The county agency responsible for building the Live Oak Library, Simpkins Family Swim Center and 20 miles of sidewalk has decided to keep its name but not much else. The Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency is essentially closing down but will operate at diminished capacity after paying $9.7 million this year. That’s the county’s portion of the cumulative $1.7 billion the Brown administration says redevelopment agencies owe California.
Only one employee—administrative services manager Kim Namba—will remain out of 18 agency employees, some of whom have found county jobs in other departments. Namba will oversee a $110 million string of last-minute projects that includes a new Sheriff Center, a youth center and Eastside beach improvements. The foreseeable future of the agency will largely consist of payments to the contractors and annual payments to the state of $2.3 million in addition to this year’s payment.
County Supervisor John Leopold, whose Live Oak district makes up most of the county’s redevelopment zone, says saving the agency will allow it to pay for low-income housing projects, though not for a few years. “Redevelopment was the single largest source of affordable housing in California,” says Leopold, “and the state just got away with the single largest source of affordable housing funds.”
Redevelopment agencies are entering a period of legal uncertainty. On Aug. 11 the State Supreme Court announced it will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the two laws eliminating the redevelopment agencies. The principal argument against those laws is California voters’ approval in November 2010 of Proposition 22, which prohibits the state from taking local funds. The court has adopted a schedule that will allow for a decision in January 2012, as agencies are preparing to make their first payments to the state.
Redevelopment also has its critics. For years, former Capitola treasurer Glenn Hanna and Doug Kaplan, an Aptos developer, have criticized redevelopment agencies for redirecting property tax increments they say could have gone to other local districts. They want a vote on redevelopment projects, just as schools need voter approval for bond issuances.
