Until this week, Los Angeles' leaders had been on a mission that, due to attendant PR problems, unfolded behind closed doors: preventing California Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature from moving billions of dollars in taxpayer money out of the hands of developers and into state coffers to balance the budget and help schools.
On Tuesday, that all went up in smoke. Democratic legislators — panicked to action by having their pay docked for failing to pass a balanced budget on time — embraced a no-new-taxes plan with Brown that siphons $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies. Under two "trailer" bills accompanying the budget, a big chunk of that money is to come from L.A. And if Los Angeles City Hall doesn't like it, it can choose option B and shutter the city's Community Redevelopment Agency altogether.
Update:Jerry Brown is expected to sign the deal shortly. It represents a stunning fall for CRA/L.A., which will be forced to close its doors or relinquish $97 million in public funds in the 2011-12 fiscal year, then about $25 million annually after that. The funds would flow to schools, public safety and other pressing needs.
The city's CRA has in recent weeks peddled the notion of Los Angeles exceptionalism — the idea that it does such a good job fighting blight that Brown and Democratic legislative leaders Darrell Steinberg and John Pérez must spare L.A. even if other redevelopment agencies face demise.
Last week, in a Capitol room so packed with developers' lobbyists that onlookers suggested the fire marshal might be needed, the Legislature shocked almost everyone by approving Assembly Bill 26x to dismantle the state's local redevelopment agencies and use their billions of dollars for basic public services.
John Casey, chief of staff for state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, tells the Weekly, "When we're facing this kind of fiscal crisis, how do we best spend taxpayer money? Should we focus more on schooling and policing or should we be using taxpayer money on development?"
The Legislature approved a companion law, Assembly Bill 27x, allowing CRAs to survive — if they helped balance the budget by releasing $1.7 billion in taxes that they have legally diverted into their coffers.
Amidst all that, an effort to "carve out" Los Angeles as a special case backfired, leaving local land barons and the city's redevelopment chief, Christine Essel, haplessly scrambling to come up with another plan to protect private developers' hefty public subsidies in L.A.
A special clause in AB 27x — inserted by Assembly Speaker Pérez, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's first cousin — would have let L.A. blow past a $750 million spending cap that limits downtown redevelopment, enacted in 1977 to assure that City Hall didn't divert unseemly amounts of public subsidies into private downtown projects.
An adviser to Gov. Brown notes, "They tried to carve out one exception already, and the reaction was: What are you folks up to?"
The Los Angeles exceptionalism clause died a quick death last week after an outcry in the Capitol. CRA critic and attorney Christopher Sutton says, "Seems like [Speaker] Pérez got caught trying to exempt Los Angeles."
CRA/L.A. also floated the idea that its survival is critical to building affordable housing.
That didn't fly with Brown or the Legislature, either. As Becky Dennison of Los Angeles Community Action Network notes: "When you look at where ... the political powers want [the money] to go, it generally doesn't go to affordable housing. It's not by accident that Eli Broad got $50 million in that scramble to get CRA money."
As L.A. Weekly reported on Jan. 27 ("Jerry Brown Redevelopment Alert: Wealthy Eli Broad Gets $52 Million for a Garage; the Entirety of South L.A. Gets $32 Million"), a CRA list of projects earmarked $52 million for a parking lot next to a museum that billionaire Broad is erecting for his private art collection near Frank Gehry's Disney Hall in downtown's Civic Center — an area without blight.
In February, Essel's chief deputy, Jim Dantona, could offer only a vague concept for fighting blight in South L.A., telling one newspaper that the CRA/L.A. was "looking at making the South Los Angeles area more efficient in its ability to accumulate funds and create more catalytic projects."
Asked a few days ago what progress CRA/L.A. has made since then, Essel's aide David Bloom blamed Gov. Brown for disrupting its focus.
A lot of people are cheering the prospect of CRA/L.A.'s destruction. But inside City Hall, elected officials — many of whom take money from developers — regard it as something akin to losing a rich uncle. Los Angeles city leaders have made it clear that they don't want developer subsidies shifted to support schools or other essential needs.
Arrogance may have hurt CRA/L.A.'s cause as much as the state budget squeeze. Essel, even amidst heightened scrutiny, recently hired as her assistant Ackley Padilla, younger brother of state Sen. Alex Padilla. She was immediately assailed for nepotism.
