RDA Staff Cut by 25 Percent

At the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, 24 staff members are about to get laid off—out of a total staff of 109. The decision, called “heart-wrenching” by Agency head Harry Mavrogenes, was the inevitable outcome of a state raid on the RDA’s funds in an effort to cover Sacramento’s own deficit. This year the state is grabbing $62 million; next year it plans to take another $13 million. All of this is in addition to the $13 million that the state took in 2008. The layoffs will save the RDA about $3.1 million.

In addition to the layoffs, the RDA will be postponing or possibly even eliminating many of its most important projects. Among these is the $300 million McEnery Convention Center renovation, considered vital if San Jose is to compete with nearby Santa Clara and San Mateo. In an effort to keep the project on track, local hotel owners even tried to raise $150 million in private funds last year.

Other projects, like the “urban market” in San Pedro Square, are more likely to be kept alive because of contractual obligations. The proposed new stadium for the Oakland A’s will also proceed because funding to purchase the land comes from land sale proceeds, and this cannot be touched by the state.

Mavrogenes called the state’s grab of funds an “illegal take,” and vowed to fight it in court. But even if the RDA wins, that will only come after a drawn-out legal battle, and will be too late to save the current employees. The RDA has already sued the state for the $13 million taken in 2008, and that case is nowhere near a verdict. Mavrogenes suspects that the appeals process could take years, while failing to pay in the interim could provoke the state into shutting down the RDA entirely.

Mayor Chuck Reed is another outspoken critic of the state raid on RDA funds. Speaking from Washington, D.C., he said: “Redevelopment provides critical tools to rebuild our economy, create jobs, and revitalize neighborhoods—exactly the kinds of investments we should be making in this recession.” Pointing to City Council’s own struggle to cover an $84 million budget deficit this summer, he added, “The legislature, in contrast, fails to address its structural budget problems in a prudent and responsible manner, instead choosing to raid local resources with dire consequences for communities, businesses, and families throughout our region.”
By Danny Wool
Read More at NBC Bay Area.
Read More at the Business Journal.
Read More at the Mercury News.

14 Comments

    • The bigger question is how many of Harry’s wife’s fiends still have jobs? Or how many past council member aides? Or anyone related to someone that Harry owes a favor to? It’s a Very Very top heavy agency. Too man people get jobs because they have a link to Harry. Unfortunately the layoffs didn’t shake that up.

      Another question is why the Communications Division didn’t get cut at all and is now one of the largest divisions at the Agency. What’s left to communicate? Why does Harry needs two admin assistants when all others were cut.

      A correction to the first sentence….they are not about to get laid off….they were gone within hours of being told.

  1. “The proposed new stadium for the Oakland A’s will also proceed because funding to purchase the land comes from land sale proceeds”.

    So how are land sales doing right now, and what land are we selling?

  2. Gee. The poor RDA.
    To have some remote governmental body come along and snatch your money because they’ve dug themselves into a financial hole.
    Just imagine.

  3. “The proposed new stadium for the Oakland A’s will also proceed because funding to purchase the land comes from land sale proceeds, and this cannot be touched by the state.”

    So explain to me how this A’s stadium deal won’t cost the taxpayers any money. If the land was used for office or residential construction, the properties would end up on the tax rolls, generating cash for our supposedly poor city and county.

    • So Hugh,

      Maybe we should have built “office or residential” where HP Pavilion is currently located.  Maybe SF should have built “office or residential” were AT&T Park is located.  San Diego “office or residential” instead of Petco Park.  Heck, forget a downtown park or open space; build “office or residential” because kids playing soccer on real grass doesn’t generate cash for our supposedly poor city and county!  Where does it end Hugh? 

      Have you no yearning for things that make our city fun, exciting and culturally appealing; especially if we’re not paying for it?!!

      Oh, what’s the use…

        • Blog 101: When you loose an argument or find yourself on the wrong end of one, just claim the other guy/gal is “missing the point.”

          By the way, since Hugh didn’t answer the question, perhaps you will.  WHERE DOES IT END BILL?!!!

        • Tony-  It ends when public funds are used for a private good, like a private ball park.  This is in contrast to a public good, like a public soccer field.

          The difference is that access to private facilities is limited to the owners and renters of the facilities.  For example, I am not allowed to take my son to AT&T park for a game of catch.  It is not a public park, and therefore not comparable to a neighborhood soccer field.

          I’m happy to clear this up, but this really should not have been necessary.

        • Just like I can’t go look at the view from the top floor of those apartment buildings that were subsidized the RDA money.  Or how about all the incentives given to businesses to locate in town?  I can’t use their labs for my science experiment.  Does that mean we shouldn’t invest in bringing business to town?  In this case, the idea is to bring something to San Jose that will improve entertainment opportunities and bring dollars to town.  If you are consistent in arguing that public dollars should never be spent to facilitate development, then that’s fair.  But somehow, people are all up in arms when it is baseball or football, but not when it is another kind of business. While both of those types of investment bring financial benefit, the former actually provide entertainment, fun, and civic pride, while the latter provide none of those.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *