HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 87-99RESOLUTION NO. 8 ,~l , 9 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, MAKING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO EACH WRITTEN COMMENT OR
OBJECTION OF AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER OR
TAXING AGENCY AND RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
OLD TOWN KERN - PIONEER REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1999, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield ("City") and
the Central District Development Agency ("Agency") held a duly noticed Joint Public
Hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Old Town Kern Pioneer
Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in accordance with the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000, e_t seq.); and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Project or
who deny the existence of blight in the Project Area, or the regularity of the prior
proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the
commencement of the joint public hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint public
hearing, and show cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted;
and
WHEREAS, prior to and/or at the time of the May 26, 1999 Joint Public Hearing,
written objections to the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Project were received;
and
WHEREAS, Sections 33363 and 33364 of the Health & Safety Code requires that
the City make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected properly
owner or taxing entity; and
WHEREAS, the City has carefully considered all objections raised to the proposed
Project, including all written objections, and has heard and considered all evidence, both
written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Old Town
Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD AS FOLLOWS:
Page 1 of 3
SECTION I
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained
hereinabove are true and correct.
SECTION 2
The City Council finds, on the basis of the substantial evidence contained within the
Report to City Council submitted by the Central District Development Agency and other
substantial evidence in the record, that conditions of blight exist within the Redevelopment
Project Area, and that written and oral evidence in opposition received at the joint public
hearing is not persuasive to the contrary.
SECTION 3
The City Council and the Central District Development Agency have duly complied
with all the provisions, requirements, and procedures of the California Community
Redevelopment Law relating to the preparation and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
for the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Project.
SECTION 4
The City Council finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard or to file
written objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Old Town Kern - Pioneer
Redevelopment Project and to the regularity of the proceedings with respect thereto, and
having heard and reviewed such oral and written objections, the City Council hereby makes
findings in response to each written objection as set forth in Attachment "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, and determines that there are compelling reasons
to justify the adoption of the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Plan as proposed,
notwithstanding written and oral objections.
SECTION 5
The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all objections to the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Project.
SECTION 6
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this
Resolution, including Attachment "A," to the persons submitting written objections, by first
class mail, postage pre-paid.
Page 2 of 3
666 I, '9 I, ::INRI"
931111N=19NIXV103103JJV QNV S~IBNMO Al~lBdO~ld JO
SNOIlO3rSO C]NV SINBIAIIAIOO 01 9=lSNOdS=l~l
103PO~d/N3~dO93A303~ ~33NOId - N~3~ NMO1 090
3H1 ~10--I
NVqd/N::IIAIdO951A::IO:::I~ O:::l~OdO~d
0931dS~3~V8 dO A/IO 3hl dO
91ON~OO AIIO 3H1
,,V,, IN3~HOVIIV
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a meeting thereof held on _ JUN 16 1999 _, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES. SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER klOt, l E.
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
CITY ATTORNEY
JANICE' SCANLAN
Deputy City Attorney
js:S:\REDVAREA\otk city obj reso
Page 3 of 3
PREAMBLE
On May 26, 1999, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Central District
Development Agency held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed Old Town Kern - Pioneer
Redevelopment Plan and Project. At that public hearing, some nineteen persons or
organizations voiced their comments on the proposed plan. Every person who spoke
supported the proposed project.
Prior to the Joint Public Hearing, the CDDA received written comments on the
proposed plan and placed them into the record at the Joint Public Hearing. Only two
people, Mr. Robert E. Murray, and Ms. Linda Huffman, submitted any objection to the
proposed Old Town Kern - Pioneer plan. Although neither are property owners within the
Old Town Kern - Pioneer Project Area, and thus not "an affected property owner," the City
Council wishes to respond in writing to these objections.
In responding to these objections, the City Council will paraphrase the objections
and immediately respond. The responses are provided in a different font in order to make
clear the objections and responses thereto. The precise objections raised by Mr. Murray
and Ms. Huffman are included in the record of the Joint Public Hearing and are available
for review.
which
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
OF ROBERT E. MURRAY
(Submitted April 12, May 3 and May 6, 1999)
Letter dated April 12, 1999:
1. Mr. Murray "formally objects" to both plans and identifies the documents upon
he apparently bases his objections as:
"a. Draft Development Plan and its accompanying EIR for the 'Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project' comprising 7+ square m~es of this city.
b. Preliminary Report and its EIR for the 'Old Town Kern - Pioneer
Redevelopment Project', an area of about 3 square miles."
