I don't want to appear out of step with rational people – it's so hard to regain people's trust once they suspect you've gone off the rails – but that doesn't mean that I don't endorse Riverside County Supervisor Jeff  Stone's suggestion last week to partition California into two states.  The beauty of this two-state idea is the epic gerrymander that would force Northern California to take Los Angeles-- a magnet for entertainment types, Beverly Hills matrons, hiphop artists with jewelry in their teeth and people who speak foreign languages, among other annoyances--as its new capitol. For its part, the new State of Southern California would include up to 13 counties, including Riverside, Orange and San Diego The motivation? "Our taxes are too high, our schools don't educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public," Stone said in a statement. Speaking as the self-appointed representative for Los Angeles, I'm willing to strike a deal with Supervisor Stone, as long as he meets the following demands: 1. \t I want a redwood grove immediately transported to Edwards Air Force Base, located in the desert region in northernmost L.A. County.  If we arrange all the redwood trees in a giant circle, they can make a convenient target for incoming spacecraft. 2. \t I want giant fog-making machinery, so clouds can drift poetically over the LA in the afternoon, just before the evening gets that oceanfront chill. (Believe me, they'll never miss the fog in Tiburon.)  3. \t Move Malibu to Eureka, so we don't have to deal with people who challenge us as we wade waist-deep across their "private" beach waters.  Granted, such people are a tiny minority of the good people of Malibu, but relocating them northwards improves the chances they will be eaten by sharks.   4. \t Move the Golden Gate bridge to Long Beach, which could serve as a wonderful "image piece" to celebrate that city's industrial waterfront.   5. \t Move Santa Monica to a site just outside Pleasanton –they're roughly in the same demographic and median household income, so they should get along-- while bringing Big Sur and Point Lobos Reserve to the area to the Santa Monica Bay, so I don't have to drive so far to visit my favorite parts of Northern  California.  6. \t To keep undesirables out of the new State of Northern California, a barrier fence can be built along the borders of the two states, to keep Southerners from attempting to infiltrate our citadel of affluence and scenic shorelines. Travelers attempting to enter Northern California would be stopped at checkpoints. Those lacking special work visas would be turned away. 7. \t In recognition of the region's emerging majority population, Spanish becomes the official language of the new State of Southern California.  I‘m prepared to deal, Supervisor Stone. And I'll make a special offer: if you and I can come to an agreement before Labor Day, I'll throw in Kern County, as a kind of goodwill gift, or "lagniappe," as such gifts are known in Louisiana.  Think it over. Lunch is my treat. We'll have Humboldt fog for the cheese course. --Morris Newman

United by common complaints against a particularly loud, disruptive neighbor, the residents who live under the flight path of Los Angeles International Airport are a relatively cohesive bunch. The Second District Court of Appeals has ruled, however, that neighborhood cohesion goes only so far. According to the court's decision in City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2011), the city's voluntary program by which certain residents who live near the airport can sell their property to the city does not amount to a taking of adjacent properties. In this case, plaintiffs argued that the city's program to purchase properties in areas near LAX and demolish the buildings constituted inverse condemnation of adjacent properties owned by plaintiffs. The decision illustrates the difficulty of establishing such a claim when a public entity does not directly invade a claimant's property. The court was not persuaded, and plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In 2000, the city established the "Voluntary Residential Acquisition and Relocation Program" for the neighborhoods of Manchester Square and Belford. According to the city, this program was created in response to residents who expressed a desire to relocate rather than to submit their homes to city-funded soundproofing as mitigation for the noise associated with the airport. As the name of the program implies, the city purchased properties from only those who chose to sell to the city—without ever invoking taking a property against an owner's wishes. By 2009, the city had spent several hundred million dollars to purchase and demolish 72 percent of the multi-family dwellings and 94 percent of the single-family dwellings in the area. Unlike the majority of the property owners in Manchester Square and Belford, plaintiffs in the suit—including owners of rental properties within the neighborhoods—chose not to sell. Yet, as more and more buildings were demolished by the city, the number of renters in plaintiffs' properties continued to decrease as the neighborhood presumably became less appealing socially and aesthetically. Instead of selling their properties, plaintiffs brought suit against the city claiming inverse condemnation: the city's program, they claimed, devalued their property but offered no compensation. The trial court agreed with plaintiffs. The city appealed, and the appellate court reversed. In the appellate court's words, the central question in the case was "whether the City's creation of ‘condemnation blight' resulted in a duty to pay just compensation." In answering "no," the court discussed prior case law holding that "there is no property right appurtenant to plaintiff's property … which entitled him to the maintenance of his residences…" (Bacich v. Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343; see also Hecton v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 653; Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 521 Legal=">Legal" Digest="Digest" Vol.="Vol." 15,="15," No.="No." 1,="1," Jan="Jan" 2000="2000"> .) The court also discussed another Supreme Court case, Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39, in which the City of Whittier had initiated and then withdrew condemnation proceedings while continuing to declare that it would one day condemn the property. The California Supreme Court found that this amounted to a compensable taking because the city's promised actions had lowered property values. In this case, plaintiffs asserted that the principles in Klopping applied to the city's actions, and therefore, a taking had occurred. In comparing the facts in this case to those in Klopping, the court found that plaintiffs had failed to show any facts that would support a Klopping-style taking. Specifically, plaintiffs presented no evidence "that the City had condemned their properties, had intent to eventually acquire their properties through condemnation, or had a plan for future use of their property that would someday require condemnation of their properties – or any property in Manchester Square or Belford." Contrary to plaintiffs' implications, the city's program was voluntary, and plaintiffs presented no evidence that any former owner felt coerced to sell their property to the city. The "blight" that emerged was therefore the result of voluntary actions which, though possibly detrimental to the remaining owners, were not directly influenced by the city. Under these facts, the court held that the city acted properly in acquiring and demolishing the properties, and plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation. The Case: City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 210 Photo Credit: Hillel Aron

A notable feature of California land use law, when compared to the overall body of civil law, is the relatively short filing period for bringing legal challenges. This constraint came into full view in Haro v. City of Solano Beach , in which the would-be builder of a mixed use development claimed that the city violated the terms of its own housing element.   The California Environmental Quality Act potentially has the shortest time period in which legal challenges can be filed—as few as 30 days, depending upon the fact pattern. For legal challenges alleging noncompliance with provisions of the state Planning, Zoning and Development law, the relevant statutes are slightly longer at 90 days. However, the Legislature has created an even longer filing period based upon challenges under the affordable housing laws. A recent decision of the Fourth Appellate District illustrates the overlapping and potentially conflicting application of CEQA and other land use statutes. The northern San Diego County city of Solano Beach submitted a draft housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development in 2007. The department found the element in compliance. However, compliance was subject to approving a then-pending application for a site referenced as Site 8 in the Housing Element for 131 units, including 13 affordable units. Site 8, which is near the Solano Beach train station, was one of nine such sites identified by the Housing Element as appropriate for mixed use and residential development. In fact, Site 8 was considered crucial for the implementation of a Housing Element policy to encourage residential capacity in mixed-use developments. The Housing Element claimed that Site 8 would "be a key to the City's ability to meet not only its regional share for new construction but also its quantified objectives by income category." In the following year, the city processed a developer's application for Site 8. After a number of public hearings, the city directed the applicant to revise the project design based upon inconsistency with local zoning and specific plan requirements. This decision meant that project approval could not meet a grant deadline. The project ultimately failed to qualify for a $6 million grant and thus became financially infeasible.  Roughly two months later, on July 8, 2008, plaintiffs gave notice to the city that failure to approve the original Site 8 project violated its housing own element. On August 27, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-152, retaining outside legal counsel to defend the city against anticipated legal challenges to its housing element. On September 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a complaint and writ of mandate. The petitioners presented eight causes of action, all linked to alleged compliance with various requirements of state affordable housing requirements applicable to planning, zoning and land development requirements.  