R.I.P Redevelopment Agency

Michael Miller

There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and what it portends for our city and the people who work and live here.

But what became abundantly clear at the January 9th meeting of the Culver City Council is that nothing is clear and that the waters will remain muddy for months, if not years, to come.

As things stand, the Redevelopment Agency will become dead, deceased, morte, on February 1st unless a delay of four to six weeks is granted, which will probably do little more than extend the death throes. However, there are hopes that contracts for such projects as Parcel B and others in the pipeline can be signed before the plug is pulled, thus passing the “obligation of fulfillment” to the “successor agency” in the form of the city council.

The end of the RDA, and roughly 400 similar entities in California, began last summer when the State Legislature passed Assembly Bills 26 and 27. Appeals against these bills by redevelopment agencies were rejected by the California Supreme Court earlier this month.

State Controller John Chiang in a recent audit report, blasted redevelopment agencies for their lack of accountability and transparency, saying they are "a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety."

Other critics have called the agencies “a honey pot for developers,”
siphoning off badly needed funds for essential services.

At Monday’s Council Meeting, and in a subsequent statement, City Manager John Nachbar gave a confused and not very detailed report saying the fiscal impact of losing the Redevelopment Agency would be $7.5 million a year currently received from the state, of which $3.2 million accounted for expenditures on RDA and Housing Agency Staff and a “plethora of services” provided by the agency.

The idea behind California Governor Jerry Brown’s closure of state RDAs was to redirect tax dollars back to the state for spending on schools and law enforcement. Some of that money will find its way to Culver City, but just how much is not known.

During the debate on whether the City Council should designate the city council to become the “successor agency” Councilman Andrew Weisman said it was “just the first step down the very confusing and complicated path that will take years to sort itself out.”

But do the people of Culver City care about, or even fully understand, the implications? It appeared not. Before a vote on establishing a new Housing Authority as the successor agency – a 4-0 vote in favor, not a single member of the public attending the meeting wanted to address the issue.

In contrast, Mr. Nachbar became, in the eyes of some observers, the “Grinch who stole summer” when he recommended that funding for the popular series of summer music concerts, previously a function of the RDA, be dropped and not be passed on to any other city agency. The RDA had spent $75,000 annually on the series which operates for eight Thursdays each year.

Eight speakers wanted to address this issue, a significant number, given that Mr. Nachbar’s proposal had only been posted on the City’s Website 72 hours earlier.

Gary Mandel, who has produced the series for 14 years, said there was no reason that corporate sponsors such as downtown restaurants should not foot the bill, given the amount of trade the concerts generate, not to mention putting Culver City on the map as a destination.

Karlo Silbiger, a member of the Culver City School Board queried whether the $75,000 could not come from the city’s General Fund, as it amounted to only one tenth of one percent of that fund’s coffers.

Former Mayor Gary Silbiger commented, “These are cherished concerts,” joining his son in arguing that there was money available.

Goran Eriksson, chairman of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was willing to work with the city to keep the concerts alive.

While some Council members railed against the California legislature, Governor Brown, and the Supreme Court, blaming them for the predicament that could shut down the concerts, Councilman Weissman, repeating remarks he made during the discussion, said in an email to the author:

“In the long run, it may be that we are better for redevelopment's elimination, however, that remains to be seen. We are not entirely blameless insofar as the way in which tax increment from redevelopment has been used toward city services that benefit the redevelopment project areas. And now we have to adjust to a curtailment of that tax increment.

“That has to mean some level of sacrifice on the local level because regardless of finger pointing by us at the legislature, the governor and the courts, the reality is that less money will be coming in starting February 1 than before. We just don't know how much less or what the service and human implications will be.”

However, he seconded a motion by Councilman Chris Armenta that the discussion on funding the summer concerts be continued until the next council meeting on January 23rd.

The motion was passed with only Councilman Cooper, who wanted the funding ended immediately, dissenting.

More to the point, perhaps, is what the RDA did not do during its 20-year life: build affordable housing, one of its main mandates.

Former Mayor Silbiger pointed out that the agency owes the city $45 million in affordable housing funds that it never spent, quite a slush fund in hard economic times!

The size of the fund was acknowledged by the head of the agency, Sol Blumenfeld, who said the RDA had 10 years to repay the funds to the Housing Authority.

My question is how can an entity that no longer exists be given 10 year to repay $45 million? Shouldn’t the money be immediately transferred to the new Housing Authority on February 1st, when it can start to be used for the purpose it was intended?

Michael Miller is a 22 year resident of Culver City and a retired journalist. He is also a co-founder of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association.