It's safe to say that the City of Calistoga's Silver Rose Referendum will not be the most important question on the ballot in the this November. Nor will Escondido's general plan measure, nor even a preliminary vote on draining Hetch Hetchy reservoir. Nonetheless, next month's election brings a diverse array of local land use measures on issues ranging from the provision of open space to the funding of affordable housing to a 60-year plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in transportation. Herewith is CP&DR's roundup of ballot measures related to land use statewide. General Plans, Specific Plans & Growth Napa County Measure U Angwin General Plan Amendment Initiative Measure U would redesignate certain lands in Angwin from urban residential to "agricultural, watershed and open space (AWOS) or public institutional." It will permit modernization and expansion of a sewage treatment plant and prohibit further subdivision of "public institutional lands" anywhere in the county. Del Mar (San Diego County) Measure J Village Specific Plan "Shall Ordinance 869 approving the Village Specific Plan as approved by the Del Mar City Council, which, without raising taxes, implements the Del Mar Community Plan by: creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown with plazas, wider sidewalks and landscaping; improving the Village's appearance and economic viability; increasing public parking availability; improving traffic flow, bike and pedestrian safety; reducing air and water pollution; and providing development controls, and traffic and parking solutions to ensure neighborhood compatibility, be adopted?" Escondido (San Diego County) Measure N Changes to General Plan Measure N would ratify the changes to the city's general plan, approved by the City Council. Simi Valley (Ventura County) Measure N Managed Growth Plan Measure N would approve a new Managed Growth Plan, which will become effective January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2022, replacing a plan that expires December 31, 2012. Zoning & Restrictions Berkeley (Alameda County) Measure T Zoning for the West Berkeley Plan Measure T would make zoning changes to large parcels in West Berkeley. It reads, "Shall the West Berkeley Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow development flexibility on up to 6 large sites, each under the same ownership, during the next 10 years, allowing a maximum height of 75' with a site-wide average height of 50', and only if community and environmental benefits are provided to West Berkeley?" Pacific Grove Measure F Building Height Restrictions If Measure F is approved, it will regulate the height of buildings in the city's downtown district. Buildings in this area would be allowed "a maximum height of 75 feet and 100 percent site coverage. Parks & Open Space Fullerton (Orange County) Measure W West Coyote Hills Development and Nature Preserve The Fullerton City Council approved the "West Coyote Hills" development, a project that would cover 510 acres of former oil field; it would include 760 homes and 283 acres of open space . A "yes" on Measure W supports decision of the Fullerton City Council to allow the West Coyote Hills Project. A "no" vote would stop that development. Laguna Beach (Orange County) Measure CC Parcel Tax for Open Space Measure CC would approve a parcel tax of $120 per parcel per year, and the revenues from the tax will be used to purchase open space within the city. The tax will generate about $1 million a year, with the objective of increasing open space in the city by about 20%. Yuba County Measure T  Open Space Initiative Measure T's passage would mean that land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element must be retained until the year 2030. A "no" vote means that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors will continue to decide on changes to land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element, without a popular vote. City of Alameda (Alameda County) Measure D Sale or Disposal of City Parks The City of Alameda's charter requires voter approval for any "sale or alienation of any public parks or portion of public parks within the City." This provision has three exceptions that allow the city council to grant certain permits and licenses and sell park property, under certain circumstances, without first seeking voter approval. If Measure D is approved, that the city council would no longer have the authority to sell or dispose of park land without voter approval. The measure reads, "Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended by amending Section 22-12 to eliminate language that allows the City Council to sell or dispose of public parks or any portion thereof if a new public park is designated, which means the sale or disposal of public parks must be approved by the electors?" City and County of San Francisco Proposition B Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Proposition Proposition B would authorize the city to borrow $195 million for park, open space and recreation facilities. City and County of San Francisco Proposition F Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration/Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Proposition F would allocate $8 million to require the City to prepare a plan that evaluates how to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and identifies replacement water and power sources. Hetch Hetchy, in Yosemite National Park, is a reservoir that supplies San Francisco with much of its drinking water. It has long been considered a lost natural jewel. Woodland Hills, Encino, and Tarzan Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (Los Angeles County) Measure MM Parcel Tax Measure MM would levy a parcel tax of $19/year for ten years "to protect, maintain and conserve local open space, parklands and wildlife corridors; protect water quality in local creeks and reservoirs; improve fire prevention including brush clearing, acquire open space, and increase park ranger safety and security patrols." Los Angeles County Measure HH Santa Monica Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Parcel Tax          Measure HH would "protect, maintain and conserve local open space, parklands and wildlife corridors; protect water quality in local creeks and reservoirs; improve fire prevention including brush clearing; acquire open space, and increase park ranger safety security patrols" through a special $24 tax assessed annually for ten years, with all funds spent locally in the Santa Monica Mountains east of the 405. Housing & Redevelopment City and County of San Francisco Proposition C Creation of a Housing Trust Fund The measure would create a brand-new affordable housing trust fund for the City of San Francisco. "This measure (would set) aside general fund revenues beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and ending in Fiscal Year 2042-2043 to create, acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing and promote affordable home ownership programs in the City; and 2) lower and stabilize the impacts of affordable housing regulatory impositions on private residential projects; and to authorize the development of up to 30,000 affordable rental units." Moorpark (Ventura County) Measure O Low-Rent Housing Development Measure N would approve a new Managed Growth Plan, which will become effective January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2022, replacing a plan that expires December 31, 2012. West Sacramento Measure G Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Revenues West Sacramento is attempting a novel approach to redevelopment dissolution, by explicitly directing remaining RDA revenue to community investments. The measure reads, "Should the City direct ongoing revenue it receives from the dissolution of its Redevelopment Agency to continue funding community investment projects such as streets, bridges, transportation, parks, and public infrastructure?" Miscellaneous Alameda County Measure B1 Transportation Sales Tax Increase Would raise the county transportation sales tax from 1/2 cent to a full cent for the purpose of road maintenance and other transportation projects. The measure could raise up to $8 billion over 30 years. Managed by a 22-member commission,  48% of Measure B1 funds would be spent on transit, 39% would be spent on roads and highways, and 8% would go toward bicycle and pedestrian programs. It requires a 2/3 supermajority. Atherton (Santa Clara County) Measure L New Town Center "Should the Town of Atherton use funds primarily from private donations to construct a new Town Center? Other funding sources might include funds derived from Building fees or future grant money, but would not use general fund or parcel tax money." Calistoga (Napa County) Measure B Silver Rose Referendum Measure B concerns an ordinance, approved by the Calistoga City Council in May 2012, which amended the city's overall zoning ordinance to allow the development of the Silver Rose project at 400 Silverado Trail. A yes vote support's the council's decision. Guadalupe Measure J City of Guadalupe Name Change to "Guadalupe Beach"         If the measure is approved, the name of the city will be changed from "Guadalupe" to "Guadalupe Beach." Huntington Beach (Orange County) Measure AA Equal Taxation and Assessments for Sunset Beach Measure AA emerges from an acrimonious annexation of the formerly unincorporated community of Sunset Beach by the City of Huntington Beach. Sunset Beach residents feared that the larger city would raise taxes and fees on residents. If Measure AA is approved, the residents of Sunset Beach will pay the same assessments, taxes and property-related fees as do the residents of Huntington Beach. Los Angeles County Measure J Sales Tax for Transportation Measure J is the companion to Los Angeles County's Measure R, passed in 2010 to secure a 1/2-cent, 30-year sales tax to fund transportation improvements. Measure J would extend the Measure R tax for another 30 years, thus allowing the county to borrow against future revenues in order to fund a multitude of transportation improvements over the next two decades. The measure would accelerate light rail, subway, and freeway projects. As a tax, it requires 2/3 approval.  Los Angeles (Downtown) (Los Angeles County) Streetcar Measure Residents in an area of downtown Los Angeles will vote on whether a proposed streetcar circulator will be developed in the area. The system is projected to cost $125 million, with roughly half coming from local landowners. The measure requires 2/3 approval.