The city responded by filing a demurrer, arguing that the claims were barred either by the 90-day provisions of Government Code sections 66499.37 (90 days; Subdivision Map Act) or alternatively 65009(d) (1 year; housing element challenges). The city also argued that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled for the city on both the statute of limitations as well as the substantive legal issues. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District ruled for the city on the statute of limitations grounds; because that ruling disposed of all of the claims, the court declined to rule on the substantive allegations. The court's ruling on the statute of limitations focused on 65009(d) as it was most favorable to the plaintiffs. Litigation under this code provision first requires the future plaintiff to give written notice to the city or county before it files suit. The code then provides that the cause of action accrues "60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first."  As pled, the complaint established that the City Council took action on August 27, 2008. This became the controlling date in calculating the statute of limitations and as a result, plaintiff's complaint, filed on September 2, 2009, did not meet the one-year requirement. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the case had been appropriately dismissed. The Case:  Haro v. City of Solano Beach, No. D057304, 2011 DJDAR. Filed May 12, 2011. Ordered published May 12, 2011 The Attorneys:  For Plaintiff: Affordable Housing Advocates and Catherine A. Rodman  For the City of Solano Beach: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Thomas B. Brown, Matthew D. Visick and John J. Welsh; McDougal, Love, Eckis, Boehmer & Foley and Johanna N. Canlas; Goldfarb & Lipman and Barbara E. Kautz

The new rules of redevelopment – if the courts agree – are now clear: You're dead, but you can buy your way back to life. That's probably enough to keep most redevelopment agencies in business. But is it enough for cities to continue to do redevelopment deals? That's not clear, though redevelopment agencies have gotten accustomed to doing deals with less and less money over the years. Also not clear is whether this is the end-game on redevelopment or the first step in an effort to truly reform redevelopment – a possibility that seemed far more likely in January than it does now. Even though a lot of rhetoric about the past six months has focused on whether redevelopment is effective, the redevelopment deal in the budget was just about money. Agencies can stay in business if they fork over a big chunk of their tax-increment funding, but there's nothing in the budget deal that reforms how they do business. So, moving forward, there are two questions about redevelopment: First, now that the budget has passed, will there be some kind of effort to reform redevelopment? Second, can the remaining redevelopment power be combined with other financing mechanisms to put successful deals together – especially in a down economy where real estate seems to be terminally in the tank? Or must redevelopment be combined with other financing mechanisms to make deals go? Back in January, there was a lot of talk about redevelopment reform. Brown's proposal to eliminate redevelopment was couched partly in budget terms, but also in terms of redevelopment's overall effectiveness. In his budget press conference in January, Brown spent more time on redevelopment than any other topic; and he promised to devise a replacement tool if tax-increment financing went away. There was some talk, for example, of permitting cities to issue economic development bonds with 55% voter approval, though nothing came of it. A ferocious back-and-forth went on all spring, with anti-redevelopment folks claiming it was a gravy train for fat-cat developers and pro-redevelopment folks delivering anecdote after anecdote about redevelopment's benefits. The fat-cat developers stayed on the sidelines in this debate, and the pro-con gradually degenerated to partisan politics, with urban Democrats speaking out against redevelopment and suburban Republicans defending it. Lost in the shuffle of this debate was the question of whether redevelopment should be – or could be – reformed. There was some talk about tightening up blight findings yet again and a number of other ideas were floated – making it easier to create blightless tax-increment financing districts, for example, but creating a state allocation system and stronger state oversight in response. These were mostly non-starters for two reasons: First, the real reason redevelopment was on the table in Sacramento was money, not effectiveness; and, second, the only thing that sets the redevelopment establishment on fire more than taking away the money is the possibility of more state oversight. Yet, in the end, redevelopment reform is ultimately about more state oversight. Tax-increment financing is far easier for local governments to use in California than in any other state – and it will remain so even if the two-bill strategy goes into effect. In most states, access to tax-increment financing is strictly controlled by the state, which uses that control to ensure that TIF is used for specific purposes. Washington, for example, recently adopted a law giving access to tax-increment financing to cities that participate in the Seattle region's transfer of development rights program. So it would seem that any meaningful redevelopment reform would have to begin with narrowing the purpose of redevelopment and giving the state more oversight power.  This is not likely to sit well with local governments, who would probably much rather take more of a hit on the blight finding than surrender any actual power to the state. On the other hand, it's not clear how much clout the locals will have on redevelopment if they are engaged in firestorm litigation with the state over the budget. Nor is it clear that the state will have much interest in real reform if the budget is resolved. Which leads us to the second question: Will there be enough money left in redevelopment to do the real estate deals that redevelopment agencies have traditionally done? The answer to this question is probably no, but it's worth noting that – in the past – the answer has always been yes even though prospects were dim. After Proposition 13 passed in 1978, for example, most experts predicted the end of redevelopment, because the property tax rate – and hence the tax increment – was cut by more than half. Cities soon figured out, however, that under Proposition 13, redevelopment was one of the few ways to wrestle property tax revenue unilaterally away from other agencies. So redevelopment was back in business. Most agencies will probably decide it's worth it to stay in business, even though they will probably be getting less than half the tax-increment revenue they received only a few years ago. Especially in a lousy market, however, this situation will put pressure on cities and agencies to find other ways to fill the financial gap. The problem here is that the options are limited. In general, in order to subsidize a real estate deal without outside funding, there are only three options: 1.Redirect some of the tax revenue from the project back into the deal, which is what tax-increment financing does. 2.Create additional revenue streams from the project's developers and tenants by creating something like an assessment district, which of course raises costs and changes the dynamics of the deal. 3.Give developers something of non-monetary value to the city, such as reduced parking ratios or increased square footage. With property tax increment flows down, you can expect that more cities will turn to sales tax rebates – an equivalent tool – to make deals work. Sales tax rebates, of course, will only work for retail deals or other deals that involve businesses engaged in taxable transactions. Retail's on the way back, but retail chains are very reluctant to pull the trigger on new stores. So cities focus on other businesses that generate taxable transactions – such as companies that manufacture large pieces of equipment that are sold to other businesses at high prices in taxable transactions. Among the options for additional revenue streams are things like assessment districts, parking districts, business improvement districts, and so forth. Cities are also likely to move toward these financing tools as well, though there are some problems. First, many assessment districts require an election under Proposition 218 – and approval is by no means certain. Second, by adding to the overall cost of development in a lousy market, such districts may raise money for infrastructure but may make it harder to do actual deals. The trend toward BIDs will continue, though BIDs tend to focus on operational funds for, say, a downtown, rather than capital cost of infrastructure or writing down land. The last option would be to manipulate regulations to give developers something of value to them that doesn't cost the city anything. And there are two ways to do this. The first is to simply give these regulatory breaks away in order to induce private development. The second is to, in essence, sell those breaks, through something like a transfer of development rights system, in order to raise money for infrastructure or land write-downs. Reducing parking ratios is a very powerful inducement for developers, especially in urban areas where the cost of structured parking is extremely high. In the current market, this option is probably more powerful than increased density, which increases revenue but also increases cost. At the same time, most developers will balk at reducing parking too much, since they must still deal with market demand for at least some parking on-site. The TDR alternative essentially permits a developer to build larger buildings by purchasing development rights for other property owners who have ample zoning. If the seller of the development rights is a public agency, this could potentially raise money for infrastructure or land writedowns. Seattle has done this a lot – since the city has limited access to tax-increment financing – and Los Angeles has done it a few times with the Transfer of Floor Area Ratio (TFAR) program. L.A. Planning Director Michael Lo Grande has state L.A. is likely to do more TFAR deals in the future if redevelopment is eliminated or restructured. Big-R Redevelopment has been curtailed and could still die – maybe a slow deal. But small-r redevelopment will continue, as cities and developers look under every possible rock to find ways to do deals.

