Redevelopment Funds and Schools

The article by Doug Kaplan (“Overmalled, Underschooled,” Commentary, Dec. 9), concerning redevelopment agency financing of shopping centers to the detriment of local schools, ignores some important facts. As of 1993, Section 33426.5 of the California Redevelopment Law has prohibited any direct assistance by a redevelopment agency for an auto dealership or a retail commercial development on previously undeveloped land on a site in excess of five acres. This effectively eliminates redevelopment agency participation in auto malls or large shopping centers.

It is ironic that the redevelopment law was previously changed to require redevelopment agencies to spend at least 20% of their tax revenue for the construction of housing and then criticize them because they are not adequately providing for the schools which are made necessary by new housing. Many redevelopment agencies have constructed school facilities and have diverted redevelopment revenues to local schools. For example, the City of Industry’s redevelopment agency, which I represent, recently gave $8 million in money and land to the Pomona Unified School District for the construction of a high school which will serve children of workers in industrial facilities created by the redevelopment agency. It has also transferred, to date, $36 million of redevelopment funds to the Los Angeles County Housing Authority, for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing in adjacent county areas.

GRAHAM A. RITCHIE

City of Industry

* Redevelopment activities ignore school and other social needs in a community because commercial and industrial redevelopment rewards participants handsomely. Developers get subsidies from the tax coffers to enhance the profitability of their developments. But, in addition, Sacramento politicians get contributions from these same developers to make sure that the redevelopment status quo is maintained. Cities manipulate the process to increase their tax base.

As Kaplan points out, redevelopment is accomplished by using the taxes of all other public agencies and requires no approval of voters.

I believe that the cards are truly stacked against the average citizen from securing changes in redevelopment laws which would be more equitable to schools. We need to continue our demands that Sacramento listen to us rather than special interest groups. As a starter, I suggest that Sacramento consider allocating all school taxes that now go to redevelopment agencies to a special state fund for the purpose of funding new schools and refurbishing old ones. Of course, this would have to apply to only new redevelopment projects because the current tax allocations are being used to pay off bond debts and other obligations.

DONALD M. WICKERT

La Verne