AgdaPkt 2003-08-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9,*4w21 BUDGETfrorinWIS ••••••o$ *000••a $135 million cut. Since there are competing versions of this cut, the Legislature will have to resolve this issue in August when it returns. Whatever the cut, there is little rationale for redevelopment revenues being cut to assist in closing a state budget deficit. This money is used for economic development purposes that builds the economy. This is precisely the type of tool you want in a recession. Lessons Learned If there was ever any doubt before this most recent budget deliberation, it is now removed: when the state is in financial trouble cities will be in financial trouble. In the early 1990's, city property taxes were cut under the rationale that the state was simply taking back money given to the local governments by the state when local governments were in financial diffi- culties because of Proposition 13. The cuts to local government in this budget have no histori- cal tie to any previous "bailout" monies or other financial transactions. It is a money grab, plain and simple. SB18from page 1.•••.••0000..•••4 In SB 18, the imprecise definitions of Traditional Tribal Cultural Sites (TICS) and "gathering sites" are problematic, and have generated a number of concerns related to the processes established by the bill. SB 18 would also remove the public prop- erty exemption affecting sites, and the legal thresh- old for requiring an injunction has been reduced from "severe" to "significant." Beyond the "process" issues, there are poten- tial legal concerns related to private property takings issues and whether the concept of the bill violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...). Senators Ducheny and Burton have convened several meetings about the bill and have requested suggestions from various stakeholders about how to address some of the "process issues." The League has coordinated with city attorneys, other local government and planning groups, and the business and development community to draft amendments that would mitigate some of the more onerous aspects of the bill. There is only one alternative to stop this trend and reintroduce stability to local govern- ment finance: a constitutional amendment that constrains the ability of the state to grab city revenue every time the state is in financial trouble. The League Board of Directors voted unani- mously at its July meeting to move ahead on an initiative with the intent of placing it on the November 2004 ballot. If you are pleased or just OK with the condition of state and local govern- ment finance in California, then this initiative is not for you. But if you believe that the instability and lack of accountability in the current system needs change, then you should vigorously support this effort. These amendments are intended to protect local governments and developers from "surprises, provided consultation with the Commission and appropriate tribes has taken place. The amend- ments also streamline some of the timelines estab- lished by SB 18 , clarify what findings would allow a lead agency to override Commission recommenda- tions and provide further protection against "late hit" lawsuits. While it is unclear what position the Native American groups will take on the amendments the League has proposed, or if serious negations to modify the bill will occur, in the interim the League continues to oppose SB 18 . A copy of League amendments to SB 18 can be found at www.cacities.org/hced. The bill is currently pending in Assembly Natural For details on the individual bills comprising Resources Committee. For more information, the budget package, see "Budget and Trailer please contact League Legislative Representative Bills ". Dan Carrigg (email: carriggd @cacities.org: tel: 916.658.8222). Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 7