Thousand Oaks Again Ready to Go After ‘Blight’ Money

Redevelopment districts, originally thought of as a way to fix up blighted urban areas, are about to get their third test in mostly affluent, suburban Thousand Oaks.

The Thousand Oaks City Council is poised to approve a redevelopment zone designed to generate $55 million to $75 million in property taxes over 35 years, mostly for road projects.

Thus far, there has been minimal opposition to the proposed Newbury Road redevelopment district, which supporters say will help keep in Thousand Oaks property taxes that previously went to Ventura County.

The 273-acre zone, expected to be approved tonight, would cover a two-mile commercial strip of shops and restaurants, including a few vacant lots in Newbury Park.

“We’ve been a milk cow for the county for a long time. We have areas in need, and it would be unethical not to use the money,” Councilman Lee Laxdal said Monday.

“That general area needs some face-lifting. It isn’t nearly up to its potential,” he said.

Little Done With First District

The city’s first redevelopment district, 10 vacant acres east of the Moorpark Freeway in central Thousand Oaks, has received little attention since it was established in 1972. The city is eventually expected to sell the land to a private developer for the construction of 23 single-family homes.

But its second district, created in 1979 along a busy, five-mile stretch of shops and offices on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, came under fire from a wide range of community activists and merchants, who contended that the district unfairly diverted property tax revenues from schools, the county and other government agencies. That zone is expected to yield $265 million in property taxes through the year 2022.

The Ventura County district attorney’s office in 1983 issued a report concluding that Thousand Oaks had stayed within the bounds of state redevelopment law, but that the city subverted the intent of the law, which was to resurrect dying urban areas.

New Construction Aids City

Under state redevelopment law, the county continues to collect the same amount of property taxes it did before redevelopment. But a city benefits by new construction in an area deemed blighted--its redevelopment agency collects and distributes the taxes that come from any increase in the total value of property in the zone.

The money, previously shared among cities, counties and government agencies such as community college, library and school districts, goes directly to the city. But cities generally sign “pass-through” agreements with those agencies, returning much of the proceeds.

The city’s share must be used for capital improvements, such as building roads, parks, sewers and community facilities.

In the Newbury Road district, the city has agreed to “pass through” about $30 million over the life of the redevelopment zone to the Ventura County College District, the Conejo Valley Unified School District, the Conejo Valley Recreation and Park District and Ventura County.

Under the proposal before the council, another 10% of the city’s proceeds--$5.5 million to $7.5 million--would be earmarked for reasonably priced housing.

The proposed new zone runs along Newbury Road between Borchard and Haigh roads.

The redevelopment plan envisions financing seven road projects, including a widening of the traffic-choked Borchard Road bridge over the Ventura Freeway, and installation of storm drains and utility lines underground.

But critics argue that the area is not blighted and that public works improvements can be paid for by developer contributions from new shopping and office projects.

Richard D. Booker, a Thousand Oaks resident and longtime foe of the city’s redevelopment practices, said Monday that he and other opponents may sue to block the redevelopment district.

“It’s another money grab. That will make over a third of a billion dollars for correcting blight in Thousand Oaks,” he said. “That would have paid for the entire Statue of Liberty celebration and contra aid to boot.”

The creation of redevelopment districts has been controversial in other wealthy California municipalities. Many have used the state law more to upgrade streets and sewers than remove slums.

The financially healthier cities have attracted much of the bond money available for redevelopment projects, pushing aside needier communities and circumventing the intent of redevelopment law, critics charge.