The documents referenced by Hr. Hurray do not constitute the
complete reco:rd of documentation concerning the proposed
redevelopmerit projects. The primary documents upon which the
Agency and the City Council will base their considerations and
conclusions are found in the Reports to City Council for each
redevelopmerit project, which were not referenced by Hr.
Hurray. The Report to City Council for each proposed project
area. contains information docamenting in detail thE! existing
physical and economic conditions of the project area, an
assessment of the econom:kc feasibility of the proposed
project, a complete Elnvir_:'onmental Impact Repo:rt, an
Implementation Plan for the first few years of the project,
the Preliminary Plan for the project and an analysis thereof,
information from the Colanty Fiscal Officer and an analysis
thereof, an analysis of how the proposed program of
redevelopmerit contemplated fo~ the project area will eliminate
or alleviate the blighted conditions, a Neighborhood Impact
Report on the anticipateo impacts of the project, and a
summary of thE! Agency's consultations with the Project Area
Committee for the affected community.
2. Mr. Murray identifies items numbered 3 through 7 in his letter as the reasoning for
his objections.
The City's responses to these items will be tracked
accordingly.
2
3. The proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan is "rejected summarily"
because it is afiegedly based only on those documents identified in Paragraph l a of Mr.
Murray's letter. It is asserted that "by contrast, the [Old Town Kem- Pioneer] project plan
referred to in [Paragraph] l b is comprehensive and detailed, with facts and figures to back
it up."
Both proposed redevelopmerit projeots are based upon similar
documentary "back up." Although the precise conditions are
different for each project area, both proposed projects are
supported by detailed Reports to City Council and other
documentation. Apparently Hr. Hurray did not review either
the Preliminary Report or the subsequent Report to City
Council when considering the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Project. Mr. Hurray concedes, however, that
even the preliminary informati_on provided for the Old Town
Kern - Pioneer Project Area is "comprehensive and detailed."
4. Mr. Murray agree[s] that the physical and economic conditions described in the
Preliminary Report and EIR for the Old Town Kem- Pioneer Redevelopment Project "could,
technically, be used to defend the application of the CRL in that area." Nevertheless, Mr.
Murray objects to the use of the Community Redevelopment Law "as a matter of principle."
This comment does not dispute the existence of blight: in -the
Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopmerit Project Area, but
"objects" to redevelopmerit as "a matter of principle." The
use of redevelopmerit tools in an area which meets the
qualifications set forth in the Community Redevelopmerit Law is
a matter' of principle and poli_cy vested in the sound
discretion of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield. As
discussed in later responses, there are many sound policy
reasons to provide specia% assistance to the Old Town Kern -
Pioneer Redeve l_opment Project Area.
5. Mr. Murray asserts that redevelopment has "virtually unlimited powers" and "divert[s]
. .. tax monies" amounting to a "virtual dictatorship over these parts of Bakersfield." He
argues that "in our free-market, competition-based system, private capital will still be
invested where the action is - unless, of course, the taxpayers/owners give them their
properties and underwrite their risks."
This comment demonstrates an incorrect and distorted view of
redevelopmont. Redevelopmerit agencies do not have "virtually
unlimited powers" but are answerable and accountable to
elected officials as well as the community at large. Rather
3
than "diverting" tax dollars, redevelopmerit enables
communities to retain a portion of their own tax money in
order to address crucial issues withill that community. As
demonstrated by the Report to City Council, the Agency's work
with the Project Area Committee, and the Joint Public Hearing
itself, the formulation and adoption o~ a redevelopmerit
project is a very open and public process. Furthermore,
successful implementation of redevelopmerit is dependent upon
the participation of the community, and is subject to various
levels of public review and audit.
