The citizens of San Jose should be the ones to decide whether or not the city’s redevelopment agency should be permitted to lift its tax increment ceiling. The members of the San Jose City Council, who double as RDA Board Members, are looking at lifting the current $7.6 billion tax increment cap to $15 billion. (Will it be double your pleasure, or double your pain?) This important decision should not be made by a handful of politicians, it should be made by the people.
In an opinion piece published in the Mercury News, Doug McNea, President of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association, argued that public funding for education should be California’s top priority, but that “Laws governing property tax allocation from redevelopment project areas place subsidized development before education.”
McNea also claims that “Redevelopment agencies don’t solve the blight problem; they subsidize it with property taxes hijacked from education.” Is McNea right?
The decision to lift the RDA cap on tax increment and raise it to $15 billion is one that will effect San Jose for generations. The San Jose City Council should put this important question on the ballot. The people of San Jose should have the right to define their city’s future.
If SJ’s RDA is representative of others statewide, agencies should be immediately dissolved.
The local RDA has poured billions into Downtown and look what we’ve got. In contrast, just a couple of miles west, Santana Row was developed without a nickel of RDA funding.
By most anyone’s measure, RDA subsidies fail to make a substantive difference. Yet, the tax increment funding diversion steals from our mainline infrastructure, especially the education system.
Were I offered the chance to vote on lifting the cap, I’d not hesitate to mark the “NO” box on my ballot.
Greg: Why aren’t you “offered” the chance to vote on this? Let’s debate for six months whether or not the RDA is useful to us, and then vote on it.
Not sure if I agree on this issue being brought to the voters particularly given that the redevelopment zones aren’t city wide. Though I do appreciate the opportunity for open dialogue to discuss the issue and whether it should be brought forth to voters.
Well, when Greg stops taking the recycled cans out of people’s trash bins for his pizza money, then we can respect his view.
Pete,
I’d be happy to debate the issue, but with whom? I have no idea who might think that the RDA is useful, except of course, agency employees and developers.
In any event, our politicians and local glitterati would fight tooth and nail to prevent the issue from going before voters.
Peter, I admire your existential position of being right all the time. I remember your endorsement of “paddy” as an acceptable slur. I was there watching you do it.
So I am not sad to say your idea is half-baked. You sort of understand that RDA in San Jose is really a state agency which delegates to city council members the right to name the board controlling RDA.
Oddly enough, our city council chose themselves as the local RDA board. That was not necessary, and in fact San Francisco chose to name a separate group of people as its RDA board.
So if you want to launch an attack on the excesses of RDA, your best bet would be to set up a petition-driven campaign to direct the city council to remove itself from the RDA board.
I seriously doubt that individual decisions by city council members acting as the RDA board under state law can be subjected to a citywide vote, but I do think we could strip the city council members (whose duties we control through the city charter) of the direct power of serving on any other board, like the RDA board. The conflicts of interest in this day & age of ethics, openness, sunshine, transparency, etc., could generate quite a lot of public support.
And while you are at it, ban them from service on the Financial Authority board as well. When the City Council and RDA and the Financial Authority get together, it is stunning the legalistic tricks they can get up to in order to create taxpayer debt.
Part of your problem, Peter, is that you do not understand how lease-revenue bonds work or are “made” to work in San Jose. Get a grip and do your homework.
Pete Campbell writes on SJI about the need to discuss then vote, and in the Mercury News, Campbell wants us to vote then discuss.
Chuck, your handyman needs new talking points.
I’m part Irish. My grandfather trained me to rise above petty things, to stand up for principles and ideas, and for others, rather than meaningless things like pride, ego, and name calling.
Being Irish, I have the inherent right to not be offended by the words, “Paddy,” or “Mick,” or others. To those of you who are offended, by my lack of being offended, I can only say that I am not your champion, and do not wish to be.
How my grandfather would have delighted in reading the hysterical rants sent my way.
Peter Campbell served on a commission, didn’t he? To represent the people, or himself?
Well, what can you expect from such self loathing?
RDA Sam,
Hmm, another chickensh*t who hides behind a pseudonym. It’s difficult to take one like you seriously. Besides, it’s just downright unfair for me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Comments I made above at #7 were correct in part and incorrect in part, so I hasten to make this a part of the thread.
I was wrong when I said, “I seriously doubt that individual decisions by city council members acting as the RDA board under state law can be subjected to a citywide vote…” In fact, the California Health & Safety Code, Sec. 33378(a) & (b)(1) & (2), provides for a referendum on some aspects of RDA plans, amendments, and adoption that were approved by the city, in the event that signatures equal to or greater than 10% of the votes cast in the race for governor at the last gubernatorial election are properly filed within 90 days of the “adoption of an ordinance subject to referendum” under the section stated above.
[Thanks to the person who brought that section to my attention.]
But I was correct when I argued that, if there is to be a petition campaign, it would be better to hold one on an amendment to the city charter that would bar city council members from serving on the RDA board and the financing authority board, too. The only thing a referendum on one vote about one amendment to the RDA ordinance would achieve would be to deal with that one issue.
However, the relationship between the city council, the RDA board, and the financing authority board (namely the same eleven people on each legislative body) is deeply corrupting by its very nature, especially in the lease-revenue bond area, and badly needs reform.
=============
And, Peter, you are wrong at #9 above when you continue your “paddy” campaign.
It’s not a matter of offense to you. It’s a matter of etiquette, and of being sensitive to names, labels, definitions, and descriptions in an age that is very different from your grandfather’s, bless his soul.
It’s also about how you acted when you were a member of the Human Rights Committee of the City of San Jose, and how you mocked any concern when it became apparent that “paddy” was the label of choice by the state Board of Education for Irish immigrant workers on the Great Railroad from the Missouri River to Utah. This language was in an official state document meant to provide a guide to textbook publishers—which multiplies its significance.
It was your action as a member of the Human Rights Committee that is so troublesome. At home you are certainly free to call yourself or anyone whatever you want. As a public official, it isn’t so easy to justify your embrace of name-calling on matters of public policy.