HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 89-99RESOLUTION NO. 8 '9 "g 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
SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD 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 Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in accordance with the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000, et 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 Southeast Bakersfield 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 property
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 Southeast
Bakersfield 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 Southeast Bakersfield 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 Southeast Bakersfield
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 Southeast Bakersfield 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 Southeast Bakersfield 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
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 ,lUll 16 ~ , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MACCARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: JUN ~- 6 ~
MAYOR ;~t/h'e City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
CITY ATTORNEY
By:
.,, JANICE'SCANLAN
Deputy City Attorney
js:S:\REDVAREA\se council ob.I reso
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT "A"
THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE
SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES
JUNE 16, 1999
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 Southeast Bakersfield
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 in the record at the Joint Public Hearing. Only two people,
Mr. Leonard Hall and Mr. Robert W. Murray, submitted any objection to the proposed
Southeast Bakersfield plan. Mr. Hall owns property within the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project Area. Although Mr. Murray is not a property owner within the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area, and thus not "an affected property
owner," the City Council also wishes to respond in writing to his 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. Hall and
Mr. Murray are included in the record of the Joint Public Hearing and are available for
review.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
OF LEONARD HALL
(Submitted May 5, 1999)
1. Although he lives in Hanford, Mr. Hall is a property owner in the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area. His only objection to the proposed
redevelopment plan appears to be that he claims to be paying too much in taxes now and
is trying to sell his property. He states:
"1 own property as 3423 Lotus Lane and I am trying to sell the place. I am
paying to [sic] much in taxes now. $417. 60."
Mr. Hall's objection does not: dispute the existence of blight
in the Project Area or the need for redevelopmerit. His
concern that redevelopmerit will hamper his ability to sell his
property and/er raise his taxes are misplaced. By adopting a
program of redevelopmerit to revitalize the Southeast
Bakersfield az~ea, new and greater interest should be generated
for the area, including interest in acquiring properties for
proper development. Depending upon the particular
circumstances of Hr. Hall' s p~operty, it should be easier for
him to find a buyer.
Redevelopmerit agencies do not have the power to tax. Any
increases in tax revenues come from the uniform application of
Proposition 13 to the sale} or improvement of property.
Horeover, if Hr. Hall can find his buyer, he will_ no longer be
responsible for the payment of taxes within the Project Area.
2
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 HN_. Murray do not constitute the
complete record of documentation concerning the proposed
redevelopmerit projects. The primary documents upon which the
Agency and the City Council w:kk~ base their considerations and
conclusions are found ir'~ the Reports to City Council for each
redevelopmerit project, wl~ich were not referenced by Hr.
Hurray. The Report to City Ccuncil for each proposed project
area contains information documenting in detail the existing
physical and economic conditions of the project area, an
assessment o~!' the economic feasibility of the proposed
project, a complete Environmental impact Report, an
Implementation Plan for the first few years of the project,
the Preliminary Plan for the project and. an analysis thereof,
information from the County Fiscal Officer and an anallzsis
thereof, an analysis of how 'the proposed program of
redevelopmerit contemplated for the project area will eliminate
or alleviate the blighted conditions, a Neighborhood Impact:
Report on the anticipated .~mpacts of %he 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.
3
3. The proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan is "rejected summarily"
because it is allegedly based only on those documents identified in Paragraph l a of Mr.
Murray's letter. It is asserted that "by contrast, the [Old Town Kern - Pioneer] project plan
referred to in [Paragraph] l b is comprehensive and detailed, with facts and figures to back
it up."
Both proposed redevelopment projects 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 ME. Murray did not review either
the Preliminary Report. or the subsequent Report to City
Council when conside:ring the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Project. FIr. Hurray concedes, however, that
even the preliminary informal:ion 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."
Although this comment does not directly address the proposed
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopmerit Project, it is assumed for
purlposes of this response that Hr. Hurray's objection to
redevelopmerit "as a matter of principle" extends to this
Project Area as well.
This comment does not dispute the existence of blight in the
Southeast Bakersfield 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 policy vested in the sound
discretion of lhe City Council of the City of Bakersfield. As
discussed in later responses, there are many sound policy
reasons to provide special assistance to the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopmerit 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
4
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
redevelopment. Redevelopment, agencies do not have "virtually
unlimited powers" but are answerable and accountable to
elected officials as well as the community at large. Rather
than "diverting" tax do] lars, redevelopment enables
communities to retain a ]portion of their own tax money in
order to address crucial issues within that community. As
demonstrated by the Report to City Council, the Agency' s work
with the Project Area Comlit%ee, and the Joint Public Hearing
itself, the formulation and adoption of a redevelopmerit
project is a very open 24nd public process. Furthermore,
successful implementation of redevelopmerit is dependent upon
the participaE. ion of the cormnunity, and is subject to various
levels of public review and audit.
The whole point of a redevelopmerit 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 irzvestment and re-investment into
existing urban areas, all dependent upon the particular
circumstances of the cormTnanity at a particular time. Some
strategies can include the public body addressing neglected
infrastructure, such as repairing streets and sewers; other
strategies can 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 projec. t area -
risk that its success or failure will be decided by factors
such as crime c,r a "bad neighborhood" rather than the skill
and quality of its service or product.
