DISQUS

as28564444 · 7 months ago

Regardless of the source , its taxpayers money ! RDA needs to be abolished and these funds used as part of the general operating expense of this city. Nothing sends a signal of government incompetence better than: Art in center medians, Art Exchange programs, parks getting expanded. Yet city hall closing , lay offs, police / fire cutbacks and a $ 43 million black hole sucking the city down into collapse.

Plenty of money to make this city a fine place - Just no one with the courage to make it happen !

The Toad · 7 months ago

I am no fan of the entire concept of redevelopment, but it exists under state law. That said, redevelopment money cannot by that same law be "used as part of the general operating expense of this city". You need to get a clue what you are talking about before you start ranting. It will likely take you about a month of evenings to study enough to get a good grasp on redevelopment both generally and specifically its history in LB, and I mean that sincerely.
It has nothing to do with courage.

Andy · 7 months ago

It definitely is tax dollars, and if spent wisely, can lead to significantly imporved areas over a period of time. However, the Long Beach RDA has exactly ONE qualified urban planning professional, which leads to the lack of long-term strategic vision and idiotic and expensive incremental projects like the metal screens on Pine Street.

The majority of the folks on the RDA board are just nice people who lived in Long Beach for a long time. Notably, director Craig Beck's (lack of) relevant experience was recently edited to obscure that. You can still find it.

Again, it is tax dollars (much of it from the state) and we are the ones who must demand that it is spent wisely.

Councilmember Garcia, are you willing to demand qualified appointees and more oversight? Remember how you felt about those horrid metal screens?

Dave in Alamitos Beach · 7 months ago

We need at least one or two brilliant Long Beach architects like Brian Ulasewski or Yong Heng to serve on this board.

And by the way, I think expanding parks and tearing down crackerbox housing and putting in almost anything else is perfectly fine in my book.

The Toad · 7 months ago

I, too, detest crackerbox housing, but are the crackerboxes you wish to tear down in any of the city's defined Redevelopment Project Areas? If not, then redevelopment cannot (by law) be used toward that end.

Dave in Alamitos Beach · 7 months ago

I don't see how they couldn't be. There seems to be crackerbox housing throughout the "blighted" areas of town. I know in Alamitos Beach there are a few that could be torn down and turned into parks or parking. I think everyone would cheer, including the tenants and the landlords!

The Toad · 7 months ago

Call your councilperson's office and determine whether the Alamitos Beach properties you have in mind are or are not in a Redevelopment Project Area. Don't matter how popular tearing them down might be: No project area-No tear'em down! At least not with re-de bucks.

as28564444 · 7 months ago

Mr Toad - Law's are constantly being changed, this is were the courage part comes into play. We as a community and state need to understand that the system is hosed up and move ahead to change the basic structure of how TAXPAYER funds are spend in CA in so called " Redevelopment ". We need is a state legislator (preferably not some liberal, social engineering type) to propose a change in how redevelopment is structured.

No one needs to become a professor of redevelopment to know that the system sucks !

The Toad · 7 months ago

MORR has been trying to bring much needed reform to redevelopment for well over a decade. If you don't know what the MORR acronym stands for, you are only proving my point: You need to get educated and I don't mean to the professor level. This whole state is screwed-up and quite possibly beyond redemption. If you have little or no knowledge of current redevelopment law, how are you going to know what needs to be fixed? The current law restricting where redevelopment funds may be spent is rooted in the very concept of redevelopment itself. Do the concepts of "alleviation of blight", "bonded indebtedness", "project areas" and "tax increment" mean anything to you? If LB has made a major blunder with redevelopment, it was probably by not putting the entire city into redevelopment and I don't mean one and only one "project area". Its easy for me to say in hindsight, but LB should have divided the city into four project areas pretty much along the boundary lines of the four Police Patrol Divisions--North, South, East and West. Even if we get "free" land for an East Police Substation ( a deal with devil for sure), redevelopment funds cannot be used to build the facility because that "free" land is not in a redevelopment project area. In addition to that, I don't think either one of us will live to see the day when redevelopment funds can be used to pay for city employees' wages. I don't pretend to know even half of what there is learn about redevelopment, but I probably have a 30 year headstart on you. I am most sincere in urging you to educate yourself on this subject. Please don't just clamor for "change" for the sake of change without knowing what needs changing or you will wind up with some fiscally-irresponsible, left-wing, social-engineering-type mucking it up even more.
If anybody out there knows how to pay for the East Police Substation, please share.

sunshine · 7 months ago

Here is a link to MORR-Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform.
http://www.coalitionforredevelopmentreform.org/...

From their website:
"There is an unknown government in California. This unknown government currently consumes 10% of all property taxes statewide - $2.1 billion in 2001. It has a total indebtedness of over $51 billion. It is supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby, backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers. Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without the vote of the citizens affected. Unlike other governments, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval. Unlike other governments, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests. This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries. It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created. Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on California's public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight."

The Toad · 7 months ago

As you might have guessed, I already know about MORR. I was attempting to challenge the "as-------" character to learn a little something about redevelopment as it now exists before he gets in over his head demanding "change for the sake of change" without focus. I generally view redevelopment as welfare for millionaires, maybe even billionaires. Does anybody out there think it will ever be used to municipal employees' wages? Or should be? Pretty hard to generate "tax increment" if you are paying wages with your re-de dollars.