And last year, CRA/L.A. attempted via Assembly Bill 2531 to radically expand California's definition of blight to include sturdy neighborhoods where diabetes, weight problems or lung ailments are at higher levels.
http://asmdc.org/speaker/news-... here is the story showing how insurance companies can give millions to these redevelopers for huge tax breaks. It is truly fascism. they have eliminated govt altogether to ensure any future cuts wont affect them even though these tax breaks are stealing $ from the state.
We MUST end redevelopment. it is turning all of california into 1 gigantic ghetto. They can always point to 1 or 2 good projects but for every 1 there are a 1000 bad projects. Please look into this latest development that Assembly is working on. It is a contemptible and dishonest means of ensuring state tax dollars continue to flow to private developers rather than schools and parks. It is a program that gives insurance companies HUGE tax breaks if they give $ directly to these developers and redevelopment funds to build "affordable housing". please dont let this story slip through the cracks!!!
"Impact Community Capital LLC (www.impactcapital.net) is a for-profit corporation founded by leading insurers to promote socially responsible investments in underserved communities, particularly in California. Impact focuses on financing affordable housing and community facilities to benefit lower income individuals, families and communities while also meeting insurer requirements for the prudent management of policyholder funds. " In other words tax dollars to developers....
As an architect I have found the CRA/LA to be the most useless agency I have ever worked with. I am not trying to be mean, but everything they seem to do is covered by another agency in L.A. The only purpose I can see them as having is to provide a lot of subjective opinions. They are a redundant agency that no longer does what they were created to do back in the 1950's. Also, the redevelopment debt that is added to local communities is out of control - San Jose with 2.5 billion for example - the most in our state. We need to streamline our State budget ant eliminate the nearly 400 CRA's throughout California.
I agree that the City Council, and more than likely, the City Planning Commission are all in line for the handouts that trickle into their coffers from the subsidies. That is why they are green lighting projects such as Lowe's in MidTown and The District Square at Rodeo and Crenshaw without Environmental Impact Reports, traffic mitigation plans, or due notification to the residents of the areas affected by these developers. Its government at its worse. Eli Broad scarely needs money. One donation of a painting in his collection could build affordable housing for 100's of familys....just sayin....
I respectfully disagree with the Governor's proposal to terminate redevelopment agencies. On Bunker Hill and around USC, I worked for the CRA and have consulted to agencies across the country. Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, Los Angeles was not on anyone's radar screen. There were no banks to lend for our projects, there were no developers, ways to create jobs or finance affordable housing. You may pooh pooh this things but for downtown to grow to where it is today, it took a catalyst. This catalyst was Bunker Hill. There are 210 acres of homes west of Normandie. Little Toyko was given its cultural, residential and commercial rebirth through redevelopment. It brought people and investors from Japan. The people of Watts asked for the Watts Urban Renewal project. The local share was paid by the Bunker Hill project. If it were not for redevelopment, USC would not have been able to expand by 46 acres. From 1968 to 1975, the number of projects in the increased from two to fifteen and the City Council votes were unanimous. The only redevelopment project that was not adopted was the 800 acre project that would have assisted homeowners to rebuild their homes at low interest rates after the February 9, 1971 earthquake.
Here are the statewide benefits of redevelopment:
1. $40.8 billion in GDP;2. 304,000 jobs (What tools does the state, county or local government have that will realistically create jobs like redevelopment has in our state and most states in the country?)3. For $1 of redevelopment spending generated $13 return4. In one year, $2 billion in additional state and local revenues
School districts receive their fair share through revenue sharing; increased property taxes and school fees paid at the building permit stage.
Since 1995 redevelopment agencies have helped build and/or rehabilitate 98,750 affordable housing units. (I am a member of the board of Community Corporation of Santa Monica, which is a non-profit affordable housing developer that has rehabilitated or developed nearly 2,000 units. The seed capital for everyone one of these communities that houses families at 80% of the median income is redevelopment funds. (For every project, we stop the qualified wait list at 3,200 families. Most of our residents were on the wait list for five years before being able to move into their home. (What will replace the redevelopment resource?)
If redevelopment agencies are shut down, who will pay off the bonds, deal with all the owned property and housing required by law?