After an agonizing six-month prelude, the curtain has finally risen on the drama that is redevelopment in California. Agencies are now forced contemplate the costs of staving off their own demise. Yesterday Gov. Jerry Brown signed a pair of budget trailer bills -- ABx1 26 and ABx1 27 -- that would wrest $1.7 billion in the coming fiscal year from the state's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies. The so-called "two-bill" solution eliminates redevelopment but permits agencies to buy their way back in, by forking over a total of $1.7 billion in 2011-12 and $400 million 2012-13. The laws take effect on October 1. The "remittances" to the state permitting redevelopment agencies to stay in business must be "voluntary" in order to avoid violating Proposition 22, the 2010 measure that prevents the state from forcibly taking local redevelopment funds. The governor has contended that Prop. 22 does not explicitly prevent lawmakers from dissolving redevelopment agencies altogether.   But a dramatic court battle is about to begin. The Community Redevelopment Agency and the League of California Cities have vowed to file a joint lawsuit contending that any transfer of tax-increment funds violates Proposition 1A, passed in 2004, and other provisions of the state Constitution, in addition to Prop. 22.  "They have fashioned a phony voluntary plan that is anything but voluntary," said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities.  McKenzie said that the lawsuit will be filed within a matter of days directly with the state Supreme Court, rather than to Superior Court, because of its statewide jurisdiction. McKenzie said he hopes that the court will issue a swift ruling, possibly within 4-6 months.  "We hope we get the court to issue a stay very soon so everybody can take a breather and wait for the court to make a decision," said McKenzie. McKenzie said that the League's and CRA's legal strategy has not been announced. The new "voluntary" component of the budget trailer bills is not likely to cause a change in strategy from when the Legislature was threatening outright elimination.  "We're certainly hopeful that the courts will issue an injunction because of the irrevocable damage they will cause," said David Bloom, spokesperson for the state's biggest agency, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency.  "And then the state will be back in a hole again."  Steve Shea, consultant to Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento), claims, however, that even if a court strikes down certain parts of ABx1 26 and ABx1 27, ABx1 26 contains a provision—a "poison pill," according to Shea—that would limit agencies' function to that of merely servicing existing debt. They would, therefore, cease to pursue new projects and would waste away as project areas expired.  "It's very difficult to see any possible resolution that would require redevelopment agencies to be restored in their pre-existing format," said Shea.    Shea said that the payment scheme and other aspects of the legislation resemble those that were included in the CRA's own proposed legislation, which also called for voluntary payments. The difference, said Shea, is that "the CRA's didn't have the elimination component."   For those agencies that survive, Shea said that the budget legislation foreshadows reform legislation that will be considered in the next legislative session.  In the meantime, redevelopment agencies around the state must decide whether to fold up shop or stay in business by paying the "remittance." "We're not issuing blanket recommendations," said McKenzie. "We encourage them to look at their own situation and make what they deem the best determination."   Unless a court issues a stay, the laws call for agencies that intend to pay to notify the state within 90 days of the law's signing – the end of September. Agencies can ask for a one-month extension.  Unless a judge issues a stay, agencies do not have the option of staying in business without paying the remittance. Payments would be spread among the state's redevelopment agencies in rough proportion to the size of their tax increments. As the state's largest agency, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency would pay roughly $95 million this fiscal year, according to analysis conducted by the California Redevelopment Association. Many smaller agencies would pay several hundred thousand dollars.  No matter what, any payment would be a burden for most agencies.  "We're not walking around with a nine-figure sum in our back pocket," said CRA/LA spokesperson David Bloom. "It is a significant hit to us."   As such, agencies that choose to stay alive will almost invariably have to curtail programs and scrap planned-for projects.  "If the city elects to opt into the AB 27 option, that means that we're going to have to take a look at all of our projects and activities," said Derek Danziger, spokesperson for San Diego's Centre City Development Corporation. Danziger said that the agency could "delay, postpone, defer, or eliminate (projects such as) parks, fire stations, public infrastructure." While most agencies are expected to fight for their survival—and support the lawsuit, according to McKenzie—the decision to submit to the funding transfer rests with city councils and county boards of supervisors. Therefore, the ability to pay remittances does not depend directly on an agency's liquidity, but presumably city councils would hesitate to support agencies if they would have to draw from their cities' respective general funds.   "(Payment is) a decision the agency doesn't make. That's the city," said Jim Morales, general counsel for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. "They will need to take a look at the budget and the agency's budget and determine if that's an appropriate amount at the city can assume."   Those that do not notify within the 90 are assumed to be shutting down, at which point their assets and liabilities will be turned over to "successor" agencies.  In many respects, the signing of the budget legislation marks only the beginning of the real battle over redevelopment. In the past six months debates have raged over the efficacy of redevelopment, the prospects for redevelopment reform, and even the value of the tax increment, which some say is far less than the governor's estimate of $1.7 billion. A week after taking office, Brown called for the elimination of redevelopment. The League and the CRA responded by proposing that agencies provide schools with voluntary contributions in exchange for extending the life of their projects. For some cash-strapped agencies, a win in court may be their only hope of survival. Agencies that have the funds, and that wish to continue doing their work, are now gearing up to assess their finances and ask their respective city councils to approve the transfer of funds to the state. Many are prepared to adhere to the 90-day deadline even though the lawsuit could push the deadline back.  "Our legislative body has a summer recess, so if the city were to pursue the option there would be added pressure because of the need for hearings and advance notice of the legislation," said Morales.  "It's do-able but clearly it's pushing it."   One interpretation of the legislation contended that agencies that participated in the lawsuit would forfeit their opportunity to stay alive via remittances. Spokespeople from several agencies mention this concern. However, Shea said that he was "not aware" of any such provision.  Statewide, clear trends have not yet emerged regarding which agencies will fold versus which will submit to the payment. Bloom noted that some large agencies are relatively stable whereas the San Jose Redevelopment Agency – traditionally one of the biggest and strongest agencies -- is over-leveraged and has been running on a skeleton crew for several months.  As of now, therefore, no one knows how many agencies could fold if the legislation is upheld.  "We don't have a sense of that," said Shea, of the Senate Pro Tem's office. "The bill doesn't require (the Department of) Finance to release those numbers until September.  It's obviously a significant decision. We want to put the agencies in the best possible shape."   All along, supporters of redevelopment have argued that agencies and their programs stoke exactly the sort of economic development and employment that the state needs amidst its historic economic downturn. A chorus of developers, public officials, and legislators have called for the Legislature and governor to keep redevelopment intact so that it can be reformed and made more effective. Many, including State Controller John Chiang, have criticized agencies for pandering to developers, avoiding oversight, and using specious findings of blight.  For agencies, many of those arguments became moot with the stroke of Brown's pen yesterday.  "It would be imprudent for us to just wait and hope," said Bloom. "I anticipate that we will have things in place to protect the city's prerogatives and finances as much as possible should we not be successful in court."   Contacts:  David Bloom, Spokesperson, Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, 213-977-1600 Jeff Danziger, Spokesperson, San Diego Centre City Development Corp., 619.235.2200  Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities, 916.658.8200 Jim Morales, General Council, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, 415.749.2400 Steve Shea, Consultant, Sen. Darrel Steinberg, (916) 323-2263