While Gov. Jerry Brown's veto of redevelopment-related bills and the earlier failure of parking reform bill Assembly Bill 904 caused some consternation around the state, he did in fact sign a wide array of bills relating to land use at the end of last month.  Of chief concern to many planners is Senate Bill 1241, sponsored by Sen. Christine Kehoe. The bill intends to use land use planning to minimize fire risks and guide decisions about future development by amending the safety element of general plan law. In doing so, expands the state's ability to review county plans and subdivsion plans. It adds to the list of specialized topics that general plans must address.  The bill is considered to be a culmination of an eight-year effort by Kehoe to address wildfires, starting in 2004 with AB 3065. A measure similar to SB 1241 was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010.  Its provisions go into effect Jan. 1, 2013. By 2014, cities and counties will have to review and update the safety element as necessary to address the risk of fire for state responsibility areas and conducted detailed surveying and mapping to determine areas of high fire danger. The bill directs the Office of Planning and Research to draft guidelines for how plans should identify and address fire danger, and it requires that county legislative bodies make findings that ensure the availability of fire protection before they approve tentative maps for parcels in areas located in an SRA and/or an area of high fire danger.  Many of the other bills that Brown signed affect only small, specific geographic areas or are adjustments to existing laws. One of his more quizzical signatures was applied to AB 2259, which creates an infrastructure financing district for San Francisco's America's Cup yacht race. The governor made it clear that he does not yet support the use of IFD's for redevelopment. However, the immediacy and special purpose of the America's Cup IFD may have made it necessary and justifiable.  The other bills that Brown signed include the following, listed by sponsor with official titles:  Open Space & Conservation AB 2207 by Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Property taxation: welfare exemption: nature resources and open-space lands. AB 1672 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Housing-Related Parks Program. AB 880 by Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert) – Ecological reserves: Mirage Trail. AB 1589 by Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – State parks: sustainability and protection. AB 1961 by Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) – Coho salmon: habitat. AB 2544 by Richard Gordon (D-Redwood City) – Forestry and fire protection: land purchases and property use. AB 2082 by Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Public lands: State Lands Commission: violations. AB 2169 by Wesley Chesbro (D-Eureka) – Property Acquisition Law: conservation easements. AB 2388 by Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority: authorization to contract. AB 2680 by Assembly Agriculture Committee – repeals the automatic termination date to authorize a city or county and landowner to rescind a Williamson Act contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract to facilitate a lot line adjustment with no sunset.  SB 1094 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Land use: mitigation lands: nonprofit organizations. SB 1169 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Natural community conservation planning. SB 1278 by Lois Wolk – makes several changes to Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley cities and counties' flood hazard planning and development practices.  SB 1501 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Open-space easements. SB 1577 by the Committee on Natural Resources and Water – Resources: public trust lands: City of Newport Beach. Transportation, Transit, & Roads AB 1446 by Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: transactions and use tax. AB 819 by Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Bikeways. AB 432 by Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Transit: Sacramento County. AB 441 by William Monning (D-Carmel) – Transportation planning. AB 1770 by Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – California Transportation Financing Authority. Community Development & Affordable Housing AB 1585 by John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Community development. AB 1699 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Affordable housing. AB 1951 by Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Housing bonds. AB 1551 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Housing. AB 1797 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund. AB 232 by Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Community Development Block Grant Program: funds.  Miscellaneous AB 1614 by William Monning (D-Carmel) – Fort Ord Reuse Authority. AB 1616 by Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) establishes zoning and permit requirements pertaining to cottage food industries.  AB 1915 by Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) – Safe routes to school. AB 1965 by Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Land use. AB 2046 by Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – provides that tenants in floating home marinas who want to purchase the marina can do so without reassessment of the marina, similar to mobile home parks.  AB 2259 by Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – makes conforming changes to San Francisco's special waterfront Infrastructure Financing Districts for the Port America's Cup.  AB 2649 by Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: seawall lots. SB 200 by Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Delta levee maintenance. SB 1241 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Land use: general plan: safety element: fire hazard impacts. Climate Change AB 1532 by John A. Pérez (D- Los Angeles) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. SB 535 by Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. California Environmental Quality Act AB 1665 by Cathleen Galgiani (D-Tracy) – California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: railroad crossings. AB 1486 by Ricardo Lara (D-South Gate) – California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System. AB 2245 by Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: bicycle lanes. AB 890 by Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto) – Environment: CEQA exemption: roadway improvement. AB 2669 by the Committee on Natural Resources – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act.

Over the past year, even the most irate objectors to Gov. Jerry Brown's dismantling of redevelopment held out hope that in agreeing to kill redevelopment, the legislature would invent a new, better system for stoking local economic growth. Last week, the governor dashed those hopes.  Facing a total six bills designed to replace aspects of redevelopment or otherwise help cities with local economic development, Brown vetoed all six. In his veto statements, Brown indicated that it was too soon to consider alternatives. The wind-down process has been tumultuous for many cities, but almost all have clamored for immediate relief for the billions in tax increment funding that they have collectively lost this year.  Despite the governor's seemingly indiscriminate vetoes, they came as a shock to neither supporters nor critics of redevelopment.  "I'm not 100 percent surprised," said Jean Hurst, senior legislative representative of the California State Association of Counties. "The governor put significant time and energy into the dissolution process." League of California Cities Legislative Director Dan Carrigg said that he was "certainly disappointed" but that he was not necessarily discouraged by the vetoes, even if many cities were hoping for relief sooner rather than later. Peter Detwiler, former staffer for the Senate Government and Finance Committee, said, "I didn't read it as ‘hell, no.' I think he said, ‘not now, not yet.'"   Brown was unusually complimentary the concept of replacing redevelopment, despite his veto. In his veteo of Senate Bill 1156 he wrote, "the planning and investment that is envisioned by this bill would help to develop and redevelop a California that is sustainable and thriving." But he wrote that he would " prefer to take a constructive look at implementing this type of program once the winding down of redevelopment is complete." Supporters of redevelopment are cautiously optimistic.  "We can see in the governor's veto messages that he seems to have left the door open for a return of those bills or a reopening of that discussion once the redevelopment process has kind of played itself out," said Carrigg. He was hopeful that the dissolution process would adhere to the schedule set forth in the "touch-up" bill, Assembly Bill 1484, passed over the summer. (The League has since filed suit to block some of the provisions of that bill.) The vetoed bills include the following, listed by their official titles and sponsors:  • AB 345 by Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Redevelopment.  • AB 2144 by John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Local government: infrastructure and revitalization financing districts.  • AB 2551 by Ben Hueso (D-Chula Vista) – Infrastructure financing districts: renewable energy zones. • SB 214 by Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Infrastructure financing districts: voter approval: repeal.  • SB 1030 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund allocations: excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund moneys. • SB 1156 by Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Sustainable Communities Investment Authority. Three of the bills would have changed the state's notoriously restrictive laws concerning infrastructure financing districts, through which a local government can levy special taxes on local residents and businesses for the purpose of investing in locally serving infrastructure projects. SB 214 would have made the most drastic changes to this system, changing the voter-approval threshold from 2/3 to 55%.  Historically, IFD's have not been heavily used because they cannot be used in redevelopment project areas and require 2/3 voter approval, not only for the formation of the districts, but also for the issuance of bonds backed by projected tax increment revenues in the districts. Many, however, see a gentler version of IFD law as a way for cities to revive many of the infrastructure-related functions that redevelopment agencies served.  "The governor's veto does nothing to remove the obstacles barring many local governments from utilizing infrastructure financing districts for public infrastructure investment, like flood protection and clean drinking water," said Wolk in a statement to CP&DR. "I remain committed to making it easier for local governments to utilize IFDs to fund important projects, without adversely affecting our schools, core local services, or the state general fund." (Brown did, however, sign a bill authorizing the creation of an IFD for the America's Cup yacht race in San Francisco next year. Detwiler postulated that such a move was appropriate given that the IFD is for a specific, clearly defined event and not for general economic development.) SB 1156 would have come closest to a replacement for traditional redevelopment. It was designed to complement Senate Bill 375 by giving cities more tools to promote development in districts heavily served by public transit. Many such districts are in former redevelopment project areas. It has nearly universal support from local officials and statewide advocates of local economic development.  The bill would have enabled cities to form "Community Development and Housing Joint Powers Authorities" to carry out much the same functions as redevelopment agencies did. These authorities would have been funded by tax increments as long as they prepared plans to offset any loss of tax revenues incurred by local schools. It also would have allowed localities to implement local sales taxes, with voter approval.   Redevelopment had long drawn the scorn of many county officials who felt that it allowed cities to unfairly siphon away tax money that would have, in part, ended up in county coffers. However, even some county officials supported SB 1156 because it explicitly attempted to address some of those concerns by giving counties input into cities' use of tax increment financing.  "SB 1156 provided that authorization for counties and cities to come to the table together and say that we agree that this is an appropriate use of tax increment dollars, as opposed to a more unilateral approach," said Hurst.  Steinberg has already vowed to reintroduce a version of SB 1156 and make it one of his highest legislative priorities next year.  In an Oct. 2 letter to supporters, Steinberg wrote, "Looking ahead to next year, it is imperative that the Legislature and Governor reach an agreement on a new set of tools for local economic development and affordable housing." Steinberg wrote that he will reintroduce it on the very first day of the legislative session, with the designation SB 1.  Brown indicated that he feared that such new tools would distract cities from the burdensome process of winding down their former redevelopment agencies.  "Expanding the scope of infrastructure financing districts is premature," Brown wrote in his SB 214 veto statement. "This measure would likely cause cities to focus their efforts on using new tools provided by the measure instead of winding down redevelopment. This would prevent the state from achieving the General Fund savings assumed in this year's budget." Brown's veto messages indicate that he supported the spirit of many of the bills that he vetoed, thus simultaneously giving cities hope, while telling them to hang on for another year.  Even supporters of redevelopment are sympathetic to this approach, saying that there are too many uncertainties to come up with a suitable replacement for redevelopment just yet.    At the same time, cities are caught in an uncomfortable period of limbo and are trying to encourage development regardless of what happens in Sacramento. They would, however, like some help in the meantime.  "The business of our economy doesn't stop or isn't necessarily synchronized with the state budget," said Carrigg. "There's all sorts of infrastructure challenges that are out there….there were a lot of city officials that would just like to get to work on dealing with those challenges." Some hope that an extra year will result in a stronger, better economic development tool from Sacramento.  "(The governor) is signaling a redevelopment recess," said Detwiler. "The whole policy community—the fiscal and urban renewal community—needs to see how this post-redevelopment period settles out and really what are the assets and liabilities." Detwiler also speculated that Brown is more focused on Proposition 30, his package of tax increases aimed at balancing the state budget, than he is on any other issue.  "Anything that might deflect that focus (on Prop. 30) had better be for an awfully good reason," said Detwiler. "Right now there is no awfully good policy reason to sign IFD bills or redevelopment reincarnations." At the very least, this year's bills may pave the way for those future incarnations. Though city officials have had choice words for the governor, and tempers have often flared, they seem to accept his veto messages in good faith.  "The bright spot is that the governor's veto messages certainly, in my mind, don't close any doors," said Carrigg. "They seem to indicate a delay connected to budget issues and the unwinding of redevelopment."  Whenever it comes, a replacement for redevelopment will likely impose new challenges on city administrators—and a quick fix should not be expected.  "We know that there are other economic development devices out there," said Detwiler. "They are politically much more difficult to use and require more managerial skill, more political leadership, and a genuine cultivation of public support. Well, duh. Of course." Editor's Note: This story is an updated and expanded version of a blog post that ran online Sept. 30.  Contacts Dan Carrigg, Legislative Director, League of California Cities, 916.658.8222 Jean Hurst, Sr. Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties, 916.327.7500

When voters in Orange County approved the creation of the 1,300-acre Orange County Great Park out of the shuttered Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, they had every reason to believe the estimated $1.2 billion cost would come, partially, from redevelopment monies. Such was the status quo in 2002. Since then, the self-described "first great metropolitan park of the 21st century" has run into a problem that is itself becoming the hallmark of the 21st century: lack of funds, specifically $1.4 billion in redevelopment funds. Reports indicate that construction of the Great Park may drag on indefinitely. Great Park officials attempted to claw back some former redevelopment monies, arguing that such an iconic project should not be left unfunded. Irvine had asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent the taking of funds earmarked for the park, but those attempts were rejected by a Superior Court judge in June.  Though may be one of the biggest casualties of the demise of redevelopment, the Great Park is but one of untold hundreds of park and open space projects statewide that are not iconic and are suffering similar fates.  Long a part of redevelopment agencies' efforts to combat blight, parks frequently received redevelopment funds, and parks departments frequently partnered with redevelopment agencies. They did so under the theory that parks could not only directly combat blight by replacing derelict properties with clean, safe, useable spaces, but also by making entire neighborhoods more attractive. Now, the weeds are only going to keep growing in spaces where parks would have gone. "It's the loss you have of not only the agency and its ability to be nimble, but also its staff and its knowledge, the staff, and the community contacts they have," said Los Angeles Recreation and Parks planner Darryl Ford, of the demise of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. "That's going to be, over time, a big hurdle to get past." Like hundreds of its counterparts statewide, LA/CRA played a key role in developing new parks because within redevelopment project areas it could act not only as a funder but also as a developer. "CRA was an implementing entity, so not only could they apply for them, but also build the park," said Sian Leong, director of development and marketing at the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative. "Because of that, they were uniquely poised to be able to deliver real results that sometimes the city, because of limited capacity, can't always provide." That kind of assertiveness, said Leong, is crucial in a city that has historically had trouble shoehorning open spaces into dense, needy neighborhoods—places where new parks are often considered not amenities but, in fact, necessities. "Some of our neighborhoods are so densely built and compacted that there isn't that green space available," said Leong.               