Go Slow on CRA Takeover

The Los Angeles City Council is poised to take a momentous vote Tuesday, possibly and unadvisedly taking control of the city’s debt-ridden, 210-employee Community Redevelopment Agency.

Those who have not heard of this major development can be forgiven. Although a takeover by the council was debated for years, the proposal never had enough support to go through. Now, some council members are pushing the measure again. But as in the early 1990s, the council has no clear mandate. It should not rush a takeover.

Defeat or table the motion Tuesday, then refer it to the Budget and Finance Committee for a detailed analysis. Proof is needed that a council takeover would improve matters and not muck them up even more.

Unfortunately, the CRA has always been an easy target. The state’s Community Redevelopment agencies were created in 1948 to attack urban blight. They have the controversial power to seize property through eminent domain so that multiple parcels of land can be put together for major developments. They can also buy and sell property and issue bonds. In Los Angeles, even the CRA’s funding is controversial, much of it coming from a portion of local property tax revenues that critics say could be better spent elsewhere.

The CRA was a major force in downtown development and the creation of the city’s skyline. That came at the cost of losing considerable low-to-moderate-income housing. But a recent UCLA study (commissioned by the CRA) praised the agency for making significant advancements in affordable housing. Now, following a drop in property tax revenues, the CRA is strapped with an $8-million budget deficit and a whopping $630 million of debt.

Mayor Richard Riordan, who appoints the CRA board members, and groups like the Central City Assn. oppose the takeover on the ground that it would impede efficiency, not improve it. And there is the question of whether the council would carve the CRA into 15 fiefdoms, with attempts to find some reason to establish pork-barrel programs in each council district. And how well would the council keep track of the smaller elements--such as a CRA-funded North Hollywood home for 25 mentally ill adults--that are so important to city residents?

Council supporters fault, among other things, Riordan’s appointments to the CRA board, business flight from the city and a slow start by a revolving-door series of deputy mayors assigned to economic development.

The timing is also questionable, given a vote later this year on charter reform that could increase the size of the City Council to 21 or 25 members. Shouldn’t the charter reform vote come first?

There is ample reason for further study. Without that, a council vote to take over the CRA could be viewed as a power grab and another meaningless attack in the trench warfare between the mayor and the council.

Vote down the takeover or delay it to allow the close examination it deserves.