December 30, 2011
California Supreme Court Rules Against Redevelopment Agencies
The multi-million dollar question: can large-scale neighborhood revitalization and redevelopment projects thrive, or even simply survive, without agency dollars and support?
∙ Supreme Court Redevelopment Ruling [signonsandiego.com]
∙ Proposed Redevelopment Agency Elimination Puts SF Projects At Risk [SocketSite]
First Published: December 30, 2011 9:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Well, then projects like hunters point can get privatized, and wont become outposts of below market rate housing junk fields. I mean, are there any redevelopment led projects in SF that really integrate different populations and neighborhoods? Fillmore? Noooooo.
Posted by: 47yo hipster at December 30, 2011 10:23 AM
47yo... you're confusing redevelopment with public housing authority. Very different animals. When you think Redevelopment think Mission Bay, Yerba Buena, etc.
Posted by: curmudgeon at December 30, 2011 10:55 AM
Oh...that's bad then...
Posted by: 47yo hipster at December 30, 2011 2:55 PM
All the options are bad on this one. Taking the redevelopment revenue and giving it to the state stinks. But the alternative, cutting some other state budget item - mostly schools - stinks equally. Getting a badly out-of-balance budget back in order is painful.
The ruling does not seem to go out on any legal limbs, as far as I can see. This was a decision of the elected officials, and not some whacky court ruling.
Posted by: A.T. at December 30, 2011 3:06 PM
I was reading this article in the Examiner at the CalTrain station- I liked the part that said that so much low income housing would not be built in the Transbay redevelopment area because of this ruling.
Posted by: sf at December 30, 2011 4:12 PM
No state or local agency with cash on its books is safe. This is a cash grab and has nothing to do with the legitimacy or (alleged) utility of redevelopment agencies.
San Jose's redevelopment agency got itself quite a reputation for doling out bennies to national chain stores while stiffing long-time downtown businesses, and SF's Mission Bay will be one of those "what were they thinking" locales.
OTOH, should a redevelopment agencly clean up the 6th St corridor I'd be singing their praises for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Delancey at December 30, 2011 4:39 PM
@ Delancy: What's wrong with Mission Bay? It's got lots of great existing companies and more to come.
Posted by: Huh? at December 31, 2011 12:08 AM
And Delancy, 6th Street is a redevelopment area, and most of the rebuilt SRO housing there has been developed under redevelopment auspices.
It is a fact that a large percentage of redevelopment income (20%? I forget off-hand) was pledged to affordable housing, and the death of redevelopment will take away that support.
On the other hand, the death of redevelopment will channel more of that property tax revenue to cities general fund (and school districts etc). The money doesn't go away, but is redeployed, and cities could still theoretically do most of what redevelopment agencies do, should they choose.
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 1, 2012 8:07 AM
What's wrong with Mission Bay?
Nothing if the goal was to create a San-Jose type "office campus".
Posted by: BobN at January 1, 2012 7:06 PM
@BobN: Well, Mission Bay has a bunch of condos coming up for rent and for sale, if that's what you mean by "a San-Jose type 'office campus,'" that there's a lack of residential buildings/homes. I don't think SFRs in MB would be a best use of the limited land that SF has. You're not implying that, are you? Rumor has it several restaurants are also interested in space in South MB.
Posted by: Huh? at January 2, 2012 10:49 PM
Our state government is now smaller. yeah.
Posted by: kathleen at January 6, 2012 9:09 AM