The whole point of a redevelopment project is to revitalize an
area. that was once alive! and active - to make this area once
again "where the action is." There are various means and
strategies for inducing new investment and re-investment into
existing urban areas, all. dependent upon the particular
circumstances of the cozmmunity at a particular time. Some
strategies can include the public body addressing neglected
infrastructure, such as repai~:ing streets and sewers; other
strategies car! include the creation of rehabilitation loan
programs which provide existing owners with the ability to
repair and expand their own properties. Such actions help
lower "risk" to any (and all) business in the project area -
risk that its success or failure will be decided by factors
such as crime or a "bad neighborhood" rather than the skill
and quality of its service or product.
Mr. Hurray notes that the re!ocation of Highway 99 westward
has reduced the economic attractiveness of the Old Town Kern -
Pioneer and Southeast Bakersfield project areas. This
statement only acknowledges some of the blighting conditions
that affect these areas and highlights the need for
redevelopmerit. Redevelopment has indeed produced "economic
miracles," but only after lor~g, hard, work, often extending
over years and even decades. As demonstrated by the City's
existing Downtown Redeve]_opmer~t Project Area, it sometimes
takes many years of intense eff'ort and investment to begin to
see an economic resurgence, b~lt it carl and does occur.
6. Mr. Murray objects to the "composition, independence, authority and powers of a
redevelopment agency." He asserts that a redevelopment agency is a "shadow
government" "unaccountable to the public."
This comment does not represent a challenge to the
documentation of blight or the need for redevelopmerit in the
Old Town Kern -~ Pioneer Redevelopmerit Project Area. Instead,
4
it presents another erroneous
redevelopmerit as a concept.
and distorted view of
In the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the duly
adopted Califo:nnia Community Redevelopment Law, the members of
the Central District Development Agency (CDDA) are appointed
by the Hayor, an elected official_. Their appointments are
ratified by th.e members of the City Council, who are also
elected officials. The City Council generally oversees CDDA
actions and must also independently approve certain actions of
the CDDA, as required by State law. The powers of the CDDA
are specified in the Community Redevelopmerit Law, as well as
each redevelopment plan adopted by the City of Bakersfield.
Just. like the City Council, meetings of the CDDA are open to
the public. Fk~rthermore, the Community Redevelopmerit Law
requires that public hearings be held before certain actions,
such as the sal. e of property, nay be approved. The financial
activities of the CDDA, like all redevelopment agencies, are
also subject. to regular audit. In addition, certain
acti. vities, especially those relating to the provision of
affordable housing, are subject to State, as well as local,
scrutiny. Finally, the CDDA is required to adopt, with public
review and comment, 5-year implementation plans which
demonstrate how the Agency is planning to carry out its work,
and to review with the public its progress on those plans
every two to three years. This is hardly "shadow government"
and presents ample opporturlity for public review and
accountabi lity.
6.a. As an asserted example of a redevelopment agency's "unlimited powers," Mr.
Murray claims that the electorate of the proposed Project Areas will be "disenfranchised"
in that "except for the right of referendum, the legislative acts of officially declaring the
existence of blight within the meaning of the CRL, and the approval of the plans, projects,
and time and dollar limits are not subject to a vote." He also claims that actions taken after
the approval of a redevelopment project are not subject to referendum, or even subject to
judicial review.
By the time the proposed Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopmerit
Plan was presented for review and approval by the Bakersfield
City Council, the CDDA had worked for months with the affected
community through a duly elected and representative Project
Area Committee. It had prepared and circulated for public
review and comment a complete Environmental Impact Report on
the anticipated impacts of redevelopmerit. It had also
prepared significant documentation and analysis of the
5
physical and economic conditions of the Project Area, as well
as the potential fiscal impact of the project. The proposed
Redevelopmerit Plan itself sets forth time and dollar limits,
as well as identifies potential public improvement
contemplated by the Plan.
At the Joint Public: Hearing on the proposed Old Town Kern -
P-ioneer Redevelopment Project, there was not one oral
objection to the plan. No affected taxing entity, such as the
County of Kern, submitted any objection whatsoever. To the
contrary, representatives of Bakersfield sc. hools submitted
oral. and written support. for the project.
