The Starbucks is on the left, packed with coffee connoisseurs. Or perhaps they are just people who are addicted to watered down java.
On the right, is a Banana Republic catering to clothing devotees. In fact, on both sides of this lifestyle mall are storefronts signifying that this neighborhood is clearly entrenched in middle-class America.
The presence of posh franchises like Banana Republic and Starbucks is the flagship marker that a city has rejuvenated a blighted neighborhood.
Neighborhood revitalization has occurred all over this country. In California, people flock to highly successful shopping and dining attractions—Old Town in Pasadena, downtown Culver City, and Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego, to name a few.
Redevelopment, the Engine of Neighborhood Growth
Experts in the field call this redevelopment. These multi-million dollar public projects, geared toward dramatically changing the economic and architectural neighborhood environments are created and funded by publicly funded and operated redevelopment agencies, set up by cities.
So why would California’s new Governor Jerry Brown want to completely eliminate these agencies, especially when these agencies can literally change the economic status of a city and create hundreds of new jobs.
Granted, the Golden State has a $25 billion annual budget deficit that dwarfs those of many nations around the globe. The Governor’s rationale for the cuts is that he believes he can save $1.7 billion by eliminating the 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the state.
But to cut one of the most effective publicly-funded programs that can dramatically improve a city’s economic state, and pour in new jobs, simply does not make sense.
The move does not make sense until, of course, you look under the dirty rug of state politics.
Funding Foolery
We all know that money and power drives our society, more than compassion and justice.
Redevelopment agencies garner their public funds through property taxes that would otherwise go to counties and states. For decades, struggles for power and money between local and state governments have been annual rituals during budgeting processes. Every jurisdiction wants to grab those billions of dollars of tax revenue to balance their own budgets.
So why not reach for the billions of dollars redevelopment agencies have?
Most days I sit in a building that was partially funded by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of Los Angeles. In fact, nearly all of the housing and services facilities that my organization operates possess CRA funding. That is because redevelopment agencies not only create retail and commercial projects that bolster the economy, they also invest in developments that help the neighborhood’s poor.
Affordable housing and homeless shelters are priority projects for redevelopment agencies. So when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the Governor’s desire to eliminate redevelopment agencies a “nonstarter,” I agreed with whole heartedly.
Taking away funding that permanently houses homeless people, bolsters a neighborhood’s economy, and brings in new jobs is more than a nonstarter, it is simply foolish.
The Governor’s funding proposal is like taking an axe to the budget with a blindfold on. Swing hard enough at what you cannot see, and you are likely to cut off something you desperately need.
Photo credit: Laurie Avocado