In other cases, their contributions have been somewhat opaque, because city parks and recreation departments affix their name to all of the properties under their management. But in many cases, redevelopment monies were part of a vast mix of local and state funds that parks departments cobble together to develop new facilities. Even when redevelopment contributed only fractions of a project's budget, it was often considered crucial. "(It) was really devastating because we get tons of leverage out of $500,000 when we're doing park improvements," said J.P. Tindell, manager of park planning and development services for the City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation. Tindell said that sometimes redevelopment money could be the first money spent on a project—and therefore it could serve as the impetus for winning further funds from other sources. "When we get other people's money—redevelopment CBDG, grants--I always spend somebody else's money first," said Tindell. "I protect my own money and spend other people's money, so I don't leave that money sitting because I don't know if it's going to be there again." The City of Long Beach followed a similar strategy. "Redevelopment has always been a big part of that, if for no other reason than to provide matching funds," said Robert Zur-Schmiede, deputy director of Development Services for the City of Long Beach. Even individual departments cannot even tell how many projects will be affected by the loss of redevelopment. "We had earmarked redevelopment funding for certain projects, but none of it had been appropriated by Council action," said Deborah Sharpe, provisional supervisor of long-range park planning at the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department. "That's why it's hard to put your finger on exactly how many projects are going to be affected." Sharpe said that some clear impacts include the loss of funding for streetscape improvements surrounding the department's North Park Mini-Park. On the other end of the spectrum, the large Pershing Square Sports Complex was supposed to take the place of a city maintenance yard. But without redevelopment funds to relocate the maintenance yard, the sports park is all but dead, according to Sharpe. Sharpe added that planned parks in the downtown area were intended to complement a projected residential population increase in the tens of thousands. Properties had been set aside but were not on the city's approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and therefore could be sold off—even though the city's master plan says that the parks are necessary to support the population increase. Bakersfield Economic Development Director Donna Kunz said that her city had been pursuing a similar strategy. "Redevelopment has been a major player in park development since its inception," said Kunz. "If you want to attract a 24-hour downtown you have to have residential development….have to have the same amenities that they're going to get out there in suburbia." In San Jose, Park Manager David Mitchell estimated that redevelopment contributed roughly $25 million to a current capital budget of $200 million total. He highlighted Guadalupe Gardens, near the San Jose/Mineta Airport, which would have covered dozens of acres at full build-out. "It's a blow in the sense of providing a destination place to come to ," said Mitchell. "When you go past the airport….you see vacant land instead of seeing a vibrant park." On an even larger scale, the Hunters Point project – a massive mixed-use redevelopment in San Francisco – is relying on redevelopment funding to develop its open space. Fortunately, for the city, all of the redevelopment funds for those projects were secured prior to dissolution. Had the project been approved even a few months later, it might have been a vastly different story. "(RDA funds were) totally crucial," said Wells Lawson, project manager at the successor to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. "For Hunters Point, it's the largest park construction project since Golden Gate park….parks are parks; they're really important for civic life and are the picture of sustainability and…of the city." As with all projects formerly related to redevelopment, cities and other agencies are now turning to other sources of funding. Two of the major sources of state funding, however, are about to dry up. Proposition 1C and Proposition 84 both included funds for open space and parks, but most of those funds have been disbursed already. Without abundant supplies of seed money, from redevelopment and other sources, cities may have to rely on nonprofit partnerships or simply put parks projects on hold indefinitely. "Ultimately a lot of that gap is going to be filled in by more nonprofit organizations; the public planning and park functions and community beautification functions…..will sort of be filled in over time," said Ford. Contacts:   Darryl Ford, Management Analyst, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 213.202.2633 Donna Kunz, Bakersfield Economic Development Director, 661.326.3765 Sian Leong, Director of Development, Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative, 213.627.1822 David Mitchell, Park Manager, City of San Jose Parks and Recreation, 408.535.3500 Deborah Sharpe, Supervisor of Long-Range Park Planning (Provisional), City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department, 619.525.8213 J.P. Tindell, Manager of Park Planning and Development Services, City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation, 916.808.7523 Robert Zur-Schmiede, Deputy Director of Development Services for the City of Long Beach, 562.570.5237

Even the most irate objectors to Gov. Jerry Brown's dismantling of redevelopment held out hope that in agreeing to killing redevelopment, the legislature would invent a new, better system for stoking local economic growth. Yesterday, the governor dashed those hopes.  Facing a total six bills designed to replace aspects of redevelopment or otherwise help cities, Brown vetoed all six. In his veto statements, Brown indicated that it was too soon to consider alternatives. The wind-down process has been tumultuous for many cities, but almost all have clamored for immediate relief for the billions in tax increment funding that they have collectively lost this year.  The vetoed bills include the following:  AB 345 by Assemblymember Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Redevelopment.  AB 2144 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Local government: infrastructure and revitalization financing districts.  AB 2551 by Assemblymember Ben Hueso (D-Chula Vista) – Infrastructure financing districts: renewable energy zones. SB 214 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Infrastructure financing districts: voter approval: repeal.  SB 1030 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund allocations: excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund moneys. SB 1156 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Sustainable Communities Investment Authority. Most prominent among these were the infrastructure financing bills, as many had hoped that looser restrictions on setting up IFD's -- which currently require 2/3 voter approval -- and SB 1156, which, to complement Senate Bill 375, would have given cities more tools to promote development in districts heavily served by public transit. Many such districts are in former redevelopment project areas.   Brown indicated that he feared that such new tools would distract cities from the burdensome process of winding down their former redevelopment agencies.  "Expanding the scope of infrastructure financing districts is premature," Brown wrote. "This measure would likely cause cities to focus their efforts on using new tools provided by the measure instead of winding down redevelopment. This would prevent the state from achieving the General Fund savings assumed in this year's budget." Brown's veto messages indicate that he supported the spirit of many of the bills that he vetoed, thus simultaneously giving cities hope while telling them to hang on for another year.  Brown was unusually complimentary of SB 1156, despite his veto, writing, "the planning and investment that is envisioned by this bill would help to develop and redevelop a California that is sustainable and thriving." But he wrote that he would prefer to "take a constructive look" at  such an investment authority after the wind-down is complete.

Watch out, Copenhagen. Like so many a rider at the back of the peleton, California cities have long lagged behind their European counterparts in their embrace of bicycling. But they are now clipping in and gearing with the dramatic arrival of bike sharing. With zero major bike-sharing systems currently in the state, no fewer than five California cities will be adopting pilot projects by mid-2013.   Touted as an ideal amenity for tourists and a "first-mile, last-mile" solution for commuters, bike sharing is a short-term, high-tech twist on bike rentals. Automated stations are placed at close intervals – sometimes as few as two or three blocks – from one another, and users with a day pass or annual membership can check out bikes with the swipe of a card and then deliver them back to any other vending station upon arriving at their destination, all without ever getting into a car. "Nobody is going to be commuting across the city on bike share," said Eric Bruins, planning and policy director for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. "It gives them mobility within the destination area for that first-mile, last-mile….it allows people to go out to lunch without having to worry about re-parking." Long established overseas in Paris, Barcelona, and Vienna, and more recently introduced in American cities such as Denver, Boston, and Washington, D.C., bike sharing is scheduled to arrive soon in Anaheim, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, plus San Francisco and other cities along the Caltrain corridor.           Bike advocacy groups, which have long lobbied for making California's streets more friendly to cyclists, are hailing bike sharing's arrival—even if planned improvements to cities' respective bicycle infrastructures remain years away.  "I think the time is now to install these bike sharing systems even though we have a long way to go changing the streets to be safe enough for most people," said David Snyder, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. "It's like a gateway drug to practical bicycling." Promoters attribute the rapid deployment of bike sharing in California to the success that other cities have enjoyed. Enough test cases have succeeded—with expansion and steady increases in ridership—in more compact, bicycle-friendly cities that California cities are now willing to test the concept. As well, new state laws aimed at curbing climate change, such as Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375, give new weight to any program that encourages the use of alternative transportation. "I think with (AB 32) coming down the pipeline, cities are looking at how cities might be able to gain some offset credits for carbon," said Derek Fretheim, CEO of Tustin-based bike sharing vendor Bike Nation. By the end of 2013, Anaheim is expected to have installed 100 bikes at ten stations, while the Bay Area, Long Beach, and Los Angeles are planning to install several hundred bikes, each, at dozens of stations. "There are two kinds of mayors: mayors with a bike sharing system and mayors that want one," said Maddox. Though these represent dramatic increases over California's current bike share offerings—which amount to the few dozen bikes of UC-Irvine's Zotwheels—they still pale in comparison to the systems in place elsewhere. Worldwide, nearly 200 cities have bike Sharing programs. Paris' Vileb' has over 20,000 bikes, while Huangzhou, China's system has over 60,000, making it the largest such system in the world.  Though it lags far behind those places, California may be, in many ways, an ideal place for bike sharing.  "First of course, our climate: how can you beat Southern California?" said Allan Crawford, sustainability coordinator for the City of Long Beach, on reasons why Long Beach is embracing the concept. "And its topography: we're flat, so it makes it incredibly easy to get around." One of the driving forces is Fretheim's Bike Nation, which is aggressively marketing its bike Sharing system to California cities. Bike Nation is vertically integrated, developing its own bicycles, stations, and software. Company officials say that they expect to have roughly 5,000 bikes at roughly 500 stations in the next few years. Planners see bike sharing as a solution to the perennial "first-mile, last-mile problem," in which commuters who use public transportation often must cope with station stops that are not quite where they want to go. Bike sharing enables those commuters to easily navigate the "last mile." They can also maintain mobility around a downtown area throughout the day, rather than need a personal car.  Bike Nation is staking its growth on a business model that may be too attractive for cities to pass up.  "Los Angeles has the perfect opportunity at this point in time to look at an actual working model before we go out to RFP," said Lisa Sarno, executive director of Environment and Sustainability for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Whereas most bike sharing programs worldwide have been public-private partnerships, funded in part with public monies and grants (systems in Boston and Washington, D.C., received federal grants of $3 million and $6 million, respectively), Bike Nation will be operating in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Anaheim entirely at their own expense. The company has simply asked the respective cities to make licensing agreements that allow the company to set up stations and then to keep whatever user fees and advertising revenue it collects. The vending stations, which use solar power and wireless communications, are free-standing and can be set up almost anywhere. They will be established on both private property, such as in parking lots or plazas, and in the public right of way, such as on sidewalks or in curbside parking spaces, with city approval.  "The city is going through the process internally to determine what the permit process would be for both private property and public property," said Sarno. "If there's an issue or a problem with any of the bike Sharing stations, the city still reserves the right to revoke that permit." As well, even cities that are welcoming private vendors insist that they will still do their part to promote bike sharing and ensure that it is serving the public interest. "We will also be actively involved in community engagement," said Crawford. "While it's a private enterprise, it will be viewed as an integral part of what the city does and what the city is." Maddox said that bike stations are likely to be sited and permitted in much the same way that parklets or bicycle corrals are. In most cases, the initial cluster of stations will be placed in relatively active areas such as San Francisco's downtown and South of Market district. "We're really trying to focus on a dense blanket of these stations over a limited area," said Heath Maddox, a senior planner with the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency. Fretheim said that many of the bike station locations will be in predictably high-traffic areas such as tourist attractions and transportation centers. In that sense, the planning is nearly self-evident. "Finding locations are probably the easiest part in terms of saying 'we would like to provide connectivity from, say, the Blue Line to Shoreline Village'— looking at an end destination," said Fretheim.  In some cities, Bike Nation will be focusing on discrete destinations, including tourist attractions and transportation hubs. Further down the Caltrain line, bike stations will be placed at the Caltrain stations and in downtowns to serve commuters. For its part, the City of Los Angeles reserves the right to alter this arrangement as it sees fit, including  issuing a request for proposals from other firms that might supplant or compete with Bike Nation. Despite its fiscal benefits, full privatization has its problems, according to some bike advocates. By giving the vendor free rein, cities have no way of ensuring that the system will serve the broad public interest, as opposed to serving only the vendor's need to sell advertising. "It restricts our ability to say, ‘there's a demand for it in South LA; we'd like to see you there,'" said Bruins. "We're going to see potentially restricted deployment to areas where it's economically feasible at the expense of social equity criteria." If Bike Nation and its counterparts in the Bay Area succeed, then bike sharing may be a gauntlet thrown down to urban planners and transportation planners. While Long Beach has been developing a network of bike lanes and other bike-friendly infrastructure for some time, cities such as Los Angeles are only beginning to implement ambitious, multiyear programs. There, bike sharing could introduce thousands of new riders annually on to a street grid that is not yet optimized for them. Bike advocates say that there is good reason for cities to adopt bike sharing programs even in the face of a seemingly dangerous situation, in which tourists are competing for road space with indifferent, fast-moving cars. "People will discover that bicycling is easier and safer than they thought it was," said Snyder. Informal studies around the world suggest that bike sharing is relatively safe, and even  safer than riding personal bicycles. Transport for London reported last year that its bike sharing system had experienced zero serious injuries or fatalities in 4.5 million trips. Washington D.C.'s Capital Bikeshare also reported no serious incidents in its first 300,000 trips. In fact, advocates say that bike sharing will create a whole new constituency of cyclists who may, in turn, create political pressure needed to speed up the implementation of cities' bike plans.  "I think we're at the point now where most of the pilot locations will have enough to allow people to use it and it will help provide us justification for why we need to complete the networks in each of those areas," said Bruins. Fretheim said that cities are now including bike sharing in their transportation and land use elements of their general plan updates. Advocates of bike sharing hope that it, and other efforts to promote bikes, will have ripple effects throughout the built environment. Many areas throughout the state that are already bike-friendly have experienced increased development and population growth in recent years, and in keeping with a wider trend of urban revitalization and gentrification.  "We have seen that any city that invests in innovative bicycle and safety improvements is a popular neighborhood for development," said Snyder. Snyder cited the arrival of tech companies Zynga and Twitter in downtown San Francisco suggests that bike-ability can correlate with economic growth. Once these initial programs begin operations, the next step, according to Snyder, is to ensure that they operate well, not just within cities, but also between cities. He envisions an integrated system in which a bike Sharing memberships in one California city would automatically grant users access to systems in every other city. "One of the things that we're concerned about is a hodgepodge of different systems throughout the state," said Snyder. Fretheim said that users of Bike Nation will enjoy that sort of inter-city access, but integration among different vendors may be further off. Regardless, supporters are hopeful that bike sharing—unlike other bike-related fads that have come and gone—will become a permanent, practical option for commuters in California.  "Will lycra-clad bicycling wax and wane? Without a doubt, it will" said Crawford. "This is something that truly becomes part of the sustainable urban fabric." Contacts: Derek Fretheim, CEO, Bike Nation, 1.800.980.7942 Heath Maddox, Senior Planner, San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, 415.701.4605 Allan Crawford, Sustainability Coordinator, City of Long Beach, 562.570.6555 Eric Bruins, Planning & Policy Director, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 213.629.2142 Lisa Sarno Executive Director, Environment & Sustainability, Los Angeles Mayor's Office, 213 922-9725 David Snyder, Executive Director, California Bicycle Coalition, 916.446.7558