As I recall, the last time Brown was Governor, he supported Prop 13 and that was as misguided as the elimination of redevelopment agencies in the state. The lack of understanding by legislators is disappointing. It either demonstrates ignorance or denial of the truth.
I find your statement "For $1 of redevelopment spending generated $13 return" typical twisted propaganda. The truth is more likely: For every $100 of redevelopment spending, $1 generates $13 of return, the other $99 is pissed away or is stuffed in some politicians pocket.
The source of my information is a summary of all redevelopment agencies in the state. What is the source of your facts or is it just your opinion?
I have read Controller Chiang's review of Redevelopment. He makes some very good points. These issues must be rectified. If the state had not been mismanaging their fiscal house for so long, non of this would be happening. In the end, it is all about the money. From eyes, it is like watching a heroin addict breaking into stores and saying "I need the fix, so I need the money." As long as we apply the Chiang examination and objectives to all forms of government, I would be all for it. Let's start with the City of Burbank handing out $4M in bonuses since 2007.
Maybe you should read State Controller John Chiang's review of Redevelpment Agencies dated March 2011. It details how wasteful redevelopment agencies are in this state. He states: "For a government activity which consumes more than $5.5 billion of public resources annually, we should be troubled that there are no objective performance measures demonstrating that taxpayers are receiving optimal return for each invested dollar," Chiang said in a statement. "The lack of accountability and transparency is a breeding ground for waste, abuse and impropriety."
I like that the source of your information is a "summary". The definition of a "summary" is presenting substance in a condensed form without detail. I have just filled in the details for you. As for why I feel they are pissing away out tax dollars, here: http://www.mercurynews.com/cal...
We need to cut the ability for politicians to piss our money away. Abolish the LA-CRA, another way politicians fill their pockets with money, and another huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Take that money and either pay the city debt, or give it back to the people to spend on the necessities of life.
I have never worked for LA-CRA. I have worked for a community in the shadow of downtown LA doing redevelopment. My perspective is that the state has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I have used redevelopment to clean-up environmentally contaminated sites. And, have redeveloped abandoned manufacturing sites creating retail, office, hotel and new industrial facilities that employed thousands of people. We have built bridges and storm channels plus numerous other infrastucture projects. Our economic development projects and the jobs created generated income taxes that flowed to the state. And, for every dollar of sales tax created for the city to fund parks and public safety we sent five dollars to the state. And, yes we created thousands of affordable housing units as well in the agencies I worked for. After twenty-eight years of redevelopment in four different California cities, I am very proud of my career and the positive contributions I and my peers have made professionally to better people's lives. It is absolutely laughable to think that the State will spend local revenues more intelligently than the local communities that created the revenue.
If you have never worked for CRA/LA, then all the things to which refer were not done by the CRA/LA.
Abolishing the CRA's will not give money to the State. It allows taxes to remain with the schools, with the cities, and a percentage with the State to fund existing programs, like fighting forest fires.
CRA's create zero tax dollars for anyone and some CRA projects like CIM's Midtown Project takes all the sale tax dollars, thereby leaving the city poorer and less about to repair roads, build parks, provide fire fighting services, maintain libraries.
The CRA's are basically a government owned construction company that can Kelo eminent domain any property -- similar to how East Germany built its "affordable housing."
Once the CRA gets hold of a piece of property, then incremental property tax dollars are lost forever. without CRA, wiser projects would be constructed and they would ADD to the tax base rather than SUBTRACT from it.
If you think an elderly billionaire sleaze needs a gift of $52 M in property tax dollars for a garage next to his art collection more than children need a park, then you and I see the world much differently. Los Angeles epitomizes the corruption which is destroying America -- we take takes away from children so that billionaire miscreants can visit their art work. If there isn't a Hell for this type of greed, there should be.
Another self-defeating "progressive" editorial from LA WeAkly, The CRA has done more to create jobs and rebuild a deteriorating metropolis than LA WeAkly could ever understand. Without CRA assistance, look for Los Angeles to continue to dissolve into a 3rd world infrastructure and economy, more dependent upon government welfare than government and private infrastructure and job rebuilding. This is why I can longer wear a "progressive" label. The partisan naivete of this self-destructive rag is the ugly counterpoint to the idiocy offered by Glen Beck, Fox et al. RIP to the late great L.A.