After six months of debating and negotiating, Governor Jerry Brown today signed AB 1x 26/27, the pair of bills that would compel redevelopment agencies to make voluntary contributions to the state or else face elimination. Opponents of the budget trailer bill contend that the requested contributions would be so burdensome--totaling $1.7 billion this fiscal year--as to effectively end redevelopment in the state by putting all but the most financially solvent agencies out of business.   They were included among eight budget trailer bills that the governor signed today. He has yet to sign the main budget bill, which the Legislature revised following his June 16 veto of their first attempt. The Democratic governor got no support from Republicans. Several legislators from his own party were reportedly wary of the redevelopment bills but ultimately relented.  The budget bills call for $86 billion in expenditures and attempt to close what was a $9.6 billion gap. $1.7 billion of that amount is expected to come from redevelopment agencies' tax increments, either by voluntary payments or complete shutdown of agencies. Members of the redevelopment community insist that this choice is no choice at all.  "Make no mistake about it: AB 1x 26/27 would lead to the elimination of redevelopment agencies throughout California," said California Redevelopment Association Executive Director John Shirey in a statement issued Monday. "Since the (legislative) passage of these bills, we've heard from dozens and dozens of agencies that will not be able to make the ‘ransom' payment, and thus will be forced to shut down, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process." Shirey has vowed that CRA and other organizations will file suit if the governor signs the bills. He contends that they violate Proposition 22, which was designed to prevent the transfer to certain funds, including redevelopment agencies' tax increment, to the state.  The governor has not yet made a public statement about the signing, nor has the CRA or League of California cities, both of which are expected to file suit to halt the implementation of the bills.  CP&DR will have continuing coverage of the elimination of redevelopment .

At the rate things are going, cities in California might not just be broke -- they might become an endangered species. This month, a grand jury recommended that governance of the tiny city of Maricopa be turned over to the Kern County Board of Supervisors.  Once the center of the petroleum industry at the southwestern end of the Central Valley and the home of the famous Lakeview gusher, Maricopa � located about 40 miles southwest of Bakersfield -- has declined the recent decades of its 100-year history. Kern County Supervisor Ray Watson said that centralization in the oil industry cut down on employment in the area, and many of the remaining oil field workers live in larger towns such as nearby Taft.  "I'm not at all surprised," said Watson. "Maricopa has lost population in the last few years due to the way the oil industry is managed."   With a population of 1,154--down from a historic high of 20,000 during the peak of the region's oil boom--Maricopa is now the smallest city in Kern County. Of California's 481 cities, only 12 have smaller populations than Maricopa � most of them in rural areas in the far northern part of the state. If Maricopa ceases to exist as a legal entity, it would be just the third such city to do so in modern California history. It might even be the fourth, depending on whether legislation to force disincorporation of the City of Vernon goes through.  The Cities and Joint Powers Grand Jury conducted an investigation into Maricopa's municipal health and published troubling findings in its report "City of Maricopa: Lots of Past, Any Future?" The report judges the city on its ability to provide basic services such as police, fire, and sanitation services that, under California law, all incorporated cities must provide. The grand jury concluded that "with a crumbling infrastructure, the financial resources of the city are insufficient to cover current needs let alone retire outstanding debts." Those debts include over $61,000 owed to the county for fire protection and over $100,000 owed to the Local Agency Investment Fund for monies the city borrowed for street repairs but that were diverted to "ordinary expenses." The report also accuses the city of borrowing from private individuals in order to meet some of its payroll and even for keeping cash "in an unsecured desk."  The report also suggests that the city has neither the political will nor the administrative competency to pay its debts or restructure its governance. The report carries a vitriolic tone, noting that investigators were met with "delays and excuses" from many city officials.  No member of the Maricopa City Council responded to interview requests for this story. Interim City Administrator Laura Robison declined to comment, except to say that "the City of Maricopa is working on their response, and will be addressing the recommendations at a future council meeting."  The report acknowledges that the prospect of disincorporation might be "distasteful" but necessary in light of the city's dire situation. However, it is the citizens of Maricopa that will have to decide whether disincorporation is more, or less, distasteful than carrying over $200,000 worth of debt.   If Maricopa disincorporates, Kern County will automatically assume responsibility for what remains of the town. County officials are not taking a position on disincorporation but say that they stand ready.  "If they decide to cut their losses and disincorporate, then the county is prepared to assume those services," said Watson. "That's our job."   In most years, the potential disincorporation of a city would be not only distasteful but, in fact, unheard-of. This year, however, Maricopa is the second city to flirt with oblivion.  Since the original 1963 passage of what is now known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, which governs municipal incorporations, only two cities have suffered that fate: Cabazon in 1972, and Hornitos in 1973, both of which were small hamlets that withered.  The possible demise of Maricopa comes amid a raucous debate over the fate of the City of Vernon, an industrial enclave east of downtown Los Angeles (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 5, March 2011 ). The Legislature is currently deliberating on a bill that would forcibly dissolve the Vernon city government, which has been accused of corruption. The bill that would fell Vernon would have no bearing on Maricopa because that bill, AB 46, is directed at all cities with populations less than 150 because, by law, the Legislature could not deliberately single out a city. (Vernon is the only city in the state with a population of less than 150, though the similar city of Industry has 219.) Therefore, if Maricopa is to disincorporation, it must do so by the will of its own voters. Watson said that they are unlikely to do so.  "The people that live out there have a lot of pride in their community," said Watson. "It's a historic place. They are reluctant to give up that local control they feel they have." Then again, noted Watson, "when you don't have the financial capability, you don't have the control either."   If residents did choose disincorporation, that vote would trigger a formal process administered by the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCO would have to make its own findings regardless of the residents' vote and the grand jury's findings.  "We would have to follow our regular process because it's considered a reorganization," said Rebecca Moore, executive officer of Kern County LAFCO. Moore suggested that the remains of Mariposa could be governed by a special district that would take over city services.  Ironically, the cost of the LAFCO process might rival the amount of Maricopa's debt.  "It would be expensive," said Moore. "There would have to be an environmental report done."  Watson said that he does not expect this trend--such as it is--to spread.  "There are many cities throughout the state of California that are having financial problems," said Watson. "I think the unique thing about Maricopa is that they just have a very small population base." Contacts & Resources:  Grand Jury Report: City of Maricopa: Lots of Past, Any Future? Rebecca Moore, Executive Officer, Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission, 661.716.1076 Ray Watson, Supervisor, Kern County 4th District, 661.868.3680

