Guest opinion: The demise of redevelopment in Poway
By Bob Emery
The top news story over the past week has been the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the dismantling of redevelopment agencies throughout the state. Redevelopment has been a boon to Poway and is probably the single most important reason for Poway’s success over the past 30 years.
When the City Council hired Jim Bowersox, the city’s first city manager, it did so on the strength of his background in redevelopment when he was assistant city manager in Cerritos. We knew in 1980 that Poway had a minimal tax base and many infrastructure problems caused by years of neglect under the County of San Diego. How could our fledgling city face the future, expand its tax base, refurbish crumbling facilities and provide the amenities that should come as the city grew? “Redevelopment” said Bowersox, and we were on our way.
To digress, redevelopment law allowed a jurisdiction (city, county, etc.) to declare an area in need of improvement (blighted area if you will) as a redevelopment district. Once the district was created, the property tax level within the area was frozen for a number of years, 15, 20, 40, etc. and any increase in property values (i.e. tax increment) were kept by the local redevelopment agency to be used to “redevelop” or revitalize the area. When the new City of Poway created its redevelopment district, it included much of the older sections of the city and the undeveloped areas of south Poway and the Old Coach area. How do you “redevelop” undeveloped land? The Poway plan was to use the tax increment to assist development in the open areas, and, as property values rose that resulted in millions of dollars in tax increments that were plowed back into projects throughout the redevelopment district and even outside the district if it benefited the agency as a whole. (The state later restricted the placement of undeveloped land in redevelopment areas but it was like “locking the barn door after the horses were loose.” ) As the business park in the south and Old Coach areas developed, more millions of dollars in tax increment were realized and all of Poway benefited.
Some critics of redevelopment claimed that freezing the tax level short-changed other agencies such as the county, school districts and even Palomar College, but all of those agencies benefited from the increased property values that would have remained at low levels if redevelopment dollars had not stimulated growth. Tax increment funding was also shared with all of these agencies. In addition, 20 percent of all redevelopment funds had to be spent on affordable housing and Poway has an exemplary record of complying with that mandate and has numerous examples of low and moderate units.
Because of redevelopment, Poway has above-average streets and other infrastructure. The Poway Center for the Performing Arts, the community swimming pool, the library, the two multi-purpose gyms at Twin Peaks and Meadowbrook Middle Schools, athletic fields at many schools, the South Poway Business Park, outstanding parks and much, much more can be attributed to Poway’s redevelopment agency.
For certain, redevelopment has been good for Poway and its citizens. It is a shame that our dysfunctional state government finds it necessary to dismantle an institution that works, and creates jobs, to try to stop the financial hemorrhaging of their own making. Poway has weathered financial setbacks before and with creativity, imagination and leadership; we can maintain the Poway we created in 1980.
Emery served on the City Council from 1980 to 2008. He can be reached at Powaybob@cox.net.
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=20509
Posted by 
The claim that the only source of development funds for private enterprises or roads and sewer upgrades is property tax revenue allocated to schools and other city and county services is false. If there is a desire to build it then ask community members to pay for it rather than raiding funds belonging to other services.
This argument states that even though property tax revenue was taken from schools, the property tax revenue pie grew, so schools ended up better off. This assumes a zero sum game, which is false. Many examples of redevelopment projects utilizing alternative funding sources exist all around us. Where I live, every homeowner pays an extra $1000 every year for 25 years to pay for a school construction bond. The west side of the 15 has many communities within the PUSD that impose $5000 to $7000 on homeowners in the form of 25 year Mello Roos Bonds in order to build and maintain those schools. And, in 2003 and 2007 PUSD passed construction bond measures, imposing additional taxes on property. If you want it pay for it, but schools need the stability of local property tax revenue.