If the proposed Redevelopment Project is adopted, the City
will be making necessary findings of blight, and approving the
l:imits and proposed public improvement projects described in
the Redevelopment Plan. I:n approving the Redevelopment
Project, this legislative act:on by the elected Bakersfield
City Council will be subject to referendum, just like any
other legislative action. It will also be subject to legal
review, as will be subsequent actions taken by the CDDA to
implement the plan approved by the elected City Council. It
is simply untm:ue to say that there is no judicial review of
redevelopment activities; ihe fact that the vast majority of
cou~t cases uphold such activities merely means that
redevelopmerit agencies comply with the law.
6. b. As another example of claimed "unlimited powers," Mr. Murray cites the authority to
acquire private property and claims that redevelopment is "governmental incursion into
private enterprise by engaging in speculative investments."
One of the most important aspects of redevelopmen1: is to
prevent or lessen speculation fin real property. Speculation
in property has often been found to be a cause of blight
because owners are unwilling Io make necessary investments to
maintain or improve their property. On the other hand,
property that is developed wi..th concern and a real. plan for
use tends to maintain and increase its value, demonstrating a
substantive investment and not speculation.
The authority to acquire property is not unique to
redevelopment agencies; virtually every public body has the
ability to acquire property for its public use. It is not the
goal of redeve].opment to acquire real property; it is the goal
of redevelopment to encourage real property owners to invest
in and take care of their properties. It is also more
8
economical for redevelopment agencies if existing property
owners participate in the redevelopmerit of their own
properties. To the extent that some owners refuse to
undertake needed repairs to make the properties safe or
habitable, or to otherwise {mare for their properties, however,
the Agency needs to have the authority to acquire such
properties at fair market value in order to eliminate
blighting influences. Moreover, the CDDA' s authority to
acquire private property isl cormstrained by restrictions found
in the Community Redevelopmerit Law, as well as the limitations
found in the Eminent Domain Law.
6. c. Mr. Murray asserts that rede velopment agencies "divert property tax money from the
agencies and purposes for which those taxes were originally levied" leading to increased
taxes and reduced services. He also claims that redevelopment agencies receive funds
they have not "earned" and that such monies as the CDDA will receive for the proposed
project is not enough to pay for needed infrastructure.
Redevelopment agencies are cor'~stitutionally and statutorily
authorized to help finance %heir activities by sharing in the
increase in tax revenues whn..ch result. from increases in
assessed valuations occurring after the redevelopment plan is
adopted. This form of tax sharing is commonly referred to as
"tax increment." Under this process, taxing entities, such as
schools and county governments, continue to receive the same
amount of tax revenue as they each received prior to the
redevelopment plan. Redevelopment agencies receive a portion
of additional. revenues resulting from increases in valuation
in order to repay debt already incurred to foster reinvestment
in the community. The taxing entities also receive a share
of this increased revenue, as specified by the Community
Redevelopmerit Law.
Rather than "divert" tax revenues, redevelopment enables
communities suffering from particular problems to retain their
own taxes, in order to fix these serious problems. Because of
the existence of these problems, or blight, tax revenues are
reduced for a]_l taxing entities. When the redevelopmerit
project is completed, and blight eliminated, the increased
revenues flow to all the taxing entities; the agency will
receive nothing.
The process of redevelopment is psyclhological as well as
physical. When others see tlhat a Project Area, through
redevelopment, is taking better care of itself, property
values rise. The redevelopment agency may only improve a
street with better sidewalks, lights or landscaping, yet the
7
value of homes and businesses along that street often improve
without the need for tlhe agency to pay for repainting or
repairing the structure itself. The return of confidence in
a Project Area can prompt a business to expand or entice a new
business to enter the Area. Redevelopmerit clearly "earns" the
increases in assessed value that it encourages.
In response to the claim of the insufficiency of ta× increment
for public infrastructure, it should be understood that
redevelopmerit is not intended to take over other governmental
functions, merely to assist in bringing about -improved
conditions in particular areas. It is not the purpose of
redevelopmerit to "pay for everything." Hany of the public
improvements i_dentified in the Old Town Kern ~ Pioneer
Redevelopmerit Plan include providing fo~: or repairing
infrastructure that would normally be part of a joint
undertaking by many governmental agencies, including the City
of Bakersfield, the Co~:nty o~E Kern and even the State of
California. Redevelopmerit was not designed to relieve these
entities of their existing and concurrent obligations, but
rather as a tool to facilitate the accomplishment of these
goals. Redevelkc, pment is a form of partnering, not only with
the private sector but with other public entities. Instead, it
is anticipated. that all public and. private participants will
play their respective and appropriate roles in helping to
construct needed improvements.