Among the many counterintuitive theories that Jane Jacobs dispensed was that of the evils of parks: if designed and situated poorly, they could turn into vast dead spaces where unsavory characters could congregate and mischief could ensure. She preferred, instead, smaller, more intimate spaces with close connections to their communities.  If Jacobs loved Washington Square Park, then she most likely would have swooned over "parklets."  Arguably the most adorable urban space to come along in a long time, parklets are to Golden Gate and Griffith parks what amoebas are to elephants. They are multiplying, not by mitosis but by entrepreneurship, all over San Francisco--with Oakland, Long Beach, and other cities in California and elsewhere showing interest in the notion that parking spaces aren't just for cars anymore. The typical parklet consists of a platform that occupies between two or three curbside parking spaces. Typically made of wood and stylistically reminiscent of Scandinavian saunas, platforms sit flush with the sidewalk and usually includes seating and sometimes greenery.  Parklets thus serve as outdoor rooms where passers-by can linger without contending with vehicles or pedestrian through-traffic. Parklets can also serve as outdoor dining areas for cafes and even landscaping features to introduce greenery into a streetscape.  "Along any commercial corridor in San Francisco--probably in most places--people like to be outside, and they like to people-watch," said Andres Power, the director of the Pavement to Parks program at the San Francisco Planning Department. "It's part of what makes us humans, so sort of a no-brainer." Enthusiasm for parklets arguably has grown out of National Park(ing) Day, an annual event in which artists and urbanists take over parking spaces temporarily and replace them with art projects and other public amenities. Sponsored by the San Francisco design collective Rebar, National Park(ing) Day has grown to include thousands of sites in dozens of cities across the country.  Parklets, however, are intended to be permanent fixtures in the urban landscape. As a relatively novel typology, parklets have prompted the San Francisco Planning Department to come up with regulations and procedures for issuing permits in relatively short order.  The promotion of parklets is, according to some, a way for cities to atone for past offenses against the public realm.  "We take out seating, we take out benches, we take out any amenity that would give people a reason to be there," said Blaine Merker, principal at Rebar. "That's sort of a bigger issue that Americans need to figure out and you see it in microcosm in parklets."  "They've sparked people's imagination about--how they can be a part of shaping the public realm," said Ethan Kent, vice president at the New York-based advocacy group Project for Public Spaces. Under Power's direction, San Francisco's parklets program began with a pilot project established in front of the Mojo Bicycle Cafe on Divisidero Street in 2009. Since then, at least six more trial projects have been built. Power said he received 25 applications for his first round of parklet permitting and nearly 50 applications for the permitting round that closed June 16.  So far in San Francisco, supporters of this sort of urban acupuncture have been plentiful and enthusiastic--to degrees nearly unheard-of in urban planning.  "Generally, the program has been as universally accepted as a program can be in San Francisco," said Power. "We had very strong support from the top, all the way up to the mayor.  The challenge was not 'should we do this' but, 'we are doing this; let's make it work as well as possible.'" Though the city has to issue permits for parklets, much as they would for other private uses of public space, such as sidewalk cafes or farmers markets, no public money goes into them in San Francisco. Parklets are constructed by "sponsors," which are usually individual businesses or collections of businesses that believe that they will enhance the public realm and even attract customers. For restaurants, a parklet can be a whole new dining room.  "I feel very strongly about providing residents of the city with more open spaces," said Hanna Suleiman, owner of North Beach's Caffe Greco and sponsor of an early parklet. "The parklet itself was greeted extremely warmly by almost every customer I have."  Access to parklets cannot, however, be limited to customers. The city and other supporters are adamant that any parklet--no matter how expensive and how closely connected to a business--must remain part of the public realm and open to all passers-by. Parklets in San Francisco are required to include signage to that effect. "It needs to be legible as a public space and inviting," said Hodge.  There are enough potential sponsors such as Suleiman that, supporters say, the City of San Francisco and its dozens of distinct retail neighborhoods can accommodate a nearly limitless number of parklets.  "The concept of a parklet is universal--it can work anywhere," said Power. "As long as you design for that constituency, the spaces are successful." In his effort to help parklets spread across the city, Power has coordinated a permitting process that, in San Francisco, as in many other cities, might fall through the bureaucratic cracks. Because they are located in the public right of way, parklets can fall under the jurisdiction of departments such as planning, public works, transportation and others and thus require strong political support to encourage departments to work together.  Power said that his main goal has been to establish a permitting process that is inexpensive and specific, so that applicants are well aware of their responsibilities as sponsors to ensure that parklets are well maintained and accessible. As well, in order to achieve an acceptable levels of aesthetics, Power said that applicants must also adhere to a fairly rigid set of design guidelines in part so that he and his staff do not have to spend time parsing sloppy applications. Sponsors are also required to hold a minimum of $1 million worth of liability insurance; however, Power said that parklets are covered by most restaurants' and merchants' existing policies.   Startup costs for a parklet include fees of nearly $1,000 to apply and have a site inspection, plus $650 for the removal of parking two meters and a $221 annual fee.  Kit Hodge, deputy director at the San Francisco Bike Coalition, said that the most successful parklets are those that gather strong neighborhood support even before a formal application is filed with the city. The Bike Coalition has been actively promoting parklets and, Hodge said, has been helping some sponsors with their outreach programs.  Sponsors are responsible for gathering public support and ensuring that a proposed parklet fits with neighborhood character. In fact, said Power, reaching out to neighbors is a non-negotiable requirement for city approval.  "It's important to create these things in ways that reflect the locals and helps preserve the identity of the neighborhood," said Kent.  Power said that sponsors must demonstrate neighborhood support before they for a permit. The city will hold public hearings if a proposal generates opposition, but Hodge said that very few have gone to a hearing.   Although parklets consume valuable urban parking spaces--often in neighborhoods where street parking is scarce, Power said that the whole point of parklets is to capitalize on existing patterns of pedestrian traffic and thus are considered unobtrusive.    "One of the saving graces of this program....it's the businesses that are clamoring for this most," said Power. "There's a nexus that helps us move beyond the concern over parking loss."  A basic parklet might simply be a wooden platform of 20 feet by 6 feet (the dimensions of two standard parking spaces), but so far architects and designers have found little end to the possibilities that they present. Designs include everything from bare platforms on which merchants have placed tables and benches to swooping topographical features and benches integrated into the structures themselves.   Other features include railings, planters, stand-up bistro tables, raised platforms, bike racks, and decorative bollards.  "They look relatively straightforward but a lot of thought has gone into how to use every inch of that space," said Blaine Merker, principal at the design and art collective Rebar, which has promoted and designed several parklets. "It's tight real estate."  While a parklet might cost less than, for instance, an addition to a cafe dining room, they do not necessarily come cheaply. Power estimates that the design, construction, and planning for a basic 120-square-foot parklet costs between $5,000 and $10,000, plus upkeep, per parking space. Merker said that cost compared favorably with the $2 million per block that a recent upgrade of Valencia Street cost.  "That was a lot investment for a 2-foot change in the curb line," aid Merker. "(Parklets are) an opportunity to test out in prototype new kinds of public spaces before we commit in bricks and mortar." Despite architects' and sponsors' enthusiasm for parklets, their economic impacts are as yet undetermined. Power's office conducted a small survey to study the impacts of the initial Divisadero Street parklet and found modest gains in pedestrian activity on the block around the Mojo Cafe and a stronger sense of "community character." The survey found, however, that local businesses did not necessarily attract more customers.  But warm feelings for parklets may transcend cost-benefit analyses.  "Am I making a lot more money with it?  I don't think I am," said Suleiman, of Caffe Greco. "But it creates ambiance and aesthetically improves the look of the neighborhood." Whether parklets stoke business or end up being expensive planters for the sponsoring businesses, the general public in San Francisco has, according to Power and others, embraced parklets wholeheartedly.  "Compared to a lot of other new infrastructure ideas, these have had very little public opposition," said Hodge, of the Bike Coalition. Power said that some neighbors have raised concerns over lost parking, and Hodge noted that many residents simply do not understand what parklets are. Power admitted that parklets could attract loitering and homeless. However, he said that parklets also provide exactly the sort of vibrancy and street life that tends to ward off unsavory activities.  "It has built-in eyes on the street," said Power. "Because the funding entity has invested some capital in building the project--there's a vested interest in ensuring that the space is used appropriately." The only problem, according to Merker, is that because of the need for private funding, certain places might get too much of a good thing.   "I worry about a two-tiered system of public space development where the nicest public spaces are out in front of the merchants who can afford to pay for them," said Merker. "I'd love to see a scholarship fund, for maybe a mom and pop who don't have money for improving the public realm." Many of those cities are now catching on to parklets as well. Merker and Power both said that they have received inquiries from cities across the country to inquire about setting up parklet programs. Whether parklets can survive outside their native San Francisco habitat, remains to be seen. In fact, options in other cities might be limited than they are in San Francisco's famously vibrant streets and distinctive neighborhoods.  "(Parklets) do happen to be in neighborhoods that have businesses and pedestrian traffic and retail that can benefit from it," said Kent.  The City of Oakland's planning department is working towards a formal pilot program that could launch this year. Oakland Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Eric Angstadt said that planners in Oakland are enthusiastic about parklets but that, as elsewhere, the Planning Department alone cannot singlehandedly authorize their construction.  "It's one of those newer ideas that doesn't stick conveniently in any one department necessarily," said Angstadt. However, Angstadt noted that parklets naturally fall under the purview of planning because "they tend to grow out of more planning-focus things like streetscapes and transportation demand management programs, and alternative parking strategies." As well, the city's well known financial crisis has forced Angstadt's team to consider lost revenue at parking spaces that might be commandeered for parklets.  "With the city's budget the way it is, it has to be revenue-neutral," said Angstadt. He suggested that the issuance of permits for parklets could be contingent upon sponsors' identifying new spaces for paid parking to offset lost revenue.  David White, redevelopment project officer with the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, said that he would like to help bring parklets to Long Beach but that that he is concerned about identifying appropriate funding schemes.  White said that private funding "would be outstanding," especially given the precarious nature of redevelopment agencies in California, and suggested that business improvement districts, which pool funds from businesses, might be ideal sponsors for parklets.  For all the money and planning that can go into a parklet, even their supporters say that they will be truly successful only when they are torn down--in favor of something more lasting. For Power, parklets are one step towards encouraging public bureaucracies to invest in the pedestrian realm.  "Parklets really (make cities) think about things in a more pragmatic way to think about change on the street as being a good thing, to think about temporary uses as being a good thing," said Power. "That is not endemic to the bureaucracies of the typical American city." Merker said that cities' embrace of parklets should, ultimately, lead to investments that will make parklets obsolete.  "These are not a permanent solution," said Merker. "We still need to make really good permanent public spaces."  Contacts & Resources San Francisco Pavement to Parks Program  Eric Angstadt,Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Oakland Planning Department, 510.238.6190 Kit Hodge, Deputy Director, San Francisco Bike Coalition 415.431.BIKE  Ethan Kent, Vice President, Project for Public Spaces, 212.620.5660 Blaine Merker, Principal, Rebar holler@rebar.org  Andres Power, Project Manager, Pavement To Parks, S.F. Planning Department, 415.558.6378  David White, Redevelopment Project Officer, Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, 562.570.6615 Photos courtesy of Rebar and S.F. Bike Coalition, via Pavement to Parks.

For the most part, public transportation in American cities has all the sex appeal of a hearse.  Elsewhere, London's Tube has its emblems and quaint slogans. The old trolleys of Lisbon climb twisting hills on tiny wheels, like elephant ballerinas. Lord Foster's glass tubes lead to the metro in Bilbao. Prague, Riga, Amsterdam, and countless other cities have streetcars that wend slowly over cobblestones. Don't get me started on Hong Kong's double-deckers .  Paris' Art Nouveau signage allows you to dream that Toulouse-Lautrec might get on at the next stop and start sketching. Back in this century, Shanghai's maglev covers 18 miles in 7 minutes. On our side of the ocean, reluctant huddled masses do their best to keep their distance while diesels plow past strip malls and deposit their charges beneath freeway overpasses. Is this any way to live?  The Los Angeles Chapter of the American Institute of Architects seems to think not.  This Friday the chapter is sponsoring a design symposium, affiliated with Dwell on Design, called "The Architecture of Transportation," which intends to discuss the aesthetic opportunities behind all the busways, light rail lines, streetcars, and subways that California cities are intending to install. Bear in mind that with Senate Bill 375, peak oil, and glacial traffic, cities have little choice but to build mass transit. The architects' implicit question is not whether it will be fast enough (depends on the mode), or cost-effective enough (don't count on it), but, rather, whether it will be sexy enough.  That too is an important question.  The architects have offered a single image that conveys just about all you need to know about what public transit could be, if policy makers and transit planners were to let passions run wild. The conference's poster--notably arresting than that of the average land-use event--depicts a tantalizing scene: A briefcase-laden Don Draper-esque gentleman passes by a woman as they walk in opposite directions across a downtown street. She appears younger and is perhaps going to yoga. These two caricatures are frozen between two sets of train tracks, her lead foot stepping over the rail. Their eyes are obscured, but it's nice to think that they might trade glances. In the background, lit by an undefined, but blazing, source of mid-evening light, cyclists and other pedestrians make their way to bars, restaurants, trysts, and homes. The streetcar that dropped off all of them has headed up the hill out of sight, but another is on its way.  If Mr. Draper (or, better yet, someone like him -- but younger and unmarried) and that coed were to yield to their urgets and embrace mid-street, as if the war had just ended, they could do so. Why? Because no cars are coming to run them over.  It's a fanciful, but deliberate, suggestion that American cities are such passionless places because Americans' cars make it so (the image is by the photographer Mugley and comes from a Wired article ). There is no flirting between windshields. No accidental touches through driver-side windows. No taking refuge from the rain under awnings when drivers are already sealed up. Even for those who do take transit, there are too few makeout sessions as the El reaches the end of the line. The French aren't more romantic than Americans; they just have more opportunities.  Perhaps "sexiness" is a little too vague to form the basis of public policy (and, yes, there may be more pressing matters). I would certainly hate to try to quantify it or do a cost-benefit analysis. But "community," which features prominently in the symposium's panels, may be a reasonable approximation for sexiness. The point is that, as everyone from Jane Jacobs to Ed Glaeser to anyone else with common sense has told us, spontaneous, genuine interactions between people -- not cars -- can lead to both happiness and prosperity. We just need places where those interactions can take place and transportation to get us there in the first place.  So there's another reason for cities to get people out of their cars and instead seduce them on to the train, the bus, and the street. If not, cities themselves may end up in the morgue.

