Posts Tagged ‘Brown’

California Legislation Year in Review

As the California completes the 2011 Legislative year, let’s survey the results:

SB 910 – the “3 foot passing law” – was passed with broad support in the Legislature, then vetoed by the Governor. Admittedly, this bill was somewhat a token gesture as police officers were unlikely to go around with yard sticks. But still this has become a worrisome trend for bicycle advocates, who are very successful in getting legislation passed only to see bills vetoed by the Governor — especially Democratic Governors. Some advocates may have misplaced trust in Brown. In 8 years as Mayor of Oakland, Brown was at best indifferent to bike/ped issues, and at worst quite inept.

AB 353 – takes away an effective police enforcement measure to arrest unlicensed drivers and to impound their cars. Signed into law by the Governor, this is a real slap in the face to the cycling community. For many years, cyclists have been trying to increase penalties for drivers who injure or kill while driving with a suspended license, or no license at all. Instead, this new law is a major step backwards, and will put non-motorized users at even greater risk.

High-Speed Rail Business Plan – After hounding the Rail Authority for lying strategic misrepresentation over cost and ridership numbers, the CHSRA released a new business plan, in which they all but confess that critics were right all along. And yet, the reaction from Legislators was strangely muted, with Lowenthal declaring “it’s a major step forward.” This is like the proverbial neighborhood dog that chases cars, then finally catches one and is unsure what to do next.

Redevelopment Agencies – One bright spot was the State finally cracking down on Redevelopment Agencies. Even if this was done for the wrong reasons, it will help eliminate the flow of taxdollars to dubious auto-centric projects. That is, if it survives a court challenge.

Read Full Post »

To help close California’s gigantic budget deficit, Governor Brown wants to eliminate hundreds of local redevelopment agencies and enterprise zones. These entities have long been derided by critics as having little to no impact on employment in poor areas — while rewarding politically-connected developers with massive taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to Propositions 13 and 98, redevelopment agencies cost the State $2 billion in lost revenue. With the State facing a projected $25 billion shortfall, it is obvious why the Governor wants to curtail the program.

For transit activists, the Governor’s proposal offers a win-win opportunity. That is because the vast majority of redevelopment funds has been spent promoting autocentric development. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, redevelopment agencies leveled whole neighborhoods to make way for new highways. When that became unfashionable, planners left the homes intact but still didn’t give up on autocentric design. Billions of tax dollars have been poured into strip malls and other retail. Boosting sales tax revenue is the name of the game. And since transit riders are perceived as spending less than car drivers, redevelopment was about enticing shoppers to drive and park in the neighborhood.

For example, consider some recent projects funded through the San Jose Redevelopment Agency.

  • Central Place Garage: Underground parking garage with 330 spaces. San Jose Redevelopment Agency contribution is $12.5 million. The project website ironically states “the facility is accessible through Central Place, a pedestrian-friendly street.”
  • 4th Street Garage: 7-story, $57.5 million parking garage, situated in close proximity to where the San Jose BART extension is supposed to be built.
  • HP Pavilion: This indoor arena features 1800-2100 parking spaces. The Redevelopment Agency contributed $135 million (so far).
  • James Lick Parking Lot: $375,000 in Redevelopment funds to beautify a high school parking lot.
  • Fairmont Hotel: 500 parking spaces in two-level garage. The hotel complex has received $56 million in subsidies.
  • Maplewood Plaza: $500,000 subsidy for a strip mall.

The list goes on. Millions in corporate subsidies for Mariott, Adobe, and even a Ross “Dress for Less” store. And what about the infill Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), and Affordable Housing projects? Well, they feature parking ratios ranging from 2- to 3-per housing unit.

Does it makes sense to label a housing development “TOD” (or Affordable) when it features so much parking?

Consider the economics of 101 Fernando Street. This apartment complex features 65 low-income and 258 market-rate rental units, ground floor retail, and 564(!!) parking spots in a two-level subterranean garage. Bear in mind, it is situated in the “heart of downtown” walking distance to public transit and other amenities. The redevelopment agency provided a $9.3 million subsidy. Eliminating just one level of parking, to a more reasonable 1:1 parking ratio, probably would have been cheaper.

With their survival at stake, redevelopment agencies and their allies are pushing back. Last Friday, the League of California Cities held a protest / news conference to announce its opposition. This is the same League which has historically opposed ‘Routine Accommodation’ mandates designed to incorporate bikes/peds/transit into redevelopment. This will certainly be an interesting battle in the upcoming Legislative session.

Read Full Post »