Good Idea; Poor Choice of Tools
Redevelopment. Visions of a slumlord’s equity succumbing to a few well-placed sticks of dynamite, a bulldozer plowing through blocks of Craftsman bungalows, a wrecking ball pitted against a high-rise that houses poverty and crime. Just mention the word and you’ll get some sort of visceral reaction.
Would the vote on Ventura’s Measure A have been different had the authors spelled out whether Midtown structures would be sporting “this property is condemned” signs? Would the ayes have prevailed had proponents owned up to the real reason Buenaventura was said to be hiding her charms behind a veil of blight? Post-election analysis reveals that redevelopment would have allowed for the recovery of $1 million a year in future property taxes from the state. Sometimes honesty is the best policy.
Redevelopment serves as an indispensable item in our municipal toolbox. Tools, which can be used to build up as well as tear down, are inherently interesting. We all know to what a screwdriver or knife should be used for--but how many of us have ever employed a knife to turn a screw? Although such an improvisation benefits neither knife nor screw, any tinkerer can testify that the desired outcome can be achieved.
As conceived, redevelopment was a mechanism for battling physical and fiscal decay. By providing a legal and financial framework for private investment with public assistance, it became possible to reverse the decline of neighborhoods.
The claim that there has never been a successful redevelopment program is patently false. Every city in Ventura County (and county government itself) has made positive use of crisp redevelopment greenbacks. During 1996-’97, the 11 Ventura County redevelopment agencies enabled $26.4 million worth of office buildings, industrial complexes and affordable housing to sprout up throughout the county.
The current system of municipal finance in California has, however, changed the way that redevelopment is employed. Because such a minute percentage of locally paid property tax stays local, cities are desperate to find ways to keep more revenue at home. The original business of redevelopment, namely blasting blight, has been co-opted for an unintended function; the knife is being used as a screwdriver.
*
Redevelopment allows local government to benefit from any increase in the value of property within the redevelopment area. More property taxes stay at home, available to benefit the municipality generating the funds. The theory: Your property tax dollars mean more to your community than to the Sacramento legislator who would otherwise get to spend them.
My question remains: Why is that notion only valid when the property is in some self-designated redevelopment area?
If all your mechanic possesses is a screwdriver, you had better find a new mechanic. On the other hand, if he has every tool except a screwdriver, you had still better find a new mechanic--one who is able to lay his hands on the right tool for the job. The same applies to the job of local government.
Redevelopment is a valuable tool but it should not be the only tool available. It’s time California added something new to the box. We should decide on the kind of communities we want and then provide the incentives to create them. By allowing a greater rate of property tax return on the “increased value” created by smart growth, job creation and livable communities, we will be able to build a Ventura County that not only preserves our quality of life but also ensures its continuation for the next generation.
With the right tools, the job can be done. It’s time to create an alternative to redevelopment. Let’s get to work.