The budget negotiations in Sacramento took a dramatic turn last Friday when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the Democrat-led budget that had been sent to him less than 24 hours before. Though it sends the parties back to the drawing board, the veto did not directly affect the so-called "two-bill" strategy that threatens to do away with, or possibly impoverish, many of the state's redevelopment agencies. Two pairs of identical budget bills are under consideration in both houses of the Legislature. The first bill would eliminate redevelopment agencies while the second bill would spare them in exchange for voluntary payments to the state, totaling $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2011-12 and $400 million in 2012-13. The California Redevelopment Association analysis of AB1 27x, the Assembly version of the bill regarding voluntary payments, has estimated the burden on each of the state's nearly 400 redevelopment agencies.  Agencies that wish to stay alive will have to write some fairly large checks relative to their total tax increment revenues. Calculated by the research organization Time Structures, Inc., CRA's estimates are based on agencies' 2008-09 revenues. As described in AB1 27x, the estimated 2011-12 payments are based roughly on agencies' respective percentage shares of statewide gross tax increments, multiplied by $1.7 billion and $400 billion.  To cover the 2011-12 payment, the Los Angeles Community Redevlopment Agency--representing roughly 5% of statewide tax increment revenues--would have to pay over $97 million of its $265 million revenues in 2008-09. San Diego's redevelopemnt agencies would pay a total of $69 million. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency would pay roughly $47 million, while San Francisco would pay just under $25 million. For 2012-2013, those numbers drop by roughly a factor of four.  CRA has posted two spreadsheets calculating every agency's transfer payments for FY2011-12 <.xls> and FY2012-13 <.xls> . CRA notes that these figures are not official and are intended to be used only to guide agencies' planning processes.  CRA and other opponents contend that, despite its the voluntary nature, the two-bill strategy violates Proposition 22's prohibition against the transfer of local redevelopment funds to the state.

As one of the most prominent organizations lobbying on environmental and land use issues in Sacramento, the Planning and Conservation League has led campaigns on everything from global warming to public health to local dam removal. Its history includes the promotion of such landmark measures as the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act, and Prop 12, the 2000 Parks Bond measure. Now in its 46th year, PCL is welcoming new leadership. Just this month, veteran attorney and environmental activist Bruce Reznik was installed as the new executive director for PCL and its sister organization, the PCL Foundation. Reznik arrives in Sacramento after serving for more than ten years as the executive director of Coastkeeper, a leading clean water advocacy group in the San Diego Region. Reznik spoke with CP&DR about his goals for PCL and his approach to the state's most pressing land use issues. What are your immediate and medium-term goals for PCL?  I'm getting to know the organization and the staff and undertaking a strategic planning process with the board.  At this point we're still trying to figure out exactly that question of where we want to get engaged. First and foremost, we've had a very accomplished water program, and that's something that's heavily in my background.  I expect that to continue to be a big part of our work plan.  That includes work that we're doing on the Delta and on statewide water policy relating to water transfers, dam removals, promotion water recycling, indirect potable re-use.  We were one of the first groups to propose smaller alternatives for the Delta – a tunnel rather that the canal – and that's been picked up at least as an option by the governor's office. I'd also like to broaden some of our focus on conservation and efficiency. I can imagine a a loading order where conservation and efficiency should be at the top and then harvesting and reclamation are down the line. Having spent a good amount of time in the environmental world, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that it's very hard to separate issues. But I recognize that, counter to that, it's very easy for organizations to take on too many things and be a mile wide and inch deep.  If you're working on water policy you have to understand the linkage between land use planning and how that affects water quality. So I'd like to get engaged in broader energy policy, but we have to figure out if we have the resources and staff to do that. we have to make sure we're not spreading ourselves too thin. A little bit thin, I think, is good; too thin is not so good. Would that depend on internal reorganization, or more of defining the goals really clearly?  It really is both. PCL hasn't, I don't think, had a great strategic plan for a while. It was undertaking a strategic planning process at the same time they were doing a search for a new executive director. What it means is that I'm coming in and we don't yet have those specific outcomes that we want to achieve.  Part of my priority is figuring out what we have the staffing for and how we can reorganize to be more efficient. PCL, like most groups, has seen its staff shrink and has taken the same hits that everyone else in the nonprofit world has taken. So I don't think it's as simple as a reorganization; we have to rebuild now that the economy is bouncing back a little bit.  We have to bring in some additional resources and expertise and lay out a plan.  Funders want to know what you want to get accomplished. How does PCL hope to capitalize on SB 375, and what challenges does SB 375 pose for the state as a whole?  I want to look at how SB 375 actually hits on the ground and how we do a better job of integrating our transportation and land use planning and even economic development and job creation. SB 375 was not without controversy. Within PCL and within the entire environmental community there are folks who wanted it stronger and people who think it went too far.  My personal take on 375, which is not necessarily the take of PCL, is that 375 was transformative in saying, "OK, we're going to start thinking about these things in a creative fashion." That seems very common sense, but frankly it was not often done in the past.  We have to credit SB 375 for forcing folks to look at things differently, to connect the dots, and realize that all these issues are connected. But, the devil is really in the details. There aren't real teeth in SB 375. You can tell agencies to do a better job coordinating, but they're separate agencies. SCS's don't force agencies to actually integrate the policy. Now that SB 375 is the law of the land, it's up to PCL and other groups to make sure that it is in fact the transformative law that we hope it will be. So far the only one I've reviewed in terms of SCS is the San Diego plan.  I don't think it hits the mark at all.  It's kind of funny because I know the San Diego plan is heralded as first out of the gate and a good model. (See lead story, Page 1.) Here's the difficulty with getting any new law off the ground: you've got this interesting balancing game.  Everyone wants 375 to succeed. (Sen. Darrel) Steinberg and the Legislature and the environmental groups want to see the momentum and see the first one be successful. The problem is you can't lower the bar so much that anything looks like success. Frankly, that's my take on the San Diego plan. It's a lot of paperwork, it looks glossy, it looks nice, but in the end there's nothing in that plan that shows to me that they get what SB 375 is trying to do: promoting job growth, linking communities, investing in the urban core, not promoting more sprawl. It is incumbent now that we have 375 not to pat ourselves on the back. In fact. I think our workload is even greater.  Now we have the opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not trying to be critical. I think it's transformative, but only if we make it work. How do you build those coalitions and what role will PCL play?  Working with the local groups is one of my other areas of focus at PCL. I want to reintegrate the "L" part of PCL – the "league" part – which is working more closely and collaboratively with local groups on the ground.  I come from a locally based grassroots organization that is based on a lot of locals being connected. I think PCL has that opportunity to work with those groups to make sure that the promise of 375 is realized in the actual Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies. How hard will that be given that there are countless groups across the state, whereas SB 375 sees the state at a macro level?  Coalition-building and community empowerment are always very, very difficult.  It's a time-consuming, grueling slog through the mud.  But I also think it's crucial. One of my complaints about the environmental community is that we're often disconnected and at odds.  Many are really focused on the grassroots, community aspects. Then we have regional or national groups that work more within the power structure and halls of government and all those policy arenas. We're never going to be as strong as we can, and should, be until we're actually communicating, collaborating, connecting so that what's happening at the community level is also happening in the halls of power, like at the State Legislature and then at all these agencies like SANDAG and CARB and the Water Board. I have no illusions about how difficult that is; it's not like there aren't already groups working in this arena. But because of PCL's long history and its origins as a collaborative effort, I think we're well positioned to be a leader in trying to connect those different aspects of the environmental community.  