The California Supreme Court has upheld the legislative move orchestrated by Governor Brown that effectively abolished redevelopment agencies across California.
The multi-million dollar question: can large-scale neighborhood revitalization and redevelopment projects thrive, or even simply survive, without agency dollars and support?
Supreme Court Redevelopment Ruling []
Proposed Redevelopment Agency Elimination Puts SF Projects At Risk [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Well, then projects like hunters point can get privatized, and wont become outposts of below market rate housing junk fields. I mean, are there any redevelopment led projects in SF that really integrate different populations and neighborhoods? Fillmore? Noooooo.

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    47yo… you’re confusing redevelopment with public housing authority. Very different animals. When you think Redevelopment think Mission Bay, Yerba Buena, etc.

  3. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Oh…that’s bad then…

  4. Posted by A.T.

    All the options are bad on this one. Taking the redevelopment revenue and giving it to the state stinks. But the alternative, cutting some other state budget item – mostly schools – stinks equally. Getting a badly out-of-balance budget back in order is painful.
    The ruling does not seem to go out on any legal limbs, as far as I can see. This was a decision of the elected officials, and not some whacky court ruling.

  5. Posted by sf

    I was reading this article in the Examiner at the CalTrain station- I liked the part that said that so much low income housing would not be built in the Transbay redevelopment area because of this ruling.

  6. Posted by Delancey

    No state or local agency with cash on its books is safe. This is a cash grab and has nothing to do with the legitimacy or (alleged) utility of redevelopment agencies.
    San Jose’s redevelopment agency got itself quite a reputation for doling out bennies to national chain stores while stiffing long-time downtown businesses, and SF’s Mission Bay will be one of those “what were they thinking” locales.
    OTOH, should a redevelopment agencly clean up the 6th St corridor I’d be singing their praises for the rest of my life.

  7. Posted by Huh?

    @ Delancy: What’s wrong with Mission Bay? It’s got lots of great existing companies and more to come.

  8. Posted by curmudgeon

    And Delancy, 6th Street is a redevelopment area, and most of the rebuilt SRO housing there has been developed under redevelopment auspices.
    It is a fact that a large percentage of redevelopment income (20%? I forget off-hand) was pledged to affordable housing, and the death of redevelopment will take away that support.
    On the other hand, the death of redevelopment will channel more of that property tax revenue to cities general fund (and school districts etc). The money doesn’t go away, but is redeployed, and cities could still theoretically do most of what redevelopment agencies do, should they choose.
    It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out

  9. Posted by BobN

    What’s wrong with Mission Bay?
    Nothing if the goal was to create a San-Jose type “office campus”.

  10. Posted by Huh?

    @BobN: Well, Mission Bay has a bunch of condos coming up for rent and for sale, if that’s what you mean by “a San-Jose type ‘office campus,'” that there’s a lack of residential buildings/homes. I don’t think SFRs in MB would be a best use of the limited land that SF has. You’re not implying that, are you? Rumor has it several restaurants are also interested in space in South MB.

  11. Posted by kathleen

    Our state government is now smaller. yeah.

Add a Comment

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