The CRA is the main reason the City is broke. It has siphoned off $1.5 Billion in property tax dollars from the City of LA and the schools. The CRA si the reason we have the worst streets in the nation -- it constructs projects but does not pay a cent for any infrastructure upkeep. Instead its money goes to pay the loans for the corrupt developers.
It would be better to abolish the CRA, send Garcetti, La Bonge, etc to prison and stop this soviet style centralized planning where the cash sticks to the fingers of the politicos. There is about $1/2 Billion missing on the Hollywood-Highland project alone.
I hear your emotionally charged point of view. However, there are no facts to support your point of view. After the state steals $1.7bn from all the redevelopment agencies, we will get to test your theory. I am aware of the public and private economics of these projects. There will be no projects, no property taxes to collect, no school fees paid to schools, no money to finance affordable housing and no jobs. You will have no one to put in jail. Kind of like a Third World country. Then the people will say: "What did we do to ourselves?"
I am beginning to better comprehend the disconnect between us. I have lived with redevelopment from different perspectives. You are an observer of Hollywood and you have applied your observations and opinions to the rest of the city and state.
I sit on the board of Community Corporation of Santa Monica, the non-profit, affordable housing developer in Santa Monica. With funds from redevelopment tax increment, CCSM has built nearly 2,000 affordable housing units. Every project has a pre-qualified waiting list of 3,200 families. Most of our residents are on our waiting list five years before they live in one of our communities. Without redevelopment, we will NOT be able to finance future rehabilitation and new development. (It funds the up front capital to acquire and perform predevelopment activities.) We will become a property management company and anyone related to development will lose their jobs.
CRA/ LA has assisted with the development or rehabilitation of nearly 25,000 homes; 90 percent of which are for low or moderate-income families.
There are 78 housing projects under construction or in the pipeline, which when completed will provide more than 15,000 rental units; more than 5,000 of which will be affordable.
From the time that I oversaw the construction of all the streets and tunnels in Bunker Hill through the development of Union Bank, Arco Garage, Bonaventure Hotel, Citibank Building, the Security Pacific headquarters building and Wells Fargo Center, I was the Project Manager. I was the assistant project manager for the redevelopment project around USC and provided for its expansion. I worked on the Normandie 210-acre residential community, where we were asked by the residents to set up and implement a home rehabilitation program, which I did. In Wilmington, I was the Project Manager for the 232-acre project that allowed for the oil wells to be unitized and all the 5,000 sf lots to be consolidated so that industrial development could take place.
Based upon this experience, I consulted on Riverwalk for the San Antonio Redevelopment Agency. For the Redevelopment Land Agency in Washington D. C., I was the advisor for Metro Square, a TOD that included a Marriott, department store and two office buildings above the intersection of the WMATA system.While you will disagree, I can attest that NONE of these projects would have happened without applying all the tools of redevelopment.
The intent of Proposition 22 was to prevent the State from borrowing or taking funds for transportation, redevelopment or local development.
It is inaccurate for you to state that redevelopment projects do not provide funds for schools. At the time the building permit is issued, every commercial project in the City of Los Angeles must pay a SCHOOL FEE of $0.47 per square foot. Residential projects pay $3.87 per square foot.
In response to the particular funding needs of schools, state wide, the redevelopment agencies offered the following: 1) Local redevelopment agencies can voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12. An equivalent amount of funds from any source must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas. (a) In exchange for this contribution of funds for FY 2011-12 to local schools, the agency will be allowed to extend the project area’s life by TWO YEARS. 2) In addition, or alternatively, redevelopment agencies could voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their tax increment revenue stream to local school districts for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12. (a) The tax increment revenue stream they could contribute would be calculated as a percentage of the gross tax increment minus the existing pass-through payments to local taxing entities. (b) For each percentage of tax increment paid to schools, an additional year could be added to the project area life, up to a maximum of 10 years. For example, if five percent of tax increment was dedicated to schools, the project area life could be extended for five years. BENEFITS: •For the ten-year life of this program conservatively estimates that the alternative could raise more than $2.7 billion, far exceeding the $1.7 billion in the Governor estimates that could be gained by eliminating redevelopment. •Much of these funds (estimates range from $700 million to $1 billion) would be a one-time upfront payment that could help bridge the FY 2011-12 budget gap. •Because it is a voluntary program, it does not violate the State’s Constitution or the will of the voters when they passed Proposition 22. There will be no expensive, time-consuming lawsuits, and no bonding or borrowing. •The contributions to local schools could be used for discretionary purposes, and the State could choose to score all or part of it towards Proposition 98 guarantees to school districts. •The contribution would not count toward the redevelopment agency’s debt limits.
