Is Hemet Plan a Blight or Clever Idea? : Government: To secure more financing to build schools, the City Council has declared most of the town a redevelopment zone. Some residents say it is unethical and may hurt property values.

This fast-growing Riverside County city of almost 50,000 inhabitants does not fit the traditional definition of a blighted community. New subdivisions and commercial centers are rapidly overtaking farmland, and the downtown is bustling.

Residents’ per-capita savings amount to almost $40,000, thanks largely to a bountiful population of retirees, drawn to the shadow of Mt. San Jacinto in search of moderate weather, tranquillity and reasonable prices.

So how is it that the City Council last month declared virtually the entire community a redevelopment zone?

Other cities that lack slums have done the same, in a maneuver to grab hold of property tax money that would otherwise leave town. But Hemet’s main purpose is more singular--the “blighted” designation paves the way for the city to collect additional millions in school construction funds.

The Hemet plan and a similar strategy in Coronado, an affluent San Diego suburb, are the first in California to use redevelopment mainly as a way to build more schools, expanding the traditional definition beyond new housing and urban infrastructure.

The novel idea has generated an intense controversy, and officials in Sacramento are keeping an eye on Hemet because of potential statewide budget ramifications.

“It’s the latest twist in redevelopment,” said Peter Detwiler, staff consultant to the state Senate Local Government Committee.

Coronado designated most of its city a redevelopment zone in 1985, mostly for school purposes, but that move did not give rise to the crescendo of criticism that has greeted Hemet’s plan.

But foes here and elsewhere have marshaled their forces for an offensive designed to turn back Hemet’s strategy.

“If every school district in California achieved the same approach, the state of California would be bankrupt overnight,” said Richard Gann, president of Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee, a Sacramento-based tax watchdog group named after his late father, a tax activist.

Other California cities, notably Santa Ana, are looking at similar plans in an effort to augment school funds during what appears to be a protracted period of fiscal austerity.

Last week, opponents submitted a ballot petition to city officials that seeks to overturn the Hemet redevelopment plan. The matter will likely be placed before voters in June.

Critics say Hemet’s strategy is a sophisticated, and illegal, fiscal legerdemain that amounts to “double dipping.” Supporters say it is a creative and legitimate effort to finance construction of much-needed schools, alleviating classroom overcrowding.

Under the plan, receipts from property tax increases normally funneled to the Hemet Unified School District would instead go to the city’s redevelopment agency. Under state law guaranteeing minimum levels of funding per student, officials in Sacramento would be required to make up some of the money that has been redirected from the Hemet school district.

In the meantime, Hemet redevelopment officials have pledged to use most of the money on school projects. So, in effect, the schools will get an additional source of funds, perhaps as much as $198 million over 40 years, officials said.

“You don’t solve a problem by having the city of Hemet steal money from the schools, so the schools can steal money from the state,” said Tom Byler, one of the Hemet residents enraged by the plan. “Hemet is far from being a slum.”

Part of the opposition is based on fears that the “blighted” designation could deflate property values and lead to condemnation orders, outcomes that city officials say are unlikely.

Proponents of Hemet’s approach argue that it is a fair and equitable way to pay for new schools. As for its legality, the city submitted the blueprint to Riverside County Superior Court for a ruling, which is expected this year.

“If a community doesn’t have adequate schools, it is blighted,” argued Mayor Gaila Jennings, a teacher and supporter of redevelopment.

Now, about half of the Hemet school district’s 13,450 students receive lessons in portable classrooms. Enrollment has exploded because of a surge in the numbers of young families, whose migration here during the 1980s outstripped the arrival of retirees.

Differing views of the two demographically distinct groups form a strong undercurrent to the redevelopment dispute.

“I’m sure the schools are overcrowded, but I think that’s the case all over California, isn’t it?” asked Ardith Scribner, a retired real estate broker who is helping spearhead local opposition.

The opponents argue that more traditional forms of funding--notably bond issues--are the appropriate means of financing bricks and mortar for education. But there is little hope that voters here, particularly the elderly, would approve a costly school construction bond.

Aside from the redevelopment money, officials say they see few alternatives for adding classrooms.

“We’re sending money to the state and it’s getting lost,” said Jennings. “If every school district around the state did this, then they (state officials) might come to grips with the fact that there’s not enough money available now to build the schools that are needed.”