Gov. Jerry Brown must now decide if he'll sign the budget, which has gained criticism from various corners, including Republican legislators who said it squeaked through on a bare Democratic majority with no Republican support.
Lake County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox, who also serves as the executive director of the Lake County Redevelopment Agency – which stretches from Upper Lake to Clearlake Oaks – called the action against redevelopment “a disaster.”
Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton called the budget “an irresponsible package” with “no change to government as usual,” faulting Brown for breaking off negotiations with Republicans on March 25.
Even tougher words came from John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, who criticized the “two bill scheme” to kill redevelopment.
He said the Legislature “voted to kill one of California’s only job-creating engines and robbed local communities of the ability to address high unemployment, poverty, crime and other problems.”
He added, “While most of the country is worried about a double-dip recession, the California Legislature has done its part to push our local economies over the financial cliff. While many legislators who voted in favor of this package spoke of protecting and reforming redevelopment, these bills do neither. They eliminate redevelopment and are illegal.”
Shirey said it's not the end of the story, promising that his organization will take “any and all legal action necessary to overturn this irresponsible and unconstitutional legislation” if Brown signs it.
Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, said with its vote the Legislature “decided to violate the will of the electorate and our State Constitution in order to meet short-term state budget needs.”
He said the budget violates numerous provisions of the State Constitution and are in direct conflict with Propositions 1A (2004) and Prop 22 (2010) that were “overwhelmingly” passed by the voters.
The local picture
Redevelopment elimination plans proposed earlier this year by Gov. Brown had included what many considered a dire scenario: putting redevelopment-held assets – including Northshore parks and the Lucerne Hotel – on the auction block.
Cox noted that of the Wednesday vote, “At least it appears that under the one bill we won’t have to dispose of our existing capital assets.”
However, the full impact is far from known, according to Cox and to Steve Albright, the city of Clearlake's interim city redevelopment executive director.
Cox said late Wednesday that he and Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira were discussing the possible impacts for their redevelopment agencies.
Earlier this year, at the suggestion of Silveira and Community Development/Redevelopment Director Richard Knoll, the Lakeport City Council – sitting jointly as the redevelopment agency board – had taken action to move its agency assets into city hands, as Lake County News has reported. That was similar to action taken by redevelopment agencies elsewhere in the state.
Cox said both he and Silveira believe that the amount of funding they'll lose “is very substantial,” based on the statewide total amount specified in the legislation.
However, he said they couldn't yet pin down exactly what it will translate to for the redevelopment agencies of Lakeport the county.
He said they'll hopefully know more on Thursday.
“We also believe that this legislation is in direct violation of Proposition 22 so we’re certain that a lawsuit will be filed shortly,” Cox said.
Cox, whose financial acumen has resulted in Lake County being one of the very few counties statewide to not have a deficit, has overseen a redevelopment agency that has accomplished substantial cleanup and removal of blight along the Northshore of Lake County over the past decade.
While he's seen redevelopment work well, Cox noted, “I’ve always believed that the state Legislature should enact certain reforms pertaining to redevelopment and I’ve always believed that redevelopment should contribute some of its funding to help resolve the state budget crisis, but this is ridiculous!”
Albright said the elimination of redevelopment has been threatened since January, but, “for the last three months they just haven't had the votes.”
He added, “Nobody really thought that this would happen.”
Like Cox, Albright said he believes there will be a lawsuit over the redevelopment elimination if the budget is signed.
Albright said he'll be discussing the fallout from the budget with the city's redevelopment attorney, Iris Yang, this week.
He questioned what will happen to existing projects under contract and the debt incurred by the agencies.
There's also the question of what will happen to projects in the early stages, such as a property purchase on Lakeshore Drive that the Clearlake City Council approved last week.
That purchase, which would be used for a visitor center, was expected to close on June 17, with Albright set to sign the papers that day.
Albright said he has been excited about Clearlake's redevelopment potential, noting the availability of bond money and housing funds.
The city has been considering four low- and moderate-income housing projects, and the city's shopping center is back on track with an agreement reached to settle the Sierra Club Lake Group lawsuit, he said.
But a lot could change if redevelopment is indeed gone, he suggested.
“Without that kind of investment of public funds, if that's stopped, it doesn't look good for Clearlake,” he said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
