reasoning is rampant.
Is that the answer to the state budget deficit? Cut the programs that work and spare the programs that don’t? There is no doubt that the Davis RDA program has been effective. I do not know of one person that walked away from the RDA roundtable discussion Wednesday that doubted the effectivness of the Davis RDA program.
DT: This is what I was referring to, but I had to go back to find it and obviously I didn’t exactly remember it right (from one of your replies Feb. 12):
“Don, you continue to raise a number of very valid concerns regarding economic development in other parts of town. A number of proposals are currently being prepared to address them. Stay tuned, some of them entail the use of RDA funds.”
I would be curious what those proposals are, what funds would be used for them, and how they might entail the use of RDA funds if they are not within the RDA area.
not one argument for the dissolution of RDAs has withstood examination.
Dissolution of RDA’s would free up funds that are presently derived from the increase in property values for development projects anywhere in Davis, not just downtown or in South Davis. You have said those other areas are worthy of consideration, but you have not identified any specific proposals, responded about the specific areas that I have mentioned, or explained how the needs of those areas might be met within the current fiscal situation.
Former RDA funds could also be used for other purposes that the council might deem worthy, including unmet needs elsewhere in the city.
DS, the DDBA is currently exploring economic development proposals entailing RDA funds that would increase general retail activity. Retail dollars in many instances could give a hoot about the DBID boundaries. There are any number of DDBA activities that have either direct or indirect benefits to businesses outside the DBID boundaries.
DS, I have countered your argument regarding dissolving RDAs to free up funds for projects anywhere in Davis. I choose not to repeat myself, so we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally invested substantial effort to redeveloping the popsicle shopping center and the Westlake center. In each instance I was rebuffed by the private property owners. It was a very frustrating experience. What can one do if the private, out-of-town, property owners absolutely refuse to make wise, long term choices? We face the same issues in the downtown. If anything, the circumstances are far more challenging downtown.
DS, the DDBA is currently exploring economic development proposals entailing RDA funds that would increase general retail activity. Retail dollars in many instances could give a hoot about the DBID boundaries. There are any number of DDBA activities that have either direct or indirect benefits to businesses outside the DBID boundaries.
I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense nor does it address my concerns. DDBA isn’t RDA.
If in fact you are saying that DDBA is considering projects that would increase retail activity outside the DDBA area, then please be more specific. But that has nothing to do with the RDA.
I would be very surprised if DDBA is doing anything that would use member assessments to directly enhance retail outside of the DDBA area (DBID). In fact, I’d guess that is outside the legal scope of their activities.
Indirectly? I am very aware of the many activities that DDBA engages in. They are directly beneficial to downtown merchants, and indirectly beneficial to Davis overall. But to suggest, as you did, that somehow this mitigates the disparity in how RDA funds are used is a little specious.
I have countered your argument regarding dissolving RDAs to free up funds for projects anywhere in Davis.
Not really. You have said that the funds would get lost into the general fund. Again, since the RDA is governed by the council members, it would certainly be their prerogative to use the funds in other ways. Or to use them for development in downtown Davis (including parking, or the other projects listed). Or to use them for projects elsewhere. It’s the same governing body. You’re saying they won’t set wise priorities when they have greater discretion over the funds.
It’s all the same pool of money: Davis residents’ property taxes. RDA supporters just want to lock away part of it for special projects. Downtown has benefited greatly from the RDA funds over the years. That is fine but it is time to open up that pool of money to other uses if the city council and voters see different priorities, including unmet needs elsewhere. I’m sorry you’ve given up on East Davis. It seems the city council has as well.
To Don Shor: You are making a huge assumption that if RDAs are done away w, that all that funding is somehow going to find its way back to Davis for the City Council to spend as it sees fit. If you read the LAO’s report, that is not how it is going to happen. And that is the real crux of the matter… freeing up Davis RDA funds is not equal to freeing up funds for Davis…
From interesting article on DAVIS at following website: http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/02/21/browns-redevelopment-firestorm/
“So will Davis schools get a big boost in a few years if legislators and Brown ax the city’s redevelopment agency? Probably not. City officials provided detailed data showing how the current RDA slice of property tax dollars — totaling $10.4 million — are being spent. A large chunk of that money goes to pay either bonded debt, is already sent to Yolo County as the “pass through” payment, or is committed to affordable housing projects. And while the raw amount that could go to Davis’ schools may be as much as $680,000, interim city manager Paul Navazio said in an email that even school officials believe that the final benefit to schools could be less than $250,000.
Nonetheless, the Brown administration argues that the annual statewide benefit to schools and local governments would be about $1.9 billion. And while that may not include much in Davis, anecdotal evidence suggests some agencies are sitting on more unencumbered cash; several, in fact, are now accelerating their action in hopes of getting ahead of any cash cutoff approved at the state Capitol.”
