This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Glendora Mayor Wants Redevelopment Agency Intact

Doug Tessitor calls the government's plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies unless control of the money is given to schools, "extortion."

 

Glendora Mayor Doug Tessitor fields your community questions and answers them in a weekly column. In Glendora Patch’s Mayor’s Roundtable, you are invited in an ongoing dialogue about issues and concerns you have regarding your city. Share your ideas and voice your opinion.

Have a question you'd like Mayor Tessitor to answer? E-mail hazel.lodevicotoo@patch.com

Find out what's happening in Glendorawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Question:

"Looks like cities are not going to give up redevelopment agencies without a fight, and a costly one I'm sure. Glendora knows something about putting up a costly losing legal battle over redevelopment agencies. After going through what we've been through in the courts, how can we justify going through this again?"

Find out what's happening in Glendorawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Answer:

The situations you mention are significantly different. 

The city of Glendora invested about $450,000 in a lawsuit (including two appeals) against the County of Los Angeles.  The crux of the argument involved the definition of blight – which had changed after our redevelopment agencies were formed.

We were trying to protect more than $20 Million in future tax increment, which should have been used for the benefit of Glendora taxpayers, but now will be taken from Glendora to be used elsewhere for unknown purposes.  I believe that we were correct to make the effort to protect our local taxpayers – even though we lost.

The new argument involves the Governor’s plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies entirely, unless they (the agencies) agree to an extortion scheme to redirect funds from local control to schools.  The purpose of this “theft” of redevelopment funds is to enable the State to again avoid making the tough budgetary decisions they were elected to do. The lawsuit would be brought on behalf of all California Communities by the League of California Cities.

The difference between the two situations you mention is a constitutional amendment passed in November of 2010, (about nine months ago) by more than 60% of California’s voting population.

The amendment was entitled, “Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010” (Proposition 22).

This amendment was specifically written to “acknowledge the critical importance of preventing state raids of revenues dedicated to funding vital local government services…” and “(d) In recent years state politicians in Sacramento have specifically … (3) Taken local community redevelopment funds on numerous occasions and used them for unrelated purposes…”

“(g)  It is hereby resolved, that with the approval of this ballot initiative, state politicians in Sacramento shall be prohibited from seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending, or otherwise taking or interfering with tax revenues dedicated to funding local government services…”

In the body of the new constitutional amendment this language is found: (The Legislature shall not…) “… (7) Require a community redevelopment agency (A) to pay, remit, loan, or otherwise transfer, directly or indirectly, taxes on …real property and tangible personal property ... to or for the benefit of the State, any agency of the State, or any jurisdiction; or (B) to use, restrict, or assign a particular purpose for such taxes for the benefit of the State, any agency of the State, or any jurisdiction…”

“How can we justify going through this again?”

The arrogance of the governor and the Legislature to ignore a 60% mandate of the voting citizens of the state of California demands that we respond!  In 2004, the citizens voted to limit the state’s access to local funds; in 2006 the limitations were strengthened.  In both cases, no sooner was the ink dry, then the Sacramento politicians figured a way around the new laws and took more of our local funds.

Proposition 22 was the reaction, a constitutional amendment, with all encompassing prohibitions on the gtate.  Nine months later the governor and Legislature have flagrantly thumbed their noses at us, the voters, and said, “to Hell with you!”  If we allow our elected leaders to ignore our votes, we might as well recognize the fact that we have lost the ability, and right, to govern ourselves!

That’s how I justify going through this again!

The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of Doug Tessitor alone.  They are not to be construed to represent official positions of the city or the opinions of any other council member.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?