The CDDA and the City are both very cognizant of the
seriousness associated with the possible use of eminent domain
and have used this power infrequently and only as a last
resort when allk other means have failed.
7. Mr. Murray also questions the inclusion of parcels he deems "not blighted," based
upon speculative and unsubstantiated guesswork. He states:
"If I were to pick $50k [sic] out of my hat as the average assessed valuation
for those 2409 parcels, that would account for $120,450,00 of the total of the
assessed value of $530,295,827 shown in [Old Town Kern - Pioneer] for a~
3186 parcels. Subtracting 12,450,000 from that number would represent my
WAG [sic] of the assessed valuation of the 777 questionable parcels, or an
average of $527,472. 11 for each of those parcels."
Hr. Hurray's gk~esses as '~o average parcel valuation represent
only his own selection ef value and are not based upon any
apparent documentary evidence. To the contrary, the Report to
City Council for the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Project Area
8
contains property valuation data, both in terms of assessed
valuations and actual market values of the properties. As
reported in Section 6.5 of the Report to Council for the Old
Town Kern - Pioneer Project Area, the average per acre market
value are 25S lower than City-wide values, and per acre
assessed values are only 73% of City-wide values. The average
per parcel assessed valuation is $87,523, while the City-wide
average per parcel assessed valuation is $129,782. These
documented values show a clear discrepancy fbetween values in
the Project Area and values in the! City as a whole.
The Report to Council ir~dicates that not. every parcel in the
Old Town Kern - Pioneer Project Area demonstrates obvious
signs of physical blight:.. But the law does not require such
a showing. The Report to Courtoil also demonstrates that some
of the parcels contained in the Project Area are included for
effective redevelopment of the area as a whole; again well
within the requirements of the Community Redevelopmerit Law.
The size and shape of the Old Town Kern - Pioneer
Redevelopmerit Project Area was selected after careful
consideration and analysis. Only those properties meeting the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law were included
in the Project Area. Tlhe items that Hr. Hurray suggests as
"alternatives" to redevelopmerit, such as "putting investors in
touch with the absentee owners whose pKoperties adjoin each
other, ar'~d encourage those investor (even the property owners
themselves) to buy up and develop those small parcels" are the
very type of a,',;.'.tivities that are contemplated by the Agency' s
redevelopmerit prog:ram. It appears that Mr. Hurray' s
objections to redevelopment relate more to the name or concept
of '~redeve~opmer~t" than to the conditions of the Project Area
or the types of activities to be undertaken by the proposed
redevelopmerit program.
B. Letter Dated May 3, 1999
1. In his letter dated May 3, 1999:, Mr. Murray states that in his April 12 letter, he
"refused to consider the proposed 'plan' for redevelopment of the proposed 'Southeast
Bakersfield Project Area'," and proceeds to make an objection to '?hat plan." Mr. Murray
also states that he is not a resident of either proposed Project Areas, but asserts standing
to raise his objections "as a property owner/taxpayer within this county."
The City Council does not challenge Hr. Hurray' s standing to
state his objections, although it disagrees with them. The
City appreciates Hr. Murray' s interest in the proposed
projects and participation in the process. It will respond to
9
Hr. Hurray' s objection to the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Plan in documents relating to that project.
C. Letter Dated May 6, 1999
1. Mr. Murray makes reference to (1) newspaper reports concerning (a) a proposal
before the City relating to the "Grand Canal" proposed development, and (b) a report of
Kern County activities with respect to Oxy; (2) the notices of Joint Public Hearings for the
proposed Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Project and the proposed Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project; and (3) his prior letters of April 12 and May 3.
Mr. Netanel has made a proposal for a factory outlet type of
development to be constructed near the southern boundary of
the City, outside of any Redevelopment Project Area. The
specifics of the proposal are undergoing review and will be
treated independently from any redevelopment activity. Any
newspaper article concerning the County of Kern and any other
entity, including the Occidental Petroleum Company, is not
relevant or germane to any discussion concerning the existence
of blight or the need for redevelopment in the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area.
