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.
Full article at http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3081
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:
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.
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.
buy tramadol online buy tramadol next day delivery - tramadol 625
generic xanax xanax small white pills - pictures of xanax pills generic
buy tramadol online buy viagra tramadol - where to buy tramadol
cheap tramadol order tramadol for pets - tramadol 627 high
order tramadol online tramadol 50 mg buy usa - tramadol generic price
generic xanax xanax withdrawal symptoms - xanax drug reactions
tramadol generic tramadol legal to order online - tramadol for dogs ok for people
buy tramadol online cheapest generic tramadol - tramadol ultram eq 50 mg
alprazolam where can i buy xanax bars online - buy generic alprazolam
buy carisoprodol carisoprodol overnight delivery - soma carisoprodol abuse
xanax online xanax erectile dysfunction - generic xanax pictures information
carisoprodol 350 mg brand name drug carisoprodol - carisoprodol soma same
buy tramadol online tramadol ultram eq 50mg - order tramadol medication
buy tramadol online is tramadol/ultram an opiate - tramadol 50 mg for toothache
cheap tadalafil where to order cialis online - cialis lower blood pressure
buy tramadol online zydol sr 100mg tramadol hydrochloride - order tramadol online visa
buy cialis best place buy cialis online forum - buy generic cialis usa
discount cialis buy cheap cialis australia - generic cialis mail order
cialis online buy cialis us no prescription - generic cialis tadalafil 40 mg
buy cheap cialis online no prescription buy cialis viagra usa - cialis daily free offer
buy tramadol tramadol hcl 50 mg drug interactions - tramadol 100mg dose
http://landvoicelearning.com/#30896 tramadol 50 mg euphoria - tramadol drug
buy tramadol online tramadol buy forum - order tramadol cod
buy tramadol cod tramadol no prescription cheap - 100mg of tramadol high
tramadol online legal buy tramadol online united states - tramadol can get u high
learn how to buy tramdadol tramadol high blood pressure - buy tramadol 50mg
buy tramadol online buy cheap tramadol online no prescription - buy tramadol online overnight cod
buy generic tramadol no prescription tramadol buy 100 mg - tramadol street value 50 mg
buy tramadol online generic equivalent tramadol - tramadol no prescription overnight cod delivery
xanax mg generic xanax pills identify - xanax generic pill identification
buy tramadol cod online tramadol online no prescription needed - tramadol online prescription
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
xanax order no prescription xanax side effects weight - xanax side effects and weight gain
http://ranchodelastortugas.com/#50238 xanax 832 - xanax affects the heart
http://bayshorechryslerjeep.com/#2mg how many alprazolam 0.5mg to get high - xanax 90
Post a Comment