Sink or Swim? Locals Left w/ a Mess as Proposals Float to Address a Post-Redevelopment CA

Local governments seem to be left with more questions than answers as they deal with the aftermath of redevelopment’s elimination. Beginning February 1st, all agencies will officially be kaput and in the meantime cities have named successors and are grappling with the details of what obligations will be covered as well as the likelihood of impending layoffs (not to mention paying off debts). For instance, the city of Oakland announced that around 200 city workers would lose their jobs in order to make up for the loss in $25 million to $30 million in redevelopment funds.

Notably, a bill was introduced on Friday that would delay the Feb. 1 redevelopment dissolution until April 15. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Los Angeles Democrat, introduced the measure (SB 659) and has argued for giving cities and agencies more time to figure out the very messy process that has been created by the abolishment of RDAs. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has also introduced a bill, SB 654, which would allow successors to use existing housing funds for affordable housing.

Steinberg also wrote an op-ed for the Bee arguing for another alternative in which legislators would appropriate funds to local governments if the money goes toward projects that promote job growth, affordable housing and transient-oriented development. In his article, Steinberg argues that the elimination of RDAs “may actually provide the single biggest opportunity in decades to remake, for the better, the difficult relationship between the state and city governments.” (You can be judge of that) Read the full op-ed here, which is clearly written to emphasize who is in the superior negotiating position (hint: it’s not locals).

Steinberg also gave a pointed critique of the League of Cities in particular during interviews with the press. The senate leader commented, “The League of Cities, specifically, has up to now successfully led a two-decade campaign to point the finger at the state of California and to say, 'You stole our money.' It isn't their money, it isn't the state's money, it's the taxpayers' money.” 

Both Steinberg and the governor have expressed reluctance to support any delay, as outlined in Padilla’s bill, but they indicated willingness to consider proposals that focus on affordable housing and economic development. However, key questions remain: Can consensus be found in Sacramento for a post-redevelopment package and will Governor Brown be supportive of any such legislative solutions or is his veto pen already dipped in ink?