Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes

November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
October 31st, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

AB 1389, redevelopment and the state deficit


Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:47 AM PST

California legislators passed a bill, AB 1389, demanding all of the California Redevelopment Agencies (about 400 in number) submit 7.7 percent of their revenue to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund to fund K-12 and community colleges. This bill will shift $350 million dollars from the RDAs to the state budget.

Some of the RDAs are listed as examples of public funds which the state demands by May of 2009: Alameda County — $1.8 million; Emeryville — $2.3 million; Galt — $230,000; Pittsburg — $3.6 million; Sacramento City — $3.5 million; San Mateo — $8.3 million; Santa Clara — $21.2 million; Stockton — $1.9 million; City of Lodi — ZERO. Failure to have these county treasurers write these checks to the state will result in the following penalties on the RDAs: to issue or no more bonds; to create no more project area; to stop any expansion of project areas. The California Redevelopment Association Lobby is suing the state claiming that this shift to education needs is unconstitutional.

Some authors feel that with a two thirds vote in the legislature, the state may tap a city's general fund, as was done eight times in the early 1990s. The question is, will the state take more in an attempt to balance its huge deficit?

Many of the RDAs are in turmoil, saying that they may have to scale back or scrap their entire redevelopment plans. Please note that because of the Lodi committee to oppose the flawed redevelopment laws, Lodi may have saved thousands or millions of dollars.

The citizens of the city of Lodi will vote on March 3 on whether or not they are ready for a Lodi Redevelopment Agency. The data shown is a matter of record from numerous newspaper articles and from your computer by raising the California Redevelopment Web sites.

James McCarty
Lodi

Reader Feedback

Observer wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:37 PM:

" I can assure you that Jim is opposed to redevelopment. "

reality wrote on Dec 18, 2008 10:59 AM:

" if jim mccarty is signing it you better believe it pro for redevelopment "

El Rushbo wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:59 AM:

" So is this a pro or con redevelopment letter? I have no idea. "

Comments on this story are now closed.