Q&A on the rise and fall of California redevelopment agencies

Tomorrow is the day that more than 400 local agencies are scheduled to go out of business. Last year, the legislature signed off on a much-criticized plan by Gov. Brown to eliminate the redevelopment process. California Watch has a good rundown on what happened and why. Here's a snippet:

Why did Gov. Jerry Brown push to end redevelopment agencies?

Brown argued that the state could no longer afford redevelopment in a budget crisis. Redevelopment is contentious because of the financial advantage it provides redevelopment agencies and their community sponsors, primarily cities, over school districts, counties and other property tax recipients. He argued that the money would be better spent directly on schools and core city and county services, such as police and fire protection. The state also has been footing the bill indirectly. Since voters approved a proposition requiring minimum funding for education in 1988, the state has had to make up the difference for some of the money reallocated from schools to redevelopment agencies. There also have been examples of abuse and questions raised about how effective redevelopment agencies have been at combating blight. A few examples were noted in a recent report by the state controller.

Why are cities objecting?

By ending redevelopment agencies, the state has effectively seized control of billions of dollars of property taxes previously controlled by the cities that established redevelopment agencies. In addition, many critics of the decision are pointing out flaws in how the Legislature has proposed dissolving the agencies. The California Redevelopment Association is concerned that the process will lead to litigation, bond defaults and a waste of public funds.