2. Mr. Murray asserts that both the City and the County of Kern have "discriminated"
between competing businesses and "to reward companies for doing that which they...
would have otherwise done."
While the City cannot speak to the policies and actions of the
County of Kern, neither the Agency nor the City has sought to
"discriminate" among businesses or "reward" them for taking
actions that they might normal ly take. To the extent 'that any
form of incentive has been provided for any particular
development proposal, the extent and nature of incentive has
been carefully considered and tailored to produce the greatest
public benefit at the least public cost. With specific regard
to the "Grand Canal" proposal referred to by Hr. Hurray, no
"incentive" or action has been approved at this time.
This comment does not der'my the! existence of blight or 'the need
for redevelopment in the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment
Project Area. It does not provide a reason or basis for
denying this community an .important tool in revitalizing the
area.
10
2. a. Mr. Murray states that the City proposes to "declare 10 square miles of this city as
'blighted' in order to use property taxes to help businesses (old and new) to invest in and
're-vitalize' those areas."
The Agency and City intend 'to do exactly that. After
demonstrating that the area is blighted, it is expected that
the City will approve the two proposed redevelopmerit project
areas and use property taxes - as well as other sources of
funds - to help businesses as well. as residents to invest in
and revitalize t. he project areas.
2. b. Mr. Murray claims that the City has "rewarded" Galey and Stier "for moving to the
more attractive southwest part of town... from their previous... places of businesses in
or near those 'blighted' areas." He then asks what incentives could have been provided to
them and others for staying and revita~zing these areas.
Neither the City nor the CDDA "rewarded" these businesses for
relocating to non-blighted areas of the City. These
businesses, like others mentioned in Mr. Hurray' s Hay 3
letter, selectled their locations based upon independent
business judgments. These judgments undoubtedly included the
ability to find sufficient land for operations, the price of
such land, and the ability to attract customers to their
locations. Areas that slaffer from blighting conditions, such
as the Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment Project Area,
will.. not compare favorably to other, non-blighted locations.
The fact is, without a program of redevelopmerit in place,
there is very ]_ittle the City or Agency can do to help retain
these types of businesses. Rather than serve as examples of
reasons to object to redeveiopment of the Old Town Kern -
Pioneer Redevelopment Project Area, the relocation of these
businesses show the existence of blight and the need for
redevelopmerit there. An adopted redevelopmerit project and
program will er-~able the City and Agency to work to lessen and
prevent the re].ocation of ongoing businesses and to encourage
new businesses to enter the Project Area.
These businesses did receive some assistance in the form of
Community Development Block GKant loans for which they were
eligible. As part of the Ci_ty's continuing program to promote
job creation, at least 51% of all jobs created (and vacancies
filled) by these businesses will go to low- and moderate-
income persons. It should be noted that. this program does not
"entice" businesses to leave their present locations. In the
instances cite,:l by Hr. Murray, to the contrary, the CDBG loan
program was used in order to keep these businesses at least
11
within the City of Bakersfield, once they had already decided
that: their present locations were no longer suitable.
The Agency intends to use CDBG funds, along with tax increment
and other funds, to revitalize 'the Old Town Kern-Pioneer
Redevelopment Project Area so that. in the future these types
of businesses will not have to leave the Project Area in order
to expand or remain viable.
3, Mr. Murray objects to "any proposed plan" which uses "tax incentives" for
commercial enterprises.
The City understands Mr. Hurray philosophical objections to
"tax incentives," but must also observe that the use of "tax
incentives" is widespread at all levels of government.
Federal tax law provides "incentives" for home ownership in
the form of income tax deductions for home mortgages, for
example. The State of California and other levels of
government use! the tax system as providing "incentives" for
other activities as well. Hr. Murray does not make clear what
he considers "tax incent. ives" that the CDDA could provide.
