YOU ARE HERE: Glendale HomeCollections

Unclassified Info: Some questions for RDA defenders

January 23, 2012

A couple of weeks ago, I commented on how little people seemed to care about the demise of the Glendale Redevelopment Agency. Evidently, Mayor Laura Friedman isn’t one of those people.

Along with a few other signees, she sent a letter to the Glendale News-Press titled “Redevelopment agencies are vital.”

As soon as I read the points in defense of redevelopment agencies penned by Friedman and company, I was inspired to offer some counterpoints.

For the record, let me clearly state my side: I want redevelopment agencies dissolved in the timely manner as suggested by Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Supreme Court on Dec. 29.


In my opinion, the very notion of using a loophole to keep these agencies running in direct defiance of a Supreme Court decision is typical of the kind of game playing and lobbying politicians believe is their divine right.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with redevelopment agencies. They have run with almost complete autonomy since they were put into existence, regularly claiming areas as blighted without the approval of the citizens they supposedly represent. They usurp property and land in the name of what they cite as the greater good, often lining the pockets of wealthy real estate developers along the way.

While some of their decisions may very well be beneficial, this kind of “limitless jurisdiction” must cease. It stupefies me to think any politician could possibly get behind such business practices let alone want them to continue.

According to Friedman and the other three individuals who support redevelopment agencies, “The real solution is for the Legislature to create a new mechanism that would allow cities to continue to create jobs, attract needed investment, initiate economic development, provide well-planned and quality affordable housing, clean up blight and enhance public safety.”

I firmly believe the real solution would have been for redevelopment agencies to proactively realize they were running rampant with no control or public approval process before the Supreme Court effectively said, “Enough is enough.”

Asking for a new mechanism after the fact feels much like the mea culpa of a philanderer after having been caught cheating for decades.

I’m also very curious about the support points supplied in defense of redevelopment. I’m hoping we will get some elaboration to the following:

Glendale News-Press Articles Glendale News-Press Articles