In a state with the likes of Yosemite, Griffith, Balboa, and Golden Gate, the development of a neighborhood park scarcely larger than a Trader Joe's parking lot may not seem particularly noteworthy. But the pocket parks, community gardens, and micro-recreation areas of the City of Los Angeles' 50 Parks Initiative are intended to be landmarks in some of the state's neediest communities. Announced less than a year ago by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in November as an ambitious plan to develop 50 neighborhood parks, the program is already coming to fruition. Three parks have opened, and twenty, in total, are projected to have opened within nine months. Thirty-nine sites have been secured, and 14 more are in the process of being acquired, for a total of 53 sites in various stages of planning and development. At a total of 170 acres, the 50 parks are less than 0.5% the size of the city's Griffith Park, but planners say that these tiny parks will have a profound impact on their neighborhoods. They are located in low-income neighborhoods throughout the city, with the largest cluster in South Los Angeles.  "Because the city of LA is a very dense, built-out city, this is one of the strategies �and in my mind the only strategy we can follow in terms of looking at small-scale parks and gardens as a way to address the park disparity issue," said Alina Bokde executive director of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust.  Los Angeles' inner-city neighborhoods have long posed a challenge to park planners�and been a black eye on the city. While recreational opportunities abound in the surrounding beaches and mountains, neighborhoods like South LA have suffered. Because many of these neighborhoods were built-out decades ago, the department has had trouble identifying locations for traditional recreation centers. The economic downtown, however, inspired the mayor and Rec and Parks to pursue an opportunistic, if unorthodox strategy of acquiring properties and developing many parks all at once. "It was not something that we waited for like a bond measure," said Darryl Ford, a management analyst at the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks. "There's an immediate need, a unique moment in time with where the economy was, at least when we started this program that gave us a singular moment to strike and try to acquire property now." Many of the properties being used are underutilized land that had already been owned by the city or by the Department of Water and Power. The centerpieces of the program, however, are lots that had been foreclosed upon. Funded by a Neighborhood Stabilization grant from the federal Housing and Urban Development department, the Los Angeles Housing Department has been spending $153 million buying what it considers some of the city's most derelict foreclosures.  "We're targeting the worst of the worst to remove that blight in the community and rehabilitating these homes," said Rushmore Cervantes, executive officer of the Los Angeles Housing Department. While LAHD is rehabilitating some of those properties, it offered a handful of unsalvageable properties to Rec and Parks. Many of these were�not coincidentally�in ideal locations for neighborhood parks. "They did their own study as to where the deficiencies were as far as park space," said Cervantes. "When that targeted area map was overlaid where the Neighborhoods Stabilization Fund was, there was almost an exact overlay." This lemonade-from-lemons strategy will, say planners, result in exactly the sort of places that will attract old and young alike, for activities ranging from holding community meetings to perhaps even setting up lemonade stands. "Many times these small parks that aren't actively programmed can be become a place where community members get together," said Bokde. "They can do community-led programs, have events, have meetings, meet with their local council office representative.  It becomes a meeting space and a community gathering space." Despite the parks' twee nature, and the speed with which they have been developed, planners say that they are not necessarily any easier to establish than are their larger counterparts. Rec and Parks planners say they have been doing the same sort of public outreach as they would with any other projects. "They take as much planning effort as a larger park does," said Ford. "You still need to do community outreach, you still need to do the meetings�be it an 8,000-sq foot park or an 80-acre park." They also do not come cheaply. Rec and Parks combined this real estate windfall with funds from a ragout of sources, including Quimby fees, foundation monies, and Proposition 84 grants totaling $81 million. Ford said, however, that one aspect of the 50 Parks Initiative is a godsend for planners: the program was designed explicitly to avoid land assembly. "We try to avoid some of those things that hamper large, visionary projects that get too aggressive about land assembly," said Ford. "Land assembly is always difficult no matter what the economy is like." For that reason alone, the department has been able to deliver on what otherwise might have seemed like an outlandish goal. "That in and of itself is unique: when you come up with an ambitious program like a 50 Parks Initiative, that is something that raises attention to the issue, which for us has been a welcome thing," said Bokde. Although Cervantes said that it would be hard for other cities to replicate the 50 Parks Initiative--especially the foreclosure component�in the absence of a Neighborhood Stabilization Fund, Ford said that developing such a program does not necessarily depend on money. "What can be exported to other cities is the attitude towards 50 Parks," said Ford. "When there is a moment to make a permanent effort to change communities, you just sort of go with that moment." Contacts: Alina Bokde, Executive Director, Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust, 213.572.0188 Rushmore Cervantes, Executive Officer, Los Angeles Housing Department, 213.808.8809 Darryl Ford, Management Analyst, Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, 213.202.2681

On Saturday, California tax law finally catches up with the 21st century: some online retailers -- most notably, juggernaut Amazon.com -- will start charging sales tax for items sold in California if they have warehouse space in the state. Though we always knew there was something fishy about the tax exemption, as a consumer this development does not thrill me. As a citizen of the state, I suppose it's fine. The more money we can raise, the better.  As an urbanist, however, I say bring on the tax.  I don't think that humanity will ever be able to take full stock of the impact that e-commerce has had on the urban landscape. The extreme version holds that the Amazon's and Shopzilla's of the world have siphoned customers off from mom, pop, and even the terrestrial chain stores. It has turned the most social aspect of capitalism into something that can be performed in one's boxer shorts, usually at a relative discount. This collision of frugality and convenience has enriched the likes of UPS and FedEx while devastating Main St. and even the malls.  Then again, no one will ever be able to disaggregate the impacts of e-tailing from those of countless other factors including the rise of big boxes, the expansion of the suburbs, and many Americans' chronic indifference to living their lives in public. Nevertheless, the 7.25% that Amazon wasn't collecting did not help matters (reports indicate that few other e-tailers will be affected by the new law because they do not have physical presences in California).  Gov. Jerry Brown and bill sponsor Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) presumably weren't necessarily thinking about land use when they approved AB 155 , which was passed following negotiations with Amazon and other big retailers. They wanted the cash -- as did lawmakers in the 13 other states with similar laws. But in a roundabout way, the instatement of sales tax offers a new -- and potentially positive -- twist on the fiscalization of land use.  As CP&DR publisher Bill Fulton has written, tax structures often inadvertently dictate the types of land uses that cities and planners promote. If you stand to collect a lot of revenue from auto sales, then an auto mall is your best bet. If Main St. requires a lot of city services but doesn't exactly rake in the tax money for selling baubles like books and lightbulbs, then maybe it's OK to let them fade away. And if tract homes fill city coffers more than downtown apartments do, then let's rev up those bulldozers.  The great thing about the e-commerce tax is that pretty much no one is buying cars on the internet in the first place. It's the small appliances, clothing, office supplies, and books that are going to get relatively more expensive. I'm not sure how elastic all of these goods are -- or if there's even such thing as cross-elasticity between online retail and brick-and-mortar stores -- but it's tempting to think that somehow, in the aggregate, at least a few customers will be drawn back out into the daylight now that Amazon doesn't have a built-in 7.25% price advantage over everyone else.  Usually, fiscalization of land use refers to the competition between cities to lure big retailers, but in this case, the entire state benefits.  In my fantasy world, that margin should be enough to make a thousand stores bloom, ideally in those small vacant storefronts that have been multiplying statewide ever since the recession first hit. These stores would all be locally owned -- since many big chains, most notably Borders and Barnes & Noble, are in trouble -- and they'd be the types of places where neighborhoods would bump into each other. The money they spent would go right back into other locally owned businesses. Amazon would shrivel ever-so-slightly.  That fate is not, of course, what Amazon has in mind.  The company now building a new series of "fulfilment centers" (i.e. warehouses) nationwide, partially in response to the new California law, in order to assure faster shipment of its goods. The first of several planned for California will be in Patterson, 85 miles east of San Francisco, and the next will be in San Bernardino. Amazon currently ships to California from facilities in Las Vegas and Reno (SacBee has a nice map ). Amazon is shooting for delivery in two days once the network is up and running. While warehouses might not be planners' favorite typology, at least some construction jobs and permanent jobs will come with them. It's funny, though. If my local bookstore hadn't closed four years ago, I could have taken a five-minute walk to pick up that new copy of Small is Beautiful or The Economy of Cities instead of writing this blog. And the state deficit would have been smaller by two bucks.