Redevelopmerit does not levy a tax but changes for a certain
time! period the distribution of the property tax generated
under Proposition 13. Using a porEion of the taxes generated
by an increase in assessed valuation in a Project Area to
repay investments already incurred, a redevelopmerit agency may
assist a business or resident with. a rehabilitation loan, or
may assist in the assembly of property at a fair price, or may
assist in the generation of riew and additional employment by
helping a business to expand. All of these "incentives" are
geared towards improving the health, safety and welfare of the
community by eliminating blight. Such "incentives" as may be
provided are generally minima.k in comparison to the amount of
additional private capital and employment which come hand in
glove with the activity which receives the incentive.
These types of redevelopmerit activities have been used with
great success up and down the State of California and have
improved the quality of life for the residents and businesses
of these Project Areas, as well as the communities as a whole.
12
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
OF LINDA HUFFMAN
(Submitted May 26, 1999)
1. Ms. Huffman questions the inclusion of some properties within the Old Town Kern -
Pioneer Redevelopment Project Area; specifically those properties in the vicinity of Mercy
Hospital, the railroad yards and certain homes along 16th Street. She also mentions a
realty agent apparently going door-to-door asking if the owner was willing to sell their home.
The California Community Redevelopment Law recognizes that an
area may be blighted and yet not every single parcel within
that area demonstrate obvious signs of blight. In addition,
certain properties have been included within the Old Town Kern
- Pioneer Redevelopment Project Area because they are
considered necessary for effective redevelopment. All
properties within the Project Area have been shown to be
suffering from economic blight such as stagnating property
valu. es, vacant and abandoned buildings and residential
overcrowding. The age of many of the buildings in the Project
Area also indicate physical bligh% such as structures which
are deteriorating and in need of substantial rehabilitation,
the existence of asbestos and other hazardous and outdated
building materials.
The fact that certain properties, especially homes, may have
been built at the same time by the same builder does not mean
that they are always in the same physical condition. Certain
property owners, perhaps like Ms. Huffman, have the resources
and desire to maintain and improve their properties; other do
not. A significant portion of the railroad yard was also
identified as suffering from both economic and physical
blight. The area surrounding Hercy Hospital suffers from a
hodgepodge of blighting conditions and is considered necessary
for effective redevelopmenE.
Neither the Agency nor the City has any knowledge of or was
responsible for a realty agent seeking listings. The
situation described by Hs. Huffman seems to be a form of
marketing by the realty agent.
2. Ms. Huffman asks if there is a "possibility that there is an additional agenda at work
within this project which may not have been overtly addressed to date" and identifies the
possibility of public improvements related to a high speed rail line and bridge widening at
Union Avenue and Truxtun Avenue as examples.
13
The only agenda at work here is one to eliminate blight and
achieve the revitalization of the Old Town Kern - Pioneer
Redevelopmerit Project Area. The work that may be required to
meet these goals may take many forms, including the
construction and repair of necessary public infrastructure.
The Community Redevelopmerit Law requires that a redevelopment
p]_an identify the possible public improvements for which it
may expend funds; such a list not a definitive decision to
undertake the improvement. Specifically with regard to the
items identified by Hs. Huffman, the idea of a high speed rail
line from Northern to Southern California has been discussed
for quite some time. If such a line is built and if one stop
on the line is Bakersfield, this could help bring consumer and
tourists to the area and ass:Lst in its revitalization. The
widening of bridges may be necessary to meet traffic demands
caused by redevelopment as well as other factors.
3. Ms. Huffman asserts that her property is unique in that she has created a "wildlife
terrain" as landscaping for her home. She indicates that if her property is to be acquired,
she needs to relocate her landscaping as weft.
Ms. Huffman's property is not located within the Old Town Kern
- Pioneer Redevelopmerit Project Area. Accordingly, she need
not be concerned about acqui sition of her property by the
Agency. Even if her property had. been within the Project
Area, however, the Agency has no present plans to ac. quire any
property and is more interested in seeing homeowners like Ms.
Huffman retain, maintain and improve their own properties.
It should also be noted that, after speaking to Mr. Jake
Wager, Ms. Huffman indicated a greater understanding of the
purposes of redevelopmerit and the intent of both the City
Council and the CDDA to revitalize that portion of the
proposed Old Town Kern-Pioneer Project Area closest to her
residence. Having recei_ved this additiona~ information, Hs.
Huffman stated s]he does not fuKther object.
[)Ik:S:/,REDVAREA/,otk city obj resp attach a
14