Grassroots can only do so much of our laws are getting gutted in Sacramento and DC. Speaking of laws that some people would like to gut, how will you approach CEQA?  I'm a big CEQA fan. I'm not a strict constructionist in anything.  I certainly think laws should be evaluated to figure out what works well, what can be strengthened, and what are some of the unintended consequences and intended consequences.  I don't have a problem looking at CEQA and figuring out where we should be.  That being said, I certainly don't think we should be folding up the tent and looking at wholesale weakening of CEQA. We should get back to looking at the original goals of CEQA: informed decision-making and making sure the communities have a meaningful say in decisions that impact them. We should be looking at CEQA to see where those aims are being met and where they are not.  If we are going to reform CEQA, it should be to those goals. I know everybody talks about "CEQA is a job-killer."  I don't agree with that.  CEQA has played a critical role in the way we have developed the state.  Even with CEQA a lot of really dumb projects get built.  I think we should step back and think about what our vision for California is. I know everyone loves to talk about the "triple-bottom line": ecology, economy, equity, or whatever you want to call it. My issue with the triple-bottom line, even though I like those aims, when people often talk about it as tension between those three areas that need to be somehow addressed. I don't buy that.  I think that what's good for the economy 100% of the time is good for the environment and communities and vice-versa. For instance, in California we use 140 gallons of water per day; much of the world uses 40-50.  If we get really serious we're going to be putting people to work installing rainwater harvesting, installing greywater systems and smart meters, and changing landscapes and putting people back to work. And we're not going to be relying on one massive pipeline that sucks up 5% of the state's energy that's just going to be more and more expensive. Speaking more personally, a lot of folks say we can certainly look to reform CEQA in ways that will promote good projects. That sounds really good. Certainly, we all like solar, we all like rainwater harvesting—so we can waive CEQA, right? My problem with that is that you either believe in those goals of informed decision-making or you don't.  I think we set ourselves up if we are the police of all that is good, as if "we know that solar is good, so we can waive CEQA for solar." Are we that smart to know everything in advance?  Do we know if exempting industrial solar, or desalination, from CEQA review is the right way to go? Should we do whatever we can to promote distributed generation of energy and local sustainable water supply strategies? Absolutely.  I think we need to figure out how to do that without undermining those aims of CEQA. What's your take on the $40 billion question of high speed rail?  That is one of our bills—the Lowenthal bill--which is about reforming the HSR Authority. In general, because we haven't gone through a lot of our strategic planning, I'm sort of speaking for myself: I am a fan of high speed rail.  I think it is important for California. I think it can offer a tremendous amount of benefits for the state, environmentally and for job creation and all that. But the devil's in the details. So far we haven't seen the High Speed Rail Authority working all that effectively. Our bill is looking to reform the authority to get more expertise on and less political appointments. Other folks want to see it absorbed into Caltrans, and we're still figuring out those fixes. We have to figure out how the governance of that project is going to be more accountable.  Obviously the devil's in the details of how it goes and where it goes. We have to be above the fray and push for what's the best project for the environment.  Whatever you do, you're not going to make everyone happy. There's going to be impacts. I want to be the group basing our decisions on sound science and sound policy principles, pushing it where it should go best. The other thing is the balance of how high speed rail meshes with more localized transit, particularly in our urban cores. We still need to figure out how compatible those goals are.  Is high speed rail going to suck all the energy out of the room and suck energy away from more urban-core transit strategies? Or are there opportunities to leverage resources working on projects that could serve both needs. In previous years PCL has pushed a lot of bond measures. Do you want to pursue that strategy as well?  That's something we need to look at.  I think the bond measures were critically important for the time that they were passed.  Gerry Meral, who was leading PCL for most, if not all of the bond measures, deserves tremendous accolades for getting those pushed through for continuing to raise consciousness. I don't know that that's something that will be a major area of focus.  I have mixed feelings about the initiative system as a whole. I'm a little more representative democracy kind of guy. I'm a big believer of campaign finance reform and holding our elected officials accountable.  I think it makes it very challenging when you try to merge a representative democracy with a direct democracy. You elect folks, but often their hands get tied. I'd like to see us focusing more on accountability of elected officials. That being said, the reason that initiatives have been passed is we don't always get that accountability and we are left with the system we have.  Sometimes that's the only thing that's left to actually push the policy, like the Coastal Act and some of the parks and water bonds that PCL has been so involved in. I'd like to focus more on the legislature and push good legislation. This interview has been edited and condensed. Photo courtesy of  9mphoto.com .

Update: Late this morning, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the budget package that the Legislature sent him yesterday. Brown said that the budget was imbalanced and that the legislation "contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings." Brown reportedly wants to hold out and force a popular vote on tax extensions that he considers critical to overcoming the state's remaining multi-billion dollar deficit. He did not mention redevelopment in his veto statement.   As in a common mugging, the California Legislature has made the state's redevelopment agencies an offer: "your money or your life?"  The legislation that passed yesterday was not quite so pithy. But, according to critics of the proposal to help close the state's remaining $9.6 billion budget deficit, that is essentially the deal that lawmakers have struck in the six-month battle to do away with redevelopment agencies. Yesterday, the day of the state's budget deadline, the Assembly and Senate voted in favor of a so-called "two-bill strategy," which hinges on pairs of bills introduced in both houses.  The governor contends that the garnishing of tax increments is an unfortunate but necessary maneuver to ease the state's budget crisis.  SB 14x/AB 26x would eliminate redevelopment agencies outright, as Gov. Jerry Brown first proposed in January. Then AB 27x / SB 14x  would allow agencies to salvage themselves in exchange for voluntary transfers of tax increment funds to their local school districts, transit agencies, and fire protection districts. Those that do not "volunteer" would be shuttered and have their assets liquidated.   The bills call for the transfer of $1.7 billion in redevelopment funds this fiscal year and $400 million annually thereafter. Many agencies say that they simply cannot come up with that kind of cash. In fact, many analysts contend that the governor's hoped-for $1.7 billion windfall would turn out to be far less given the amount of redevelopment funds that are already obligated for projects and bond repayment.  The strategy arose only in the past week as negotiations over previous efforts to eliminate redevelopment had stalled several months ago.  Votes in both houses were largely along party lines, with Democrats in favor of the bills.  Members of the Assembly voted, 47-31, in favor of the scheme to shift funding and, 52-24, in favor of the elimination of redevelopment entirely. The Senate voted similarly on the respective bills, 21-15 and 21-16.  Supporters of redevelopment had been clamoring for the Legislature and governor to spare the state's agencies and instead adopt a slate of reform measures. The Legislature is considering AB 1250, which, supporters say, contains a major package of reforms.  Representatives of the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities have condemned the vote, saying that it undermines reform efforts and, in fact, is illegal. As with the governor's original proposal, they contend that even the "voluntary" payment scheme violates Proposition 22 and other constitutional provisions.  "While many legislators who voted in favor of this package spoke of protecting and reforming redevelopment, these bills do neither," said CRA Executive Director John Shirey, in a statement. Opponents have threatened to take legal action, claiming all along that any elimination of redevelopment or imposition of forced payments would be unconstitutional.  "If the governor signs these bills, we will be prepared to defend the constitution and the will of the voters in court very soon thereafter," said League Executive Director Chis Mckenize in a statement. "It is a very sad day for Californians when their State Legislature knowingly acts in such direct violation of our highest laws." Gov. Brown has 12 days to sign the bills, along with the rest of the budget that the Legislature passed yesterday.   --Josh Stephens