Pages

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

The California Redevelopment Dispute

The fate of California’s redevelopment agencies (RDA’s) is frequently discussed in the news these days. However, resolution is close—on November 10th, oral arguments will be heard by the State’s Supreme Court in the case California Redevelopment Agencies v. Matosantos.

The issue at hand in this important case is the constitutionality of Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed elimination of all 400 of the state’s redevelopment agencies. A critical facet of his budget proposal, Brown claims the move will save the state $1.7 billion this year. Characterizing the state’s redevelopment agencies as a “piggy bank” from which the state must now draw, he plans to redistribute the money back to counties, schools, cities and other special districts.

However, he’s also proposed that RDA’s can avoid elimination if certain steps are taken by their local jurisdictions, including an agreement that the RDA’s will pay $1.7 billion this fiscal year and $400 million in subsequent budget years in statutorily mandated revenues to school entities and other special districts.

Panicked redevelopment agencies are contending that the proposed cuts violate Proposition 22, passed by voters in November 2010, which prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment or local government projects.

Opponents to Governor Brown’s proposal feel that RDA’s are needed more now than ever as the state struggles to recover from the recession. The wholesale elimination of RDA’s, they maintain, eliminates important tools to spur job creation, increase tax revenues, and induce economic growth.

However, proponents of Governor Brown’s proposal, including State Controller John Chiang, claim that RDA’s are mismanaged and waste funds that would be better used to pay for schools and other critical services. Chiang, who recently reviewed 18 RDA’s statewide, cited numerous reporting flaws, questionable payment practices and inappropriate uses of affordable housing money.

This issue –like so many the justice system and voters encounter– begs the question: which decision will positively impact the most people? If political radical and philosopher Jeremy Bentham, an early advocate of utilitarianism, were to ponder the situation, would he lend support to Jerry Brown, attempting to balance a budget and mindfully funnel funds into what he believes are our most critical areas of need; or would he cast his vote with the RDA’s, who enable and encourage local government autonomy and revitalization?

There’s no denying that the ruling by California’s top court – whether in favor, or a rejection of Governor Brown’s controversial move – will impact taxpayers and jurisdictions across the state.

The court has promised a decision by January 15, 2012, which is when the first RDA payments would be due.

Proceedings will be broadcast on The California Channel from 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. To view the oral arguments at a later date, please visit The California Channel’s archived video library

Thursday, November 3, 2011

“Occupying” the Public Eye

“Occupying” the Public Eye

Ever feel dismay when you open your wallet, or cringe when the mortgage bill arrives? You’re not alone. According to the “Occupy” social movement, you are one of “the 99%,” who has lost control of your economic life through the avariciousness of large banks and impersonal, transnational corporations.

Seeking to end the greed, corruption and privileges of the “wealthiest 1%,” the leaderless Occupy protestors have gathered in cities throughout the world to rail against a political culture that they feel has contributed to a group of elected officials who do not represent the voices, needs and concerns of citizens at the local, state, national or international levels.

The protestors’ desire for their voices to be heard seems to have been fulfilled—after more than seven weeks, the movement still tops news headlines across the world.

Camping out en masse in parks and other public spaces from Wall Street and Berlin to Barcelona, protestors have encountered a mixed bag of acceptance and hostility from the public, local businesses and law enforcement.

At Occupy Wall Street, protestors chose to eschew required police liaisons or permits, claiming that those requirements were “repressive” and that no permission was necessary as the First Amendment granted them the right to assemble.

Protecting the rights of the Occupiers and the public, while vigilantly keeping the peace, is a precarious balance - but one that must be maintained to properly exercise the First Amendment.

Whether we agree with and support the Occupiers or not, their movement reminds of the incredible (and hard won) freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Not only does our First Amendment allow them to peaceably assemble in protest, but prohibits the making of any law which abridges their freedom of speech or prohibits their petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

This freedom from repression was borne from our forefathers’ staunch commitment to democracy and openness; and conviction that free expression and educated criticism were critical to a functioning and successful democratic form of government.

The First Amendment has been tested time and time again throughout our country’s history, most notably during wartime, but it has withstood the test of time and continues to protect anyone who wishes to speak his or her mind or assemble in protest.

While the outcome of this movement remains to be seen, it is a shining example of democracy in action. It’s certain that America’s forefathers, who thoughtfully and carefully crafted our Bill of Rights, would monitor the unfolding story with great enthusiasm.