Redevelopment fallout reverberates across Sonoma County
The looming elimination of redevelopment agencies has been greeted in Sonoma County with wildly divergent reactions.
Local government officials express horror, warning of "carnage" to budgets, delays for critical community projects and setbacks for economic recovery efforts.
School officials are encouraged, expecting to enjoy a larger slice of the property-tax pie.
And critics of redevelopment are downright giddy, convinced the agencies strayed far from their original blight-fighting mission, threatened private-property rights and now deserve their fate.
But one thing everyone seems to agree on is this: California's breakup with its 400 redevelopment agencies promises to deeply impact Sonoma County and dramatically alter the priorities and funding of local government.
"This is a big hairy deal," said John Haig, the Sonoma County government's redevelopment manager.
As Highway 12 winds south through the scenic Sonoma Valley, it passes picturesque vineyards and forested hillsides that hide luxurious estates.
Just outside the city of Sonoma, however, the scenic vistas recede, blocked by a jumble of modest homes, aged apartments and businesses crammed near the busy roadway.
The county formed a redevelopment area in 1984 to address basic needs. Highest on the priority list has long been sidewalks, streetlights and parking, improvements aimed at making the highway safer for residents and visitors and more attractive to businesses.
It's been a slow process. After years of planning, the second phase of that plan is ready to go. County supervisors last year committed up to $13 million for the project. Bids are nearly ready to go out.
But the demise of redevelopment has left the project frozen; money set aside for it is at risk of being diverted, and longtime backers are disheartened.
"It is difficult for me to accept that a modest dream of sidewalks along our main community thoroughfare may never be realized," said Steve Cox, chairman of the committee that offers input on the project area.
Many projects at risk
Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies as a way to free up property tax revenue to help solve the state's budget crisis is roiling communities across the county.
A new police station in Cloverdale. A homeless shelter in Guerneville. A new Highway 101 overpass in Santa Rosa. Upgrades to the aging Healdsburg Memorial Bridge.
These and dozens of other projects and programs across the county are in jeopardy following a state Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago. That decision upheld the legislation that directs the abolishment of the agencies but also blocked a compromise plan that would have allowed them to continue operating on a smaller scale.
That has left local officials scrambling to understand the legal and financial implications. They're racing to meet a Feb. 1 deadline to dissolve their agencies, while pleading for more time to wind down operations in an orderly way.
"We're lobbying for a stay of execution and we're getting ready to inject ourselves," said Bill Arnone, chairman of the board.
In the meantime, proponents are talking up the accomplishments of redevelopment, questioning the fairness of shifting local property tax to the state, and eyeing ways to preserve the core services.
But redevelopment is proving to be a difficult client to defend. Its complex taxing scheme is not easily understood. Examples of abuse, such as the $17 million Palm Desert spent rehabbing a golf course, don't help, either. Nor do audits that conclude the lack of accountability and transparency at redevelopment agencies creates a "breeding ground for waste, abuse and impropriety," as state Controller John Chiang reported.
Put that track record up against the competing demands for schools and the state's massive budget deficit, and it's easy to see that redevelopment advocates are in a tough spot.
"We don't have a redevelopment champion outside of city officials, who are perceived as whining, and developers, who have been perceived as enriching themselves," said Dave Gouin, the city's director of economic development and housing. "And everybody else doesn't understand it."
Agencies created in 1945
Normally, when property values rise, all taxing agencies - counties, cities, schools and fire districts - receive a proportionate share of the revenue. In redevelopment areas, most of the increase, known as the "tax increment," goes to the redevelopment agency.
There are 10 such agencies in Sonoma County, one for each city and one for county government. The county operates three such areas, in Roseland, along the lower Russian River and in the Springs area north of Sonoma.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: