Pages

Friday, December 30, 2011

Redevelopment Decision Likely a (Marginal) Good Thing for UC Budget


For those who have been following the state budget/redevelopment drama on this blog that unfolded after yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling seemingly abolishing redevelopment agencies, below is an update, courtesy of the California Planning and Development Report (excerpts).  Our prior background posts are at:



Redevelopment Will Be Back -- But At What Price?

By Bill Fulton and Josh Stephens on 29 December 2011 

The California Supreme Court killed redevelopment this morning, but that doesn’t mean it’s dead.  At first glance it would seem as though redevelopment agencies have no bargaining power at all. After all, it’s hard to imagine a weaker position than a state Supreme Court ruling saying you don’t exist.  But don’t forget the most important point about the redevelopment battle: It’s not about redevelopment. It’s about money. And if all sides in Sacramento can resolve the money issue, the legal status of redevelopment will be practically irrelevant. There is every reason to believe a deal will be struck. It's just not the deal that the California Redevelopment Association and League of Cities were hoping for when they filed suit four months ago…

In the meantime, however, California’s $6 billion redevelopment system has been thrown into uncertainly. Technically, at least, no redevelopment agencies exist and no redevelopment activities can move forward. Counties and school districts will presumably move forward in creating the oversight committees required under the law to take over and dispose of redevelopment agency assets.
One thing is clear: Time is on the state’s side. For now redevelopment does not exist. The longer the status quo persists, the more the state can claim the money – and the farther down the line counties and school districts will go in trying to lay claim to redevelopment agency assets. If the redevelopment establishment can’t strike a quick deal, we may be in for a long siege.

Within hours of the ruling’s release on Thursday morning, both sides issued statements that could be considered conciliatory. Gov. Jerry Brown – who instigated the proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies in his budget last January – issued a one-sentence statement saying that the ruling “validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.”

Brown doesn’t crow about the death of redevelopment. He doesn’t even mention redevelopment; nor does he stake a claim to all $6 billion in redevelopment funds. He simply says the ruling means $1 billion more for schools and courts – making it easier for him to cash in last week’s promise that schools will get more money in this fiscal year.

Meanwhile, the CRA and the League – which have taken a slash-and-burn rhetorical approach since Day 1 of this battle – also issued a statement containing calm-it-down language aimed at making a deal. CRA’s interim executive director, Jim Kennedy, said the organization looked forward to finding “ways to restore redevelopment while also providing the state budgetary relief in a manner that doesn’t violate Prop 22.” …

The League and the CRA immediately tipped their hand as to what the likely negotiating points will be – and how they will build up enough political support to force a solution in the Legislature. Many urban Democratic legislators are logical allies of redevelopment and seemed uncomfortable in the party-line attack on it last year – just as Republicans seemed uncomfortable supporting it.
The CRA board reportedly met via conference call this afternoon to discuss their strategy. CRA had already indicated that it would use at least two tactics to build support: First, use the powerful affordable housing lobby as much as possible; and, second, resubmit their proposal from last year, which would permit voluntary payments to school districts in exchange for extended life of project areas.

It was not immediately clear on Thursday afternoon what Brown and legislature leaders will seek to extract as a price. But one thing is clear: Time is on the state’s side.


Here is the official statement of the lobbying groups mentioned above: http://protectourlocaleconomy.com/node/92

So what does all of this mean for UC and its budget.  Nothing immediately.  But note that the revenue that was at stake from redevelopment for the state comes to about 70% of what the state gives to UC.  Had the state lost the case, UC might have suffered in the next fiscal year.  With negotiating strength now on the state’s side – as the excerpt above indicates – it is likely that the state will extract at least what it had expected from the redevelopment agencies when this year’s budget deal was reached – and maybe more.  On balance, from the UC perspective anything that enhances state revenue is a Good Thing.  So the outcome is likely to be a Good Thing at least marginally.

Meanwhile, the position of the redevelopment agencies can be seen below:


37 comments:

Chris Cruse said...

I do not see how voluntary payments to schools in return for allowing redevelopment agencies to exist is any different from ABX-1-27, the legislation that the supreme court just declared violated prop 22. The supreme court said that those voluntary payments were not really voluntary.

California Policy Issues said...

If the legislature agrees to some new deal and the redevelopment agencies don't challenge it, there may be no one else with legal standing to take the issue to court. Just a thought from a non-lawyer.

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol next day delivery - tramadol 625

Anonymous said...

generic xanax xanax small white pills - pictures of xanax pills generic

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy viagra tramadol - where to buy tramadol

Anonymous said...

cheap tramadol order tramadol for pets - tramadol 627 high

Anonymous said...

order tramadol online tramadol 50 mg buy usa - tramadol generic price

Anonymous said...

generic xanax xanax withdrawal symptoms - xanax drug reactions

Anonymous said...

tramadol generic tramadol legal to order online - tramadol for dogs ok for people

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online cheapest generic tramadol - tramadol ultram eq 50 mg

Anonymous said...

alprazolam where can i buy xanax bars online - buy generic alprazolam

Anonymous said...

buy carisoprodol carisoprodol overnight delivery - soma carisoprodol abuse

Anonymous said...

xanax online xanax erectile dysfunction - generic xanax pictures information

Anonymous said...

carisoprodol 350 mg brand name drug carisoprodol - carisoprodol soma same

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online tramadol ultram eq 50mg - order tramadol medication

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online is tramadol/ultram an opiate - tramadol 50 mg for toothache

Anonymous said...

cheap tadalafil where to order cialis online - cialis lower blood pressure

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online zydol sr 100mg tramadol hydrochloride - order tramadol online visa

Anonymous said...

buy cialis best place buy cialis online forum - buy generic cialis usa

Anonymous said...

discount cialis buy cheap cialis australia - generic cialis mail order

Anonymous said...

cialis online buy cialis us no prescription - generic cialis tadalafil 40 mg

Anonymous said...

buy cheap cialis online no prescription buy cialis viagra usa - cialis daily free offer

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol tramadol hcl 50 mg drug interactions - tramadol 100mg dose

Anonymous said...

http://landvoicelearning.com/#30896 tramadol 50 mg euphoria - tramadol drug

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online tramadol buy forum - order tramadol cod

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol cod tramadol no prescription cheap - 100mg of tramadol high

Anonymous said...

tramadol online legal buy tramadol online united states - tramadol can get u high

Anonymous said...

learn how to buy tramdadol tramadol high blood pressure - buy tramadol 50mg

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy cheap tramadol online no prescription - buy tramadol online overnight cod

Anonymous said...

buy generic tramadol no prescription tramadol buy 100 mg - tramadol street value 50 mg

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online generic equivalent tramadol - tramadol no prescription overnight cod delivery

Anonymous said...

xanax mg generic xanax pills identify - xanax generic pill identification

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol cod online tramadol online no prescription needed - tramadol online prescription

Anonymous said...

A huge dick in my pussy,a new warm wet tounge up our arse and cum
and also pussy juice all over me. Fuck, ozzy

Have a look at my blog hcg injections
My web site: hcg injections

Anonymous said...

xanax order no prescription xanax side effects weight - xanax side effects and weight gain

Anonymous said...

http://ranchodelastortugas.com/#50238 xanax 832 - xanax affects the heart

Anonymous said...

http://bayshorechryslerjeep.com/#2mg how many alprazolam 0.5mg to get high - xanax 90