You may have heard the grumblings from both sides about the Governor’s proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies (RDAs).
Disclaimer: I am no expert. In fact, there is a really great article in the Voice of San Diego that explains it in detail while still being a pretty easy read.
I have found writing this article to be difficult, as I swing back and forth in my position of support or oppose. Here is the way that I understand it.
One thing that you need to be familiar with is Prop 98, which is the state’s guaranteed funding level for schools. When the state does not have enough funding to meet the minimum guarantee, they backfill funding from the General Fund.
We’ll come back to this, but remember it.
When property taxes increase in a redevelopment area, each dollar is distributed in the following formula (per City of CV Redevelopment Manager):
$.20 to affordable housing,
$.35 to schools and the county, and
$.45 to the Redevelopment Agency incur debt and capital projects (sidewalks, street repair, etc.).
Eliminate RDAs and any increase in property taxes then goes to the County, with some being distributed back to cities and schools. So you lose the funding that is now allocated to affordable housing, capital improvements and the ability to incur debt for larger projects.
Remember Prop 98? Well, when more money is going to schools from the county (if RDAs are eliminated) then the less likely the state’s general fund would need to provide backfill. This could go a long way in helping the state budget through possible savings in the general fund. And they say that schools will get more money, which we know they desperately need.
So that is the basic argument for eliminating RDAs.
We don’t hear much about Chula Vista - All we hear in the news is downtown San Diego, football stadiums, ball parks and convention centers, and controversial San Diego redevelopment agencies.
The Chula Vista Perspective
First, Chula Vista’s RDA is made up of our five council members. There are no appointed positions who are not accountable to the public.
Second, Chula Vista has spent it’s redevelopment funding in areas that need it:
- The older parts of Chula Vista are in dire need of capital improvements and there quite frankly isn’t enough money to cover it all. In fact, 70% of all capital improvement investments are in the older communities.
- Chula Vista’s RDA is the only agency in the county that is cleaning up Brown Fields (toxic properties).
- Chula Vista’s RDA has been able to use $20 million in public funds to leverage $166 million in private investment
- Chula Vista’s RDA has created over 1,100 new affordable housing units.
- Chula Vista’s RDA has invested in neighborhood rehabilitations and storefront renovations.
So what happens if Chula Vista loses its RDA?
- According to the City’s Redevelopment Manager, the City would lose $14 million in gross tax increment revenue of which about $7 million is available for debt services and projects.
- Bay front development could be compromised. Did you know that a fire station is required on the bay front before any development can occur? RDA funds are slated to pay for that station.
- Funding to repair streets, sidewalks and other capital improvements will decrease. The older, west side will continue to be in great need - while as the newer communities begin to age, they will begin to need more funding for improvements then they need now.
- Without the city’s ability to incur debt through RDA’s, growth will be pushed out into the eastern areas because it will be cheaper for development to occur there.
What do you think about the RDA proposal? Do you have a position? Let’s hear from you.
Then take a moment and share your thoughts with your state representatives. It can be as easy as one sentence .... “I support [do not support] the Governor’s proposal to eliminate RDAs.”
Be sure to sign your name and address ... and heck throw in that you’re a registered voter who votes consistently - that never hurts!
Who are your Chula Vista State Representatives?
Assemblymember Marty Block
Assemblymember Ben Hueso
Senator Juan Vargas
No comments:
Post a Comment