So why should the Davis RDA be punished bc other RDAs in the state have not used their money wisely? Furthermore, it looks as if Davis schools are not going to benefit much from doing away w RDAs, yet the city of Davis will lose a huge source for economic development. How is this going to help Davis?
Clarification: How is doing away w RDAs going to help Davis?
If you look at the overall article I cited, it points out that too much is left unspecified in Brown’s plan to do away w RDA’s: “And here’s where the first question comes in: will eliminating redevelopment agencies actually work? Brown’s plan often gets mischaracterized as a simple ‘raid’ on local money by the state. But in truth, it’s a two-step dance. Step one is, in fact, a local-to-state transfer to help close a two year budget gap of about $26 billion. But step two is where things get a lot murkier. The governor’s proposal would free the property taxes in each city and county now sequestered for redevelopment, thus sending those dollars back into the bank accounts of schools, cities, counties, and special districts.
But again, no one knows exactly how that transfer will happen… who will oversee it… and no one seems to have definitive data on what the benefit will be to the services mentioned above. Our radio story traveled to the college town of Davis for a look at both the challenges for schools (which the Guv’s supporters say would ease) and the world of redevelopment.”
And finally from the article: “The governor is asking state and local officials to compromise and accept a plan, in just a matter of weeks, that seeks to undo decades of government operations. And so far, the diehard warriors and their PR operations are the only ones who see this fight as clear cut, black and white kind of thing. Others object to the ‘zero sum’ nature of the debate, and would like a more thorough examination of how tax dollars are spent on services and investments… an examination which isn’t likely to be complete by the time the clock runs out next month.”
This process is so flawed, voters are being sold so much spin it is revolting, and Brown is clearly using “smoke and mirrors” to sell his cock-eyed budget that he promised not to do. Mr. Moonbeam is definitely back…
[i]It’s all the same pool of money: Davis residents’ property taxes. RDA supporters just want to lock away part of it for special projects. Downtown has benefited greatly from the RDA funds over the years. That is fine but it is time to open up that pool of money to other uses if the city council and voters see different priorities, including unmet needs elsewhere. I’m sorry you’ve given up on East Davis.[/i]
Elaine said this, but I need to repeat it: Don, you don’t seem to be accounting for the fact that under Brown’s proposal, all of the net money* going to the Davis RDA will instead go to the state coffers (probably to cover the state budget deficit). The City will get slightly more property tax money without the RDA, but far less than it now gets from the DRDA.
*The Davis RDA (as the audit you linked to in another thread shows) takes in some $10 million or $12 million or so each year and passes on much of that money to the schools. What is not passed through is net money for the DRDA.
Rich: all of the net money* going to the Davis RDA will instead go to the state coffers
From the LAO report:
“Beginning in 2012-13, any property tax revenues remaining
after the successor agencies pay redevelopment debt would be
distributed to other local governments in the county following
provisions in existing law, except that:
The additional K-14 property taxes would augment their existing
state funding (not offset state education spending under
Proposition 98) and would be distributed to districts throughout
the county based on enrollment.
The property taxes that otherwise would be distributed to
enterprise special districts would be allocated instead to
counties. (These districts primarily are fee-fi nanced water
and waste disposal districts.)”
1) Don, you have left out all the caveats in your selective quotes from the LAO report. Read in its entirety, the LAO report is far more speculative about what is likely to happen beginning in 2012-13. Indeed, the report goes on and on about how there are no details in the budget proposal. Why are you so insistent on morphing a hypothetical into a proven fact?.
2)) Public, as well as corporate policy is all about predictions and probabilities. It’s about examining and calculating the probability that certain actions will lead to intended results. Don, I do not disagree at all with your intention. As I understand it, your intention is to increase investment and economic development throughout the community, not just in the RDA district. I simply disagree that your proposed policy will lead to your prediction, i.e. eliminating the Davis RDA will lead to greater investment and ED throughout the community. The probability of your prediction coming to pass is unlikely based on the facts before us.
The policy and action that Don is proposing reminds me quite a bit of the policies espoused by trickle-down economics proponents. They predict that cutting marginal tax rates will lead, as a primary objective, to more income for higher income earners. The secondary objective is that the wealth created will result in increased investment. The tertiary objective is the increased investment will lead to increased economic activity. The increased economic activity leads to more jobs. And so on. The probability of achieving the primary objective is high, more income for higher income earners. But the probability of achieving the follow on consequences becomes less and less likely as one progresses through the chain.
Don proposes that we dissolve the Davis RDA. The primary objective is a reduction in investment and economic development in the RDA district. The secondary objective is increased investment and economic development in other parts of town due to increased availability of funds. The primary objective will most certainly come to pass if Don’s proposed policy is implemented. The probability of achieving the secondary objective is unlikely.
3) By the way, my business operations are conducted citywide. Whether dollars are invested downtown or elsewhere makes no difference to me from a financial perspective. But as a GENERAL, not a specific rule, I think the community receives a greater benefit from a dollar invested in downtown versus a dollar invested elsewhere.
