h/t P. Smith
Via Jon Fleischman;
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore penned this response to a column that ran Monday on this site, in support of Prop. 22.As an opponent of Prop. 22, I must respond to some of the allegations raised in Monday’s
“Prop. 22 restores local control and voter accountability.”
Fact: Prop. 22 locks in constitutional protections to redevelopment agencies, which have already amassed $93 billion in public debt—all of it without voter approval. Voters have no say in the creation, expansion and revenues of redevelopment agencies.
“Prop. 22 has nothing to do with eminent domain”.
Fact: By protecting redevelopment agencies from legislative oversight, you protect the biggest abuser of eminent domain in the state. Eminent domain for private gain is paid for by the very revenue Prop. 22 protects.
“Prop. 22 protects existing revenues that are already dedicated to fund vital local services.”
Fact: Redevelopment agencies are legally state agencies that are themselves raiding revenues of counties, counties and local school districts. 12% of all property taxes annually are currently being diverted from local services to fund redevelopment agencies. These agencies themselves provide no services—they do provide public money for private development.
“Prop. 22 protects local services”
Fact: Prop. 22 hurts local school districts, as it prevents any redevelopment money from being reallocated to build classrooms or improve instruction. Money needed for schools will instead be spent on stadiums, housing and subsidizing more commercial development that is already overbuilt.
If the Prop. 22 supporters were so concerned about funding local services, they would divide up this redevelopment money among the counties, school districts, and public safety districts, rather than protect the continued wasteful spending by the agencies.
Check out FlashReport for on-target California political news.