PD Editorial: Balancing local services and redevelopment

One by one, local redevelopment agencies are grudgingly chipping in to help pay for public schools, transit and other local services.

Santa Rosa's redevelopment agency is contributing $2.7 million. Healdsburg anted up $2.1 million. In Cloverdale, it's $674,000. After a public hearing on Tuesday, Sebastopol officials are still mulling over whether to give $1.3 million. Sonoma County supervisors have a $3 million payment on their next agenda.

If you've been following the developments, here or in some 400 other communities around the state, you've heard some colorful language — "raid," "ransom," "extortion" — from local officials who aren't eager to part with dollars that are supposed to prime the pump for economic development.

That's understandable, especially in these tough times, and it's not surprising that the issue is headed to court.

But everyone should bear in mind that this money isn't being diverted to bureaucrats in a Sacramento office building or to a prison in some dusty corner of the state. Redevelopment dollars are property tax dollars, money that otherwise goes to public schools, fire, water and transit districts and similar local agencies. Reallocating some unspent redevelopment money could ease some of their budget problems.

As for all the invective, the target is, of course, Gov. Jerry Brown.

In his budget proposal, the governor recommended eliminating redevelopment agencies, which set off a spending spree as they committed surplus funds. He settled for a budget that gives redevelopment agencies a choice: Shut down or share some revenue, $1.7 billion this year and $400 million in subsequent years, with schools and other local agencies.

Sure, it's an offer they can't refuse — maybe even "blackmail," as Helga Lemke, a Santa Rosa redevelopment commissioner, put it. But during the budget process, the redevelopment agencies themselves offered to share some revenue to avoid elimination. They just wanted it to be voluntary, and now they want the courts to rescind mandatory contributions.

Used as intended, redevelopment is a powerful tool for economic development. The agencies can borrow and lend money. They can acquire land and sell it off for development. They can pay for affordable housing and for infrastructure, such as sewer lines or street improvements, to serve new development. The agencies are financed by a share of property taxes collected within redevelopment zones, which by law must be blighted areas.

Critics cite flagrant examples of redevelopment agencies stretching the definition of blight, and they say some agencies abuse the power of eminent domain to assist politically connected developers. But they also help pay for community improvements, such as Santa Rosa's Prince Memorial Greenway, and restore aging communities, as in Boyes Hot Springs where the county offers redevelopment loans to rehab storefronts along Highway 12.

Brown understands that. When he was mayor, he made extensive use of redevelopment to spruce up downtown Oakland. But he also understands that most of the state general fund is passed on to local government. So state budget cuts inevitably mean local budget cuts will follow.

Eliminating redevelopment would needlessly hurt efforts to reinvigorate communities like Boyes Hot Springs. But reallocating a share of local tax dollars to maintain needed services in those communities is a good investment, too.