At least someone thinks California is going to emerge from its mess.  According to the recent issue of the venerable  Foreign Policy  magazine, 11-figure deficits, municipal bankrupticies, shrinking beaches, and a train to nowhere will not dim Calfornia's spotlight on the world stage. According to FP's recent ranking of the 75 "Cities of the Future," no fewer than three California heavyweights are going to guide the world economy into the 21st century. The magazine describes all of these cities as "powerhouses of the urban revolution," under the premise that economic growth both at home and abroad will be housed in cities.  In case you're holding out hope for Stockton or Mairposa, you can relax. It's the usual suspects: Los Angeles ( 12th ), San Francisco ( 57th ), and San Diego ( 70th ). The full list is here .  FP's exuberance points to a paradox that plagues many pleasant places. Whereas cities in Texas and North Dakota face few strains, many of California's cities are a wreck precisely because they are so attractive. There's the population burden, but that's not all. As Paul Peterson wrote three decades ago in City Limits, the most attractive cities can, in essence, get away with the most.  Cities can get away with fiscally risky moves like offering generous social services and pension plans because they know that the demand for real estate and the influx of new residents will keep them vital. San Francisco has played this hand skillfully, though at the expense, say some, of becoming a "boutique city." Los Angeles, however, is just hanging on. As for San Diego, let's just say that things have been looking up since 2008. That's what happens after your economy nearly hits rock-bottom.  What the FP list suggests is that to the rest of the world, California remains as attractive as ever. So, for all the lumps the California Dream has taken, this news should be heartening, inspiring, and sobering. It should remind us that if we can fix our fiscal messes -- at both the state and local levels -- that brighter days may yet be on the horizon. Especially since, in the coming generation, the brightness will be coming at us from the west.  On a not unrelated note, Forbes magazine recently released one of its ubiquitous city-ranking lists, and this time California also cleans up. Among US cities with the "happiest young professionals," California takes spots 1-3, 5-6, and 9. In order, that's Los Angeles, San Jose, Sunnyvale, San Diego, Irvine, and San Francisco. I can't help questioning a ranking that puts Irvine's toddler-fest above a place that permits public nudity. Nevertheless, young adults are probably the ones who are going to connect with the global economy, and if they're still happy here--perhaps because they're oblivious to many of the state's bigger challenges--then more power to them.  The news is even more heartening when you judge California against the world's other mere mortals--i.e. those cities that aren't in China. I'm sure you can't name 29 American cities of over 1 million people (because there aren't), but that's how many Chinese cities are going to be dominating the global economy before you can say " ni how ."  Shanghai tops the list, and six other Chinese cities populate the top 10. Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shenzen are there, but you only have to look as far as No. 3 to find a city (Tianjin) that, as far as its global reputation goes, might as well be a thatched hut and a rice paddy. Of course, that's exactly what many of them were 30 years ago.  I'm writing this in part because last month I visited No. 1. I feel like a Parisian writing about New York in 1900. With scant exceptions, the streets of China offer little charm. I, for one, would be happier in an Irvine McMansion than in a Chinese superblock--and so would most other young adults, I think. The business of China is business. Nowhere is that more true than Shanghai, where the richness of Chinese culture dissolves into a vascular network of surface streets, elevated highways, and the world's most rapidly constructed subway system all designed to maximize the use of human capital. (I envy only the Maglev, which actually exists. If you've heard of Maglev, you'd be forgiven for thinking it sounds like a middle school science experiment. But, as it turns out, the Pudong Airport "demonstration line" is not the 1/4-scale model that its name implies but rather a smooth, silent projectile that covers 30 kilometers in seven minutes. You do the math. Its only moving parts are the doors.) I'm glad, then, that California cities are still investing in infrastructure despite their financial desperation. We have to keep up appearances as long as we can, even if that means telling people in Beverly Hills to sit down and just eat their caviar. That might also mean figuring out a replacement for redevelopment ASAP. China probably redevelops more acres in a month than California did in 55 years.  Ultimately, Shanghai can have its global dominance. I'll take the beach, the Mission, and a burger at Father's Office. But given the mistakes we have made in California, I think we all should be excited -- and thankful -- just to still be in the game.

A proposal to use eminent domain to ward off foreclosures in two cities in San Bernardino County has been slammed almost unanimously by both Wall Street and federal regulators. The most powerful dissenter was Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who said on August 7 that he would resist any effort by local governments to "take" homes owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two agencies under his supervision; those agencies buy the majority of US home loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities. Coupled with an earlier rejection by the same official to reduce the unpaid balances on "underwater" mortgages, few options appear available to homeowners sliding into foreclosure, except to deed the properties back to the lender.   With an estimated 13.5 million American households underwater on their mortgages – that is, owing more on their mortgages than the market values of their homes – foreclosure remains the greatest single barrier to the recovery of the housing market –and arguably to the economy itself. Homes that are "underwater" are perceived to be right at risk of foreclosure, particularly for home owners who view their mortgage payments as "throwing good money after bad," to quote a neighbor of mine who just went through the process. The lukewarm response of the Obama administration to the foreclosure crisis is one the shortcomings of the president's first term.  In inland California, the housing crisis has hit families and cities alike. The bankruptcies of cities like Stockton and San Bernardino are due in no small part to the plunge in home values and even the abandonment of otherwise perfectly good homes. It's hard to collect taxes when your populace has fled for someplace they can afford.  At the national level, the administration's most effective response, to date, is the HARP 2.0 loan, a government-backed loan program able to refinance mortgages for more than 100 percent of the mortgage balance. (Otherwise, home owners who are underwater can't refinance.)  Introduced in October 2011, the program represents nearly one in four re-financings currently, according to the Mortgage Banking Association. (Limiting the program's effectiveness, however, is a requirement that home owners be current on their mortgage payments for 12 months; that limitation, while prudent from the lender's perspective, leaves millions of at-risk home owners without the means to refinance their home loans to affordable levels.) If impolitic, the idea of using eminent domain is an ingenious response to a genuine crisis: the destructive effect of foreclosure on cities and neighborhoods. Mass foreclosure is the broken window syndrome in block-high letters: Empty houses become playgrounds for antisocial activity and for squatters; the same neighborhoods are shunned by families and investors. In the hardest hit cities, such as working class neighborhoods in Cleveland, entire blocks have been emptied as a result of falling home values and the inability of many home owners to refinance. Property values implode, and neighborhoods become dilapidated slums for decades.  It's not surprising that San Bernardino County, along with the City of Fontana in the same county, might look at eminent domain as a way to stanch the bleeding. The concept has been devised by a San Francisco firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners. Here's how it works: The city identifies homes that are underwater. With the cooperation of the home owner, the city condemns the property, takes possession, and then transfers ownership to the investor. The investor, in turn, creates a new mortgage for the home owner with a lower balance and lower monthly payments. The investor gets $4,500 per successful turnover. The winners are the home owner, local government and the investor. The loser is Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the bond holders who own mortgage-backed securities.  Legal and even constitutional questions abound.  Defenders of the take-the-foreclosures proposal say that eminent domain exists to advance public purposes. What could be more public than preventing mass foreclosure and neighborhood degradation? Opponents point out, however, that mortgages are not real property, and that mortgages have never before been "taken" by government. Moreover—and this is a powerful argument –government intrusion into a contract between two private entities—here, the lender and the home owner—could potentially violate the contract clause of the Constitution.  Further, the ability to "take" properties from their owners, which are most often Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or giant, private buyers like GMAC, could have a harmful impact on the way that mortgage finance works in the US.  The majority of lenders sell their mortgages to second-market agencies like Fannie Mae for cash; the lender's replenished funds are then used to finance new loans. While many left-leaning observers may understandably look askance at this system—mortgage-backed securities, after all, were at the center of the financial meltdown of 2008—it probably does not make sense to compromise the integrity of the bonds, by saying that local governments can forcibly take possession of properties when markets go south.  Why would local governments, then, embrace eminent domain in the first place? My assumption is that government could identify the homes in greatest danger, while policing the investor who buys the loan. The obvious error is to introduce eminent domain into the agreement, which is unnecessary. One could imagine a somewhat similar arrangement, in which the city and the bond investor form a private, not-for-profit corporation that buys a home from a willing seller as a short sale; again, the city is the guardian of both public policy and the home owner, while the investor puts up the money. After the short sale is completed, the investor provides a new mortgage with a reduced balance to the home owner, and pockets his fee. In this scenario, nobody's ox is gored, at least theoretically.    Even better is a proposal from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) who has proposed a large-scale refinancing scheme called Rebuilding American Homeownership. (The proposal was praised in a recent New York Times editorial by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Mark Zandi. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/opinion/the-one-housing-solution-left-mass-mortgage-refinancing.html?_r=1rat)  Under the Merkley proposal, home owners who are current on their mortgage payments could refinance at extremely low rates, perhaps 2 percent higher than the Treasury rate, the super-low rate that the government uses for borrowing. The trust making the super-low-interest refinance would accept refinance applications for three years, then "wind down," according to Stiglitz and Zandi. In other words, if buyers cannot get lenders to lower their balances, perhaps the government can make interest rates affordable. Again, this solution offers little for people in financial trouble. Still, this seems like an orderly process in which no oxen are harmed – even though the authors speculate that some lenders may complain about losing the income from performing loans with high interest rates. The next question is whether a rational proposal that assists millions of home owners and helps revive the economy, has a chance in an election year--or with an opposition determined to defeat any proposal by the current administration.

