Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/51836
6A Daily News – Wednesday, January 4, 2012 Opinion D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Redevelopment implodes Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer's home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 The California State Supreme Court has just affirmed the ending of the rein of Redevelopment Agencies in California. These agencies were eliminated in the budget passed last June. Their elimination became a justified, expedient and fortuitously timed part of last year's budget solution proposed by Governor Brown last January. The Court ruled unanimously last Thursday that, "Assembly Bill 1X 2, the dissolution mea- sure, is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the legislature by the state constitu- tion." The result is the abolish- ment of over 400 redevelopment agencies. Since their inception, redevel- opment agencies have somewhat fulfilled their promise of revitaliz- ing decaying communities, but they foundered upon their institu- tionalized excesses. The powerful economic forces that fathered these excesses such as eminent domain abuse, obscene accumulations of "incre- ment funds" that tempted govern- ment spenders, the insidious pick- ing of winners and losers in the competition for redevelopment funds and the often hollow promise of urban revitalization, low income housing and econom- ic prosperity all gave cause and resolve to the governor and legis- lators to end the rein of redevel- opment. The Supreme Court decision sealed their fate. Over the decades, redevelop- ment agencies shifted their focus to financing private development, not because government agencies are better at it, but rather, bankers and investors will not finance pro- jects they deem too risky and these agencies would take greater risks based on many noble and some not so noble reasons. To ensure a project's success, eminent domain was often used to forcibly seize private property from unwilling sellers on the cheap then transfer it to a develop- er along with cash subsidies, oth- erwise referred to as corporate welfare by fiscal conservatives. This relatively new mission of government selecting winners and losers in the marketplace costs California taxpayers over $5 bil- lion a year and RDAs have accu- mulated over $80 billion in debt. One of the best responses to the Court's decision came from Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who stated, "Unfortunately, over the years it (RDAs) evolved into a honey pot that was tapped to underwrite bil- lions of dollars worth of commer- cial and other for-profit projects that had nothing to do with reversing blight, but everything to do with subsidizing private real estate ventures that otherwise made no economic sense." The evidence that redevelop- ment has failed is clear and the Court seems to agree. According to several independent State analyses and audits, there is no reliable evidence that redevelop- ment agencies create new jobs and many serve as slush funds for government spending not related to urban renewal. Redevelopment abuse has got- ten so out of hand that even its most ardent supporters recognize that, at the very least, reform is long overdue. And financing it to the tune over $5 billion a year is simply excessive, especially when public services are being cut and there is mount- ing political pressure to raise taxes to balance local and State budgets. Unfortunately, until circumstances con- verged in the budget debate early in 2011, any real reforms were rejected and only pyrrhic ones were advanced. With the Court's decision, redevelopment agencies are expected to expire February 1st, however, the redevelop- ment lobby is already seeking legislation to reconstitute their existence. To achieve this will require urgency legislation, a two-thirds vote of the California State Legislature and bi-partisan support. finance sports arenas, luxury hotels and golf courses, all at your expense. The elimination of redevelop- ment agencies was a rare instance of bipar- tisan budget agree- ment and one that pro- tects rather than aggrieves the taxpay- ers. Jim Nielsen I expect the debate to continue, but now with a dramatic and overdue shift towards harkening to the origi- nal, narrow purpose of redevelopment rather than justifying contin- ued abuse. Some economic stimulus and RDA reform should be to consider ways to make development less costly, by reducing taxes, elimi- nating oppressive regulations Though I expect proposals to reestablish redevelopment will be advanced their resurrection is problematic. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacra- mento stated in the Sacramento Bee that "the governor doesn't seem all that enamored with doing that." While a majority of my Republican colleagues in the Legislature opposed the legisla- tion that led to redevelopment's demise, it is doubtful that they will have any appetite to anger their political base again by reconstituting agencies that engage in eminent domain abuse and embark on risky ventures to (state and local), unnecessary environmental restrictions and limiting lawsuits. Governors, legislators and, yes, the courts agreeing on such significant matters are all too rare. These are times demanding such foresight and courage. Hopefully this example will not be lost as the 2012 budget is considered and such emerging problems like the consequences of one of last year's reform disasters - public safety realignment - are reconsidered. Assemblyman Nielsen represents the Second Assembly District, which includes: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yolo counties. Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 6031 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319-2102 STATE SENATOR — Doug LaMalfa (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 3070 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2595 Cean- othus Ave., Ste. 182, Chico, CA 95973; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (510) 286-8537. Fax (202) 224- 0454. Tips for government 'teleworkers' Commentary In our era of smart technolo- gy devices, employees are able to access important company information anywhere and any- time. Smart employers are taking advantage of the trend. They're saving big on office space and other costs by letting more of their employees work from home. The idea is so sensible that even the feds are catching on. That's why Congress passed the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. Of course, agencies require new laws, rules and hours of bureaucratic analysis before they attempt to imple- ment anything as sensible as "teleworking." Here are some tips for feder- al employees. I have been teleworking for years (I'm writing this column from an office in my country home). I wear blue jeans or running clothes every day. I save a fortune on dry cleaning. I never waste precious per- sonal time in rush-hour traffic. I roll out of bed and get right to work -- and sneak afternoon naps to keep mentally sharp. While there are lots of upsides to teleworking, there are some downsides. For starters, it's much more difficult to participate in office politics -- of particular impor- tance in the government sector, where licking boots is the key to career advancement. In the private sector, you can get by for years by producing items of actual value -- items that help your organization reduce costs or increase sales and profits. But in the public sector, where there are no profits and the goal is to increase annual funding, many teleworkers will need to produce even lengthier reports to demonstrate tangible evidence that they are "work- ing." Then again, in the very near future, there might be particu- lar benefits unique to govern- ment teleworkers. Any fool with basic math skills can see America is head- ed for a cliff. Government growth and spending continue to soar, whereas the private economy is barely growing at all. It's only a matter of time before even the federal govern- ment begins to cut employees. But what safer place to be a government employee than under your desk in your own home office? When the federal government finally begins to cut, it will be the invisible federal teleworker, who pro- duces no reports and never phones into the office, who will sus- tain his career through retirement -- as large centralized govern- ments, such as ours, aren't much good at keeping track of peo- ple or things. It's true you are likely to get bored hiding in your home over the years -- isolation is one of the greatest threats to the well-being of a federal teleworker -- but I have some tips for that, too. If you get lonely, consider getting a pet. Dogs require a lot of attention and frequent walks. Depending on your access to federal credit cards or lines of credit, you might be able to find a way to pay for an assis- tant, so you will at least have someone to play checkers with. Or you can try, as I did, to hire a 24- year-old Swedish nanny -- though, regrettably, the nanny agency assured me I needed to be a family. In any event, sur- Tom Purcell veys show that most federal agencies are way behind schedule as they establish frameworks to implement their gov- ernment-mandated telework policies. Still, I hope my tips will be of some assistance. Tom Purcell, a humor columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, is nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Visit Tom on the Web at www.TomPurcell.com or e-mail him at Purcell@caglecartoons.com.