Editorial: Voters need to halt seizure of local funds

Palm Springs Desert Sun

May 6, 2010

Editorial

The Desert Sun

Let's see if we have this straight:

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly ruled Tuesday that the state seizure of redevelopment money is legal because nothing in the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from doing so.

Citing previous judicial decisions, his ruling said, “Unlike the federal Constitution, which is a grant of power to Congress, the California Constitution is a limitation or restriction on the powers of Legislature.

“The entire lawmaking authority of the state, except the people's right to initiative and referendum, is vested in the Legislature. ...”

“We do not look at the Constitution to determine whether the Legislature is authorized to act, but only to see if it is prohibited.”

In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say the Legislature can't do something, it can. That includes ordering the transfer of $2.05 billion from city and county redevelopment agencies to Supplemental Educational Augmentation Funds.

We don't pretend to be judges or lawyers, but we think the intent of the law when it was created should be followed.

When the California redevelopment program was enacted in 1952, we doubt the authors could have envisioned this happening. The purpose of the act was to eliminate blight and increase housing, not to prop up schools during difficult budget years.

Connelly's decision means that unless the Court of Appeal intervenes, Coachella Valley cities will pay the state $95 million on Monday and another $19.5 million a year from now.

The means what many critical capital improvement projects — such as libraries, parks, streetlights and new retail developments — won't get built.

Along with the California Redevelopment Association, we had hoped Connelly would make the same decision he made this time last year, when he ruled the transfer illegal. This time, lawmakers specified the money must help students in areas within the redevelopment agency boundaries, which made it pass the judge's muster.

We also were apparently naïve in our assumption Proposition 1A, approved by 9.4 million California voters — 83 percent — in 2004, protected redevelopment money. Among the provisions:

It protects local funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other locally delivered services.

It prohibits the state from reducing local governments' property tax proceeds.

And it allows the provisions to be suspended only if the governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature approve the suspension. Suspended funds must be repaid within three years.

That last provision is what allowed the state to take the redevelopment money. It is to be repaid, with interest, by June 30, 2013.

That loophole needs to be closed. On Friday, a group called the Coalition to Protect Local Taxpayers and Vital Services submitted 1.1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2 ballot to do so.

Among the provisions in the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Act of 2010:

It prohibits the state from borrowing local government property tax funds that are vital for public safety and other local services.

And it adds additional constitutional protections to prevent the state from raiding redevelopment funds or shifting redevelopment funds to other state purposes.

It seems a shame to govern by initiative, but the governor, the Legislature and the judicial system leave us no choice.