Let the howls of protest begin.
Here’s the report.
[url]http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2011/Gov_Redevelopment_2_3_11.pdf[/url]
I’ll let others decide whether it “goes on and on” about the details.
Don proposes that we dissolve the Davis RDA.
No, I propose that interest groups stop objecting to each portion of the governor’s budget proposal that affects them without concomitant explanation of how those budget savings would be realized elsewhere. If every interest group just protects its turf (no tuition increases, no cuts to mental health programs, no tax increases, no… on and on and on) we will never balance the budget.
The secondary objective is increased investment and economic development in other parts of town due to increased availability of funds….The probability of achieving the secondary objective is unlikely.
It will certainly not come to pass if the RDA continues. There will be less money overall, with RDA funds still locked up for downtown.
I await your explanation of the other projects that RDA funds or (apparently) DDBA funds are going to be used for in other parts of town.
I think the community receives a greater benefit from a dollar invested in downtown versus a dollar invested elsewhere.
Neither provable nor falsifiable.
QED. Quite Easily Done. As directed by the General Plan “retain the Core Area as a multi-function downtown serving as the City’s social/cultural center, primary retail business and professional and administrative office district in a manner that enhances pedestrian activity.” It is vital to the community to have healthy, vibrant neighborhoods, but none of the neighborhoods function as the gathering place for the entire commmunity. That’s the function of the downtown pursuant to community planning documents going back generations.
A dollar invested in the downtown directly benefits the vast majority of the Davis population and indirectly benefits all of the community. A dollar invested in any one neighborhood directly benefits a far smaller portion of the Davis population and indirectly benefits all of the community, but to a lesser degree. This seems self evident to me. I’m interested in reading the perspective of the other blog participants on this issue.
Don:
Thanks for posting the link to the Fontana site defining blight.
Just for the sake of discussion, I’ll post it and ask, concerning the Davis Manor Shopping Center, which applies.
The buildings aren’t unsafe. The shopping center isn’t too small. There’s a huge parking lot. Only standard residences and well-established small businesses for neighbors (It could be they are in the way of “project area parcels)). The form of the buildings and grounds look pretty standard. Are property values stagnant here? Don’t know, but the same could be said of a lot of properties around Davis. Not very many business vacancies. As I mentioned the local area businesses are longtime, well-established businesses. No overcrowding, or adult businesses in evidence.
So, according to the definition, the only way Davis Manor could be construed as blighted could have to do with low property values.
On the other hand, Davis Manor could be PERCEIVED as blighted, but that’s a consideration not addressed by the Fontana definition of blight.
* Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work
* Buildings or lots that cannot be economically used because of substandard size, design, lack of parking and the like, given present standards or physical condition
* Incompatible adjacent or nearby uses which prevent the development of project area parcels
* Subdivided lots of irregular form, shape, and size for proper usefulness that are in multiple ownership
* Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments
* Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots
* A lack of commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods
* Residential overcrowding or an excess of businesses catering exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare
A comparison of the trend of property values in Davis Manor over the last couple of decades would very likely show significant difference in appreciation compared to the rest of Davis. There was a long-term vacancy in the anchor site that had a very adverse impact on the adjoining businesses. More to the point, I doubt if you could point to many parts of the actual RDA area that show any of the listed characteristics of blight.
It is worth noting that the city has property easements along the front of that shopping center, as well as in front of the strip mall at 5th and L, where improvements could be implemented without even involving the property owners. There is also an active neighborhood association in Oeste Manor that could give input about commercial and residential improvements needed in East Davis.
DT, it doesn’t matter what I think. AFAIK, you have the entire political establishment in Davis behind the move to secure funds as soon as possible. I hope that my persistence on this topic has raised some awareness of the disparities and other community needs. I’m just afraid there will be no resources available for other parts of town.
There can be no doubt that Davis Manor is one of three, perhaps four underperforming neighborhood shopping centers in our community. The primary reason is the ownership, but there are a number of other factors involved. The subject neighborhoods deserve better.
DTB: “A dollar invested in the downtown directly benefits the vast majority of the Davis population and indirectly benefits all of the community. A dollar invested in any one neighborhood directly benefits a far smaller portion of the Davis population and indirectly benefits all of the community, but to a lesser degree. This seems self evident to me. I’m interested in reading the perspective of the other blog participants on this issue.”
Well said!
Don Shor: “Here’s the report.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts…2_3_11.pdf
I’ll let others decide whether it “goes on and on” about the details.”
Read the last section on “Limitations” and that will give you a clue that Brown has not spelled out the details of his plan to do away w RDAs and redistribute the funding. And that is the essence of the problem. It is one thing/easy to make a general suggestion, but another thing to think through the consequences of what you are suggesting so that the it is clear to everyone what the benefits/drawbacks are.
I am not a big proponent of leaving RDAs just as they are – reform is needed. But a less draconian approach to me seems more sensible, such as tightening up the RDA regulations at the state level…