Plans for affordable housing development vary widely from state to state.
In California, the majority of low-income housing has historically been built through Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs).
RDAs focus not just on housing, but overall community rehabilitation, funding improvements in infrastructure, educational facilities, and commercial property.
The goal is to revitalize an entire community or neighborhood and not just one aspect of it.
Despite the success RDAs have enjoyed, they have been under attack for the last year as the state faces a significant budget deficit and the governor looks for ways to save money.
It's been over a year since California Governor Jerry Brown made public his intent to dissolve all of the state's Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs).
His plan was to redirect the money RDAs receive back to the state and use it to restore some funding to schools and help close California's budget gap.
Late last year, the California Redevelopment Association, which represents the RDAs, filed suit, claiming the measures were unconstitutional.
On December 29, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion.
According to the Redevelopment Association, not only is Governor Brown's measure to dissolve the RDAs unconstitutional, but so was Assembly Bill 1X27, which allows RDAs to continue conducting business if they pay a fee to the state.
The brief submitted by the Redevelopment Association claims that, once created, the RDAs are protected from dissolution and can't be forced to make monetary payments to any state agency for any reason.
The California Supreme Court determined that, while the state government of California does have the authority to dissolve RDAs, it cannot force them to pay a fee in order to remain operational.
In addition, the Court found that the state also has the authority to divert funding to RDAs but is not required to do so indefinitely.
The Court ruling hasn't, however, settled the matter completely.
The state Legislature now has to find ways to fund some of the activities (and salaries) that had previously been covered by RDAs.
In Oakland, for example, salaries of about 17 police officers were paid through an RDA.
Lawmakers will also have to determine how best to fund affordable housing projects, which are still desperately needed all across the state.
In addition to the question of legality, some of the push-back Governor Brown faces is based on the fact that RDAs are generally self-funded.
The money they use comes from tax increments (property tax increases resulting from rehabilitation or other improvements).
While the original property taxes still go to the state, the increased amount goes to the RDA and is used to finance other projects.
In other words, if a residential property is improved and the taxes go up from $1,500 to $2,500, the original $1,500 still goes to the state.
The $1,000 increase, however, goes to the RDA.
This has caused resistance for two reasons - first, because only the increment goes to the RDA, advocates argue that RDAs don't technically cost the state any money, and in fact pay for themselves.
Second, Governor Brown wants to direct those increased tax dollars back to the state, but if RDAs are no longer investing in rehabilitation and community improvements, property taxes won't increase.
The result being that, while the state will get a little over $1 billion in tax increment money this year, that amount will drop dramatically in years two, three and so on, as fewer community improvement projects are completed.
It is, according to many RDA advocates, a temporary solution at best and could cause long-term damage by hindering or altogether stopping much-needed investment in community rebuilding.
In California, the majority of low-income housing has historically been built through Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs).
RDAs focus not just on housing, but overall community rehabilitation, funding improvements in infrastructure, educational facilities, and commercial property.
The goal is to revitalize an entire community or neighborhood and not just one aspect of it.
Despite the success RDAs have enjoyed, they have been under attack for the last year as the state faces a significant budget deficit and the governor looks for ways to save money.
It's been over a year since California Governor Jerry Brown made public his intent to dissolve all of the state's Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs).
His plan was to redirect the money RDAs receive back to the state and use it to restore some funding to schools and help close California's budget gap.
Late last year, the California Redevelopment Association, which represents the RDAs, filed suit, claiming the measures were unconstitutional.
On December 29, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion.
According to the Redevelopment Association, not only is Governor Brown's measure to dissolve the RDAs unconstitutional, but so was Assembly Bill 1X27, which allows RDAs to continue conducting business if they pay a fee to the state.
The brief submitted by the Redevelopment Association claims that, once created, the RDAs are protected from dissolution and can't be forced to make monetary payments to any state agency for any reason.
The California Supreme Court determined that, while the state government of California does have the authority to dissolve RDAs, it cannot force them to pay a fee in order to remain operational.
In addition, the Court found that the state also has the authority to divert funding to RDAs but is not required to do so indefinitely.
The Court ruling hasn't, however, settled the matter completely.
The state Legislature now has to find ways to fund some of the activities (and salaries) that had previously been covered by RDAs.
In Oakland, for example, salaries of about 17 police officers were paid through an RDA.
Lawmakers will also have to determine how best to fund affordable housing projects, which are still desperately needed all across the state.
In addition to the question of legality, some of the push-back Governor Brown faces is based on the fact that RDAs are generally self-funded.
The money they use comes from tax increments (property tax increases resulting from rehabilitation or other improvements).
While the original property taxes still go to the state, the increased amount goes to the RDA and is used to finance other projects.
In other words, if a residential property is improved and the taxes go up from $1,500 to $2,500, the original $1,500 still goes to the state.
The $1,000 increase, however, goes to the RDA.
This has caused resistance for two reasons - first, because only the increment goes to the RDA, advocates argue that RDAs don't technically cost the state any money, and in fact pay for themselves.
Second, Governor Brown wants to direct those increased tax dollars back to the state, but if RDAs are no longer investing in rehabilitation and community improvements, property taxes won't increase.
The result being that, while the state will get a little over $1 billion in tax increment money this year, that amount will drop dramatically in years two, three and so on, as fewer community improvement projects are completed.
It is, according to many RDA advocates, a temporary solution at best and could cause long-term damage by hindering or altogether stopping much-needed investment in community rebuilding.
Source...