SAN FRANCISCO—Governor Jerry Brown’s “hammered out” budget proposal for California prompted the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to oppose the elimination of redevelopment agencies.
“I think the board spoke unanimously today of our opposition to the elimination of redevelopment,” said Supervisor and San Francisco Board President David Chiu following the passage of the resolution.
“Redevelopment has had incalculable positive impacts in San Francisco and to lose the sources of funding, the opportunity to use redevelopment law to move forward various communities and neighborhoods would be catastrophic,” he added.
Governor Brown’s budget proposes to phase out the redevelopment agencies so as to redirect property tax to schools, cities, and counties.
“The expansion of redevelopment agencies has gradually shifted property tax away from schools, counties, special districts, and city general purposes,” reads Brown’s proposed budget.
Currently, kindergarten through grade 14 schools receive 37 percent of property tax revenues, counties 25 percent, cities 18 percent, redevelopment agencies 12 percent, and special districts 8 percent according to Brown’s budget.
After Californians voted to amend the California Community Redevelopment Law in 1951, redevelopment agencies were given the green light to use Tax Increment Financing to fund their projects.
This type of financing allowed these agencies to take from public funds the amount they deem necessary to be reimbursed after the completion of these projects.
Brown cited an independent 1998 study by the Public Policy Institute of California which says that “fewer than one-quarter of the [redevelopment] projects came close to being responsible for the property taxes they received.”
By eliminating the tax increment financing to fund redevelopment agencies and addressing a new approach to funding these agencies, Brown predicts that billions of dollars in funding will be redirected to schools.
“This proposal will return billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties,” Brown said.
San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen is not convinced these projects will succeed without utilizing tax increment financing.
“The most unattainable without the use of tax increment financing is our ability to transform neglected and polluted tracts of land into productive, healthy neighborhoods,” she said.
Redevelopment agencies address blight and redevelop unused land, dilapidated buildings, and contaminated land, and combine small parcels of land for larger investment projects.
Cohen, who represents District 10, sponsored Tuesday’s board resolution and said she sees great value in these agencies for her district.
“Redevelopment authority is a tool,” she said. “It is a tool for creating jobs and developing affordable housing—in short, building communities where investment has lacked.”
Dr. Aurelious Walker, Chairman of the Board of Bayview Hope wrote a letter to Brown opposing the elimination of redevelopment agencies.
“Redevelopment activities support an average of 304,000 full and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs,” Walker stated.
Yet Cohen is worried about the loss of jobs and future affordable housing projects in her district. “I’m worried about the affect it will have on jobs, on affordable housing, the rebuild[ing] of the city’s four out of five largest public housing units,” she said.
Supervisor Jane Kim, who co-sponsored the resolution, agreed with Brown and said schools need funding, adding that she wants to be at the table to discuss compromises on the proposal to keep key projects afloat in San Francisco.
“I think that this resolution is important because it does not state that we are completely against the governor’s proposal, but we want to be at the table to discuss some compromises or ways that we can work around the budget process so that we can still continue to find gaps to help fund our schools and public health services,” Kim said.
“I think the board spoke unanimously today of our opposition to the elimination of redevelopment,” said Supervisor and San Francisco Board President David Chiu following the passage of the resolution.
“Redevelopment has had incalculable positive impacts in San Francisco and to lose the sources of funding, the opportunity to use redevelopment law to move forward various communities and neighborhoods would be catastrophic,” he added.
Governor Brown’s budget proposes to phase out the redevelopment agencies so as to redirect property tax to schools, cities, and counties.
“The expansion of redevelopment agencies has gradually shifted property tax away from schools, counties, special districts, and city general purposes,” reads Brown’s proposed budget.
Currently, kindergarten through grade 14 schools receive 37 percent of property tax revenues, counties 25 percent, cities 18 percent, redevelopment agencies 12 percent, and special districts 8 percent according to Brown’s budget.
After Californians voted to amend the California Community Redevelopment Law in 1951, redevelopment agencies were given the green light to use Tax Increment Financing to fund their projects.
This type of financing allowed these agencies to take from public funds the amount they deem necessary to be reimbursed after the completion of these projects.
Brown cited an independent 1998 study by the Public Policy Institute of California which says that “fewer than one-quarter of the [redevelopment] projects came close to being responsible for the property taxes they received.”
By eliminating the tax increment financing to fund redevelopment agencies and addressing a new approach to funding these agencies, Brown predicts that billions of dollars in funding will be redirected to schools.
“This proposal will return billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties,” Brown said.
San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen is not convinced these projects will succeed without utilizing tax increment financing.
“The most unattainable without the use of tax increment financing is our ability to transform neglected and polluted tracts of land into productive, healthy neighborhoods,” she said.
Redevelopment agencies address blight and redevelop unused land, dilapidated buildings, and contaminated land, and combine small parcels of land for larger investment projects.
Cohen, who represents District 10, sponsored Tuesday’s board resolution and said she sees great value in these agencies for her district.
“Redevelopment authority is a tool,” she said. “It is a tool for creating jobs and developing affordable housing—in short, building communities where investment has lacked.”
Dr. Aurelious Walker, Chairman of the Board of Bayview Hope wrote a letter to Brown opposing the elimination of redevelopment agencies.
“Redevelopment activities support an average of 304,000 full and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs,” Walker stated.
Yet Cohen is worried about the loss of jobs and future affordable housing projects in her district. “I’m worried about the affect it will have on jobs, on affordable housing, the rebuild[ing] of the city’s four out of five largest public housing units,” she said.
Supervisor Jane Kim, who co-sponsored the resolution, agreed with Brown and said schools need funding, adding that she wants to be at the table to discuss compromises on the proposal to keep key projects afloat in San Francisco.
“I think that this resolution is important because it does not state that we are completely against the governor’s proposal, but we want to be at the table to discuss some compromises or ways that we can work around the budget process so that we can still continue to find gaps to help fund our schools and public health services,” Kim said.
Friends Read Free