Tangled political web could trap California cities on redevelopment

Sacramento Bee ^ | 12/4/11 | Dan Walters

[SmithL]

State budgets used to be fairly simple documents, fundamentally allocating whatever financial resources the state might have at the moment among its various, well-delineated responsibilities.

No more.

Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, had the indirect effect of centralizing major financial decision-making affecting local governments and schools in the Capitol.

Those decisions were affected by subsequent ballot measures, and volatile revenue swings put the budget in a more or less permanent deficit condition.

Today's budgets are complex packages not only of appropriations but of legislation to legalize, or so it's assumed, the political decisions. And that inevitably means that after budgets are passed, budget stakeholders often adjourn to the courts to continue their jousting for many more months.

Tellingly, when the Legislature's budget analyst, Mac Taylor, weighed in on the state's budget problems last month, his numbers assumed the state would win all of the current lawsuits.

One of those suits illustrates the financial and legal complexity of contemporary budgets and the legal morass that they spawn.

For several years, Capitol politicians have been trying to tap into the $5 billion that city redevelopment agencies skim off the top of the property tax pool each year to repay their bond debts and otherwise support their operations.

Why? Because under the state constitution, the state must make up nearly 40 percent of that diversion, about $1.7 billion, to schools – a subsidy from all California taxpayers to local redevelopment projects.

Cities jealously guard that money and persuaded voters to pass a 2010 ballot measure (Proposition 22) aimed at protecting it and other local government funds from state raids.

However, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators decided that Proposition 22 didn't prohibit them from abolishing redevelopment altogether and passed a law to that effect.

[Thommas]

Dan Walters and the Sac Bee have been carrying the Democrats water for decades and will bash Prop. 13 at any opportunity and the drop of a hat. In addition to an onerous state income tax, California used to routinely amp up the property taxes for any pet project that needed funding.

When Prop. 13 reached the referendum process, the electorate was more than ready to reign in the runaway greed of the state legislature and to save retirees from selling their homes and moving out of state.

The Dems are crying about not sucking the last juice from the marrow of the taxpayers? Tough. Just tax all the wealthy bourgeoisie (those making in excess of $40k this year) at 100%, and all the state's problems will melt away.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Ya....it’s all Prop 13’s fault.

Insane, out of control spending has nothing to do with a balanced budget.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Ah, but Moonbeam rides to the rescue!

[twistedwrench]

Big Dan needs to read this.
“A commenter translates part of her statement: “I’m sorry. The people who work have no more money to give you. As a result, the pension age will go to 62 years old for woman, and 65 years old for man. No longer can we afford to give you a raise every year for inflation of prices, so you will not get this”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2816054/posts