In terms of taxes, state redevelopment construction activities generate more than $2 billion in state and local taxes in a typical year. Of the taxes collected, they go to the following:
•Payments to schools, counties and other government entities: 22%
•Affordable housing:20%
•Bonds and other debt repayments:42%
•Community improvements and infrastructure:16%Statewide redevelopment funds infrastructure and builds commercial, industrial and residential developments statewide. In 2007-08, 398 active redevelopment agencies implemented economic development-related projects in 756 project areas in local jurisdictions. During that year, $8.28 billion were expended for project-related costs (paying bonds, building construction, property acquisition, and other activities).
Obviously, you have a real problem with eminent domain, which is used for schools, freeways and other public purposes. Does this mean that you not drive on the freeways because eminent domain was utilized, or is it the “millionaire and billionaire” owners of the construction companies that you detest?
You do not seem to understand that CRA projects generate no new taxes. Theytake all the incremental property taxes, but if there were no CRA projectand private enterprise constructed a project, there would be incrementalproperty taxes.
The CRA projects can also take the sales and businesses tax from a projectlike CIM Group's Midtown project. That will take 100% of property taxes,100% of sales taxes 100% of business taxes leaving the community withgreatly increased need for *infrastructure but without a cent to pay for it.**
The CRA's also takes money directly away from schools. In 2010, Prop 22took an additional 20% per year away from the schools and gave it directlyto the CRAs. In the wake of Prop 22 in 2010, thousands of teachers werelaid off. That was $1.2 B subtracted from schools for 2011 alone.**
CRA/LA has decreased the amount of affordable housing, not increased it.
The idea that the CRA is necessary for anyone to construct anything isirrational. Abolishing the CRA means that we stop Kelo eminent domain andwe stop giving Billions of tax dollars to millionaires and billionaires.
*
Hey, go for it. You should puts some friends together and kill all the projects. This would make you happy. It would assure no projects, no fees for schools, no jobs, no affordable housing, no new property or retail sales tax. But I am sure that you will come up with some ideas to solve all these losses for your community. If you kill something for the tribe, it is on you to work your fanny off to replace all those things that you want destroyed. You can not have it only one way, so saddle up cowboy. You have a community to make better.
Sad to say CRA is not dead. Like B rated Hollywood horror movie, AB 27allows for its return. Perhaps we will eventually succeed in killing it.
You seem to have two ideas:
(1) Hollywood needs the Dreck that CRA builds.
(2) Only the CRA can build anything.
How did Hollywood become world famous long before anyone thought of the CRA?No one comes to Hollywood to see the garbage that CRA has built. CRA hasnothing to do with improving the city. It's sole purpose is to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of goniffs like Eli Braod and CIM Group withzero concern for the harm done to the city.
If Hollywood can stop the planned CRA projects like CBS Square,Hollywood-Western, we might rescue ourselves from the CRA.
BTW, 6200Hollywood had no CRA component until Garcetti forced CRA into theproject.
You have your wish answered. CRA is dead. Take a picture of Hollywood. With the exception of the 6200 project, KTLA studio site, Columbia Square, the Millennium, 1800 Argyle, Second Street Ventures Orange project and several CIM projects (all made possible by redevelopment), it will look pretty much the same 30 years from now and you will be happy. Good Luck!!
I marvel at your psychic abilities. I have to rely on humble facts. I havelived in Hollywood for more than 40 years so I've seen a lot. In the early1970's, Hollywood was rapidly becoming a slum. A few years later, when aline was drawn down Franklin Ave and no zoning changes would be allowednorth of Franklin, a huge revival began -- without any CRA. Hundreds ofmillions of dollars were spent on the homes north of Franklin and up intothe hills. When the homes were not being threatened by developers, peoplestarted renovating. (We did the Garbutt-Hathway Mansion is Silver Lake)
In 1993 the City did a Study on Telecommuting and it identified the trendthat the excessive density which was being pushed by the CRA was causing thetalented and skilled to exit Los Angeles in favor of less dense countieslike Riverside and less dense states like Nevada. The Study predicted thatthis trend would continue until the excessive densification stopped. As ZevY has pointed out, CRA/LA has destroyed far more affordable housing than ithas constructed.