Update: Sen. Michael Rubio and Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg have announced that Senate Bill 317, which would have made major changes to the enforcement of the California Environmental Quality Act, has been killed and will not be heard by the Senate. A fter 42 years of occasional tweaks, frequent criticism, and, allegedly, rampant abuse, serious CEQA reform has come to the forefront of California's legislative agenda. With ten days to go in this year's legislative session, two bills have emerged that would dramatically alter the state's landmark environmental law.  Yesterday, SB 317 (Michael Rubio, D-Shafter) was introduced as a gut-and-amend bill. The new law would not actually change CEQA but rather would introduce a companion law, called the Sustinable Environmental Protection Act, which would dictate how CEQA is enforced. The act would restrict certain types of lawsuits and it would exempt some projects from CEQA review as long as those projects conform with local planning and zoning codes.  Supporters have also noted that CEQA sometimes frustrates efforts to implement SB 375. SB 317 seeks to ease the way for infill projects that would likely conform with Sustainable Communities Strategies.  Both sides went on the offensive yesterday, with environmental groups decrying any weakening of CEQA and developers, business groups, and labor groups crying that reform is long overdue. Gov. Jerry Brown has said that he supports CEQA reform and has in the past supported efforts to exempt a limited number of large projects from CEQA review and lawsuits.   The impetus for CEQA reform stems from claims that frivolous lawsuits, filed by opponents who are not necessarily motivated by environmental protection but rather by more parochial and even personal interests, drastically complicate and delay the development process across teh state. Developers have claimed that CEQA costs them considerable time and money.  Environmental groups, however, have maintained that CEQA -- in mandating that developers discover, disclose, and propose mitigation for environmental impacts -- offers the best defense against development that could hard natural resources or exert other undesirable impacts on the environment, including traffic, noise, and pollution. A "working group" of supporters touts what it considers the following advantages of SB 317:   Integrate Environmental and Planning Laws: where a federal, state or local environmental or land use law has been enacted to achieve environmental protection objectives (e.g., air and water quality, greenhouse gas emission reductions, endangered species, wetlands protections, etc.), CEQA review documents like EIRs should focus on fostering informed debate (including public notice and comment) by the public and decision makers about how applicable environmental standards reduce project impacts. Eliminate CEQA Duplication: SB 317 would avoid duplicative litigation by limiting the ability to challenge the  environmental document prepared for a project that complies with an approved plan and incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the approved plan. Focus CEQA Litigation on Compliance with Environmental and Planning Laws: CEQA lawsuits should not be used to challenge adopted environmental standards, or to  re-challenge approved plans by challenging projects that comply with plans. Opponents, including the Planning and Conservation League, Nature Conservancy, and Sierra Club have called SB 317, a "war on CEQA" that would "take the heart out of this great law." They claim that the exceptions and streamlining hat SB 317 promises would effectively nullify any lawsuits and therefore render the law moot.  They contend that SB 317 would:  Exempt certain large industrial projects that would likely create pollution, including oil refineries  hazardous waste dumps, and power plants.  Undermine SB 375 by granting the same exemptions to low-density housing as to dense infill development.  Replace project-specific CEQA lawsuits with lawsuits over general plans and zoning.  Promote suburban sprawl over urban growth.  Provide for exemptions based on outdated information.  The working group insists that local agencies and governments will retain ultimate control over project approvals and that legitimate environmental concerns will be met under SB 317.  This bill is currently being debated in the Capitol. A coalition of Democrats has reportedly pledged to vote against any changes to CEQA.  Please refer back to CP&DR for updated coverage as this story develops.

In a case pitting a real estate brokerage against a homeowners association, the trial court sustained demurrers to the HOA's complaint against real estate brokers who acted as dual agents in the developers' sale of properties in the development to HOA members.  The Glen Oaks Estates Homeowners Association, representing a five-parcel development in Pasadena, alleged in the complaint that the realtors had obtained inaccurate soil reports and had misled the members, resulting in defects of a common roadway and common area slopes. The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's determination that the association did not have standing to assert claims on behalf of its members against the brokers under Civil Code section 1368.3.  Part of the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act ("Act"), section 1368.3 states that that a homeowners association established to manage a common interest development "has standing to institute, defend, settle, or intervene in litigation … in its own name as the real party in interest and without joining with it the individual owners of the common interest development … ." However, such associations have standing only in particular matters, specifically matters pertaining to (1) " amage to the common area," and (2) " amage to a separate interest that arises out of, or is integrally related to, damage to the common area … ."   The act defines a " eparate interest" as "a separately owned lot, parcel, area, or space."  A " ommon area" is defined as "the entire common interest development except the separate interests therein."  In this case, the HOA argued that while the right violated was "personal to the members" in that the realtors owed the HOA members a fiduciary duty, their damages consist of a $3 million repair obligation for the common area driveway and slopes.  The Court of Appeal first held that the complaint failed to allege damage to the HOA members' separately owned lots or parcels, and therefore there was no standing under the provision in section 1368.3 for damage to a "separate interest" that is integrally related to damage to the common area.  However, the Court of Appeal held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts that show that the matter pertains to damage to the common areas. The theory alleged in the complaint was that the HOA members would not have purchased their homes in the development had the realtors: 1) acted as proper fiduciaries; 2) not concealed information relating to the budget for the HOA monthly dues; 3) warned the members about the alleged invalid soil reports; and/or 4) complied with the laws requiring them to provide a final report and other transactional documents. The complaint further alleged that, because the members did purchase their homes, the HOA is now embroiled in third party actions arising from the failure of the common area slopes and roadway, and it is responsible for certain expenses to repair the common areas. According to the Court of Appeals, those allegations were sufficient for section 1368.3 to confer standing to the HOA. The Court of Appeal went on to reject the realtor's argument that section 1368.3 confers standing only to sue a developer for damages to the common area, and not a realtor. The court explained that the statute does not, by its plain terms, contain a limitation on whom the HOA may sue. Quoting Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1162, 1175, the Court of Appeal held that the statute gave associations "the standing to sue as real parties in interest in all types of actions for damage to common areas." That included the claims against realtors alleged in this case. The Case:  Glen Oaks Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Re/Max Premier Properties, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 913 The Attorneys:  For the Plaintiff: Castro & Associates, Jose B. Castro, David H. Pierce, Toneata Martocchio, J. Alan Warfield; Law Office of Morton Minikes and Morton Minikes For the Defendant: Carlson Law Group, Inc., Mark C. Carlson, Jonathan A. Feldheim; Sedgwick LLP and Douglas J. Collodel