Then along came Garcetti, LaBonge and the CRA. Hollywood began its descentinto slumdom. Despite the CRA's lies about the increasing population inHollywood, the more the CRA was involved, the more people fled. It took the2010 Census to show what residents knew and what the 1993 Study predicted --the CRA was a destructive force, turning Hollywood back into a slum.
Look at the N/W corner of Hollywood and Western. The CRA paid CIM Group$17.3 Million to destroy those businesses and evict poor people from the St.Francis and most recently the CRA has stolen the Garfield Community Parkaway from the children. CRA said it was too expensive, while it givesaltercocker goniff Eli Broad $52 M for a parking garage! What a first classsmuck! That's the CRA -- anti-children, pro billionaires. (The park's cost$5 M.)
And the CRA's corruption!!! Hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars havedisappeared. Horrible projects are planned because the public has to pickup the tab for each folly.
Without the CRA, its Kelo eminent domain and without its legalized theft ofbillions of property tax dollars, LA would be doing much better. It wouldhave decent roads, its police would have modern equipment, its firedepartment would NOT be downsized, its libraries would not be closing, itsparks would expand. Instead CRA gives $52 Million to billionaires as aparking garage is far more important that kids having a park. I know Imentioned this Eli cretin before, but everyone show know about Eli's $52 Mgarage and no park for kids.
To put it briefly, history has shown that CRA/LA is a cesspool of corruptionand incompetence. The sooner the CRA/LA is dead, and the sooner Garcetti,LaBonge, Wesson, etc. go to prison like Blago, the better for all of us.
Let me not be ambiguous. "No one will build anything" is a very broad absolute. Let me suggest that you go around Los Angeles and take pictures of all the CRA project areas. In ten years, twenty years or thirty years and beyond, it will look like it basically looks today. Havana would be a good image for you to conjure up. More people in need, less revenue to take care of them. You are right the hand of Adam Smith will be at work. In a city with a plethora of small lots, there will be very little new development. There will be very few affordable housing units built. Larger office users and retailers will be forced to the suburbs. Government will see a decline in property and retail sales taxes. But, you will be happy because no one make any money.
Your comment is ambiguous. Do you think that without the CRA no one willbuild anything?
Quite the contrary if we kill the CRA's totally completely so that they aredead, dead dead. we will return to the free market and Adam Smith'sIndividual Hand can be allowed to operate.
Developers will focus on constructing projects which people will buy andwhich banks will finance with private money. There won't be any severalextra million dollars to disappear into the pockets of the developers andtheir cronies at City Hall.
There are certain things that a government ought to do, like constructroads. There are other things for the private sector to construct, e.g.apartment homes, parking garages for billionaires, retail malls. The CRAconcentrates in screwing around with the private sector using tax money tomake a profit and if the project finanically fails, as many many CRAprojects fail, leaving the bill with the taxpayers.
The CRA is an early example of a continuous non-stop bailout of privatebusinessmen by the taxpayers. The main difference between Wall Street'sbeing bailed out and the CRA constant bailouts is that the CRA bailouts arenever ending. Each yar that demand Billions and Billions more tax dollarsto construct more and more Dreck at tripe to quadruple the costs.
Read "rickabrams" comments above you. That summarizes everything to a tee.
Using progressive and any other partisan labels is just plain foolish. That is because Redevelopment was always about Democratic Politicians making Republican Developers rich (like Rick Caruso in Glendale).
In terms of Liberal/Conservative, in the end it was the "Conservative" California Republicans, (you know, the ones who hate borrowing) that tried desperately to save Redevelopment with the Democrats in the Assembly and Senate going along with Gov. Brown (of course a Democrat). And other intelligent Democrats like Controller Chiang and Treasure Lockyer backed him up 100%.
James:
As to Rick Caruso, he was a billionaire before he developed Americana on Brand, in Glendale. Irrespective of Americana, Rick would still be a billionaire. Without redevelopment, Americana on Brand would never have happened. There were too parcels to assemble. Only time will tell, but I think the facts will show that Americana created a number of construction and permanent jobs, the first housing in downtown Glendale and a significant amount of property and retail sales. The 650,000 sf Grove attracts nearly as many visitors as Disneyland, draws from over 70 zip codes and generates per capita sales three times the national average. Are you suggesting that this is bad for a community? (There are more communities in our country clamoring for him to build one of his projects in their community than there are individuals that hold a negative view of his results and contributions.) Is it unreasonable for someone to make a profit who spends seven years of his or her life putting a project together, taking risk and has to live with the vagaries of the economy? I believe it is a win win public private partnership and we should be encouraging more of them.
The CRA/LA has done nothing to create jobs unless you're referring to the deck hands on the yachts of the CRA's favored developers. The CRA siphons off hundreds of millions of dollars of property tax dollars and in return it gives us Dreck. The CRA lost $1/2 B on the Hollywood-Highland and paid CIM $17.3 to create blight at the N/W corner of Hollywood-Western.
Most of you don't know what the CRA has done for Los Angeles and the state. For one the CRA is the only government agencie that creates jobs. Two LAUSD spent over 500million on building one new high school. So who waste more money the CRA or schools
Just because one agency of city government wasted more money doesn't mean it's okay for another one to fritter taxpayer cash away, too. This isn't some kind of contest among spendthrifts.
Indeed, as it is, the LAUSD should be dissolved since it has become more educational cancer than an agency that fosters achievement.
Rob, you are using government efficiency as your criteria for determining who should receive funds. Under your criteria, the CRA or CRA's throughout the state and LAUSD should be disbanded. If educating 700,000 children, creating jobs, increasing tax generation, building infrastructure and providing the money for 90% of the affordable housing in the state were your objectives, what mechanism would you propose to achieve these objectives? I have no argument with your desire for efficiency and cost effectiveness. I just want to know what government agency runs like Apple, Google and Microsoft etc?
I will not disparage billionaire Eli Board as a blood sucking leach who insisted on getting $52 M for his own parking garage while the kids in Hollywood won't get a park because the City cannot spare $5 M. On Eli's behave, $52 M is chump change for him so what's the big fuss. OMG, Aaron Spelling's little Holmby Hills shack sold for only $85 M so what's $52 M for a garage?
CRA's have one purpose -- to steal property tax dollars and give the tax dollars to millionaires and billionaires.
Abolish the CRA/LA until it is dead, dead, dead. Like a classic Hollywood horror movie, this vile money eating monster will not die. The CRA/LA is the #1 reason LA is broke.
Also if LA had law enforcement authorities like a DA or US Atty who were 1/10 as honest as they have in Chicago, the CRA/LA frauds and the Hollywood Sign Fraud would have resulted in criminal prosecutions years go.
The quote from Rodman: "Rodman says, "Redevelopment will have been very lopsided, tearing down a tremendous amount of housing and replacing it with city halls, ballparks and higher-end housing."
Redevelopment funds already fund "high end" projects like the Americana in Glendale and the W Hotel in Los Angeles.
It is absurd that housing will be replaced with City Halls or Ballparks. The only way ballparks are going in is with heavy subsidies from Cities (that is what is going to happen with AEG and Farmer's field) - Let those corrupt Cities pay the price and not the County and local jurisdictions.
In terms of "higher end" housing, that will occur (and has already occured with or without a Redevelopment Agency) with "upzoning." Those gifts are already given away in Los Angeles with variances and will be "by right" with changes in Community Plans.
The two trailer bills are AB 1X26 and AB 1X27.
AB 1X27 allows redevelopment agencies survive, but requires that the agency make up funds for education.
So who knows, in LA perhaps the Mayor and City Council are willing to give more cuts to public safety, public works, and libraries so they can continue giving public funds to their politically connected friends like Broad and AEG and keep the CRA alive in a reanimated state.
CRA/LA is screaming and squirming like any good blood sucking vampire. We must drive the stake in deep and sprinkle Chris Essel with garlic cloves. The undead of the CRA/LA otherwise will walk again to terrorize Los Angeles.
This is the sad reality that too many ignore: "Fifty-two mil to Eli Broad could have paid for 1,000 teachers. We subsidize billionaires instead of schoolchildren."
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city