Mr. Hurray notes that the relocation of Highway 99 westward
has reduced the economic at. tractiveness of the Old Town Kern -
Pioneer and Southeast Bakersfield project areas. This
statement only acknowledges some of the blighting conditions
that affect these aEeas snd highlights the need for
redevelopmerit. Redevelopmerit has indeed produced "economic
miracles," but.. only after long, hard, work, often extending
over years and even decades. As demonstrated by the City's
existing Downtown Redevelopmeant Project Area, it sometimes
takes many years of intense effort and investment to begin to
see an economi. c resurgence, bn:t it can. and does occur.
5
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 non zepresent a challenge to the
documentation of blight or the need for redevelopmerit in the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopmerit Project Area. Instead, it
presents another erroneous and distorted view of redevelopmerit
as a concept.
In the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the duly
adopted California Community Redevelopmerit Law, the members of
the Central District Development Agency (CDDA) are appointed
by the Hayor, an elected official. Their appointments are
ratified by the members of the City Council, who are also
elected officials. The City Council generally oversees CDDA
actions and mnst 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 redevelopmerit plan adopted by the City of Bakersfield.
Just like the City Counci:L, meetings of the CDDA are open to
the public. Furthermore, tt~e Community Redevelopmerit Law
requires that public hearings be held before certain actions,
such as the sale of property, may be approved. The financial
activities of the CDDA, like all redevelopmerit agencies, are
also subject to regular al~dit. In addition, certain
activities, especially those relating to the provision of
affordable hoLiSing, are subject to State, as well as local,
scrutiny. Fif~ally, the CDIIA ~s required to adopt, with public
review and comment, 5-yeaz implementation plans which
demonstrate how the Agency is planning to carry out i_ts work,
and to review with the pub].ic its progress on those plans
every two to three years. This is hardly "shadow government"
and presents ample opport:unity for public review and
accountability.
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.
6
By the time the proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment
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 redevelopment. llt had also
prepared significant documentation and analysis of the
physical and economic conditions of the Project Area, as well
as the potential fiscal impact of the project. The proposed
Redevelopment 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 Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopmerit 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 schools submitted
oral and written support tot the project.
If the proposed Redeve]Lopment Project is adopted, the City
will be making necessary findings of blight, and approving the
limits and proposed public improvement projects described in
the Redevelopmerit Plan. In approving the Redevelopment
Project, this legislative action by the elected Bakersfield
City Council will be subject to referendum, just like any
other legislative action. llt 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 untrue to say that there is no judicial Keview of
redevelopmerit activitie. s; the fact that the vast majority of
court cases uphold such activities merely means that
redevelopment 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 redevelopment is to
prevent or les. sen speculation in real property. Speculation
in property has often been found to be a cause of blight
because owners are unwilling to make necessary investments to
maintain or improve their property. On the other hand,
property that is developed with concern and a real plan for
use tends to maintain and increase its value, demonstrating a
substantive investment and no!: speculation.
7
The authority to acquire property is not unique to
redevelopmerit agencies; virtually every public body has the
ability to acquire property for its public use. It is not the
goal of redevelopmerit to acquire real property; it is the goal
of redevelopmerit to encourage real property owners to invest
in and take care of their properties. It is also more
economical for redevelopmerit agencies if existing property
owners participate in the redevelopment of their own
propert/.es. To the exlent that some owners refuse to
undertake needed repairs to make the properties safe or
habitable, or to otherwise care 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. Horeover, the CDDA' s authority to
acquire private property is constrained by restrictions found
in the Community Redevelopment Law, as well[ as the limitations
found in the Eminent DomaLn ]Law.
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 al_l other means hi~ve failed.
6.c. Mr. Murray asserts that redevelopment 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 constitutionally and statutorily
authorized to help finance their activities by sharing in the
increase in tax revenues which result from increases in
assessed valuations occurring after the redevelopmerit 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
Redevelopment Law.
Rather than "divert" tax revenues, redevelopmerit enables
communities suffering from parlicular 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 all taxing entizies. When the redevelopment
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 psychological as well as
physical. When others see that a Project Area, through
redevelopment, is taking bet:er care of itself, property
values rise. The redevelopment agency may only improve a
street with better sidewalks, lights or landscaping, yet the
value of homes and businesses along that street often improve
without the need for the 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 tinat it encourages.
In response tothe claim of the insufficiency of tax increment
for public i. nfrastructure, it should be understood that
redevelopmerit is not intended to take ove~ other governmental
functions, merely to assist in bringing about improved
conditions in particular areas. It is not the purpose of
redevelopmerit to "pay for ew}rything." Many of the public
improvements identified in the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Plan include providing for or repairing
infrastructure that would normally be part of a joint
undertaking by many governmental agencies, including the City
of Bakersfield, the County of Kern and even the State of
California. Redevelopment 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. Redevelopment i_s a foum 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.
7. Mr. Murray also questions the inclusion of parcels he deems "not blighted," based
upon speculative and unsubstantiated guesswork. He states:
"lf l were to pick $50k [sic] out of my hat as the average assessed valuation
for those 2409 parcels, that would account for $120, 450, O0 of the total of the
assessed value of $530,295,827 shown in [Old Town Kern - Pioneer] for all
3~ 86 parcels. Subtracting 12,450,000 from that number would represent my
WAG [sic] of the assessed valuation of the 777 questionable parcels, or an
9
average of $527,472. 11 for each of those parcels."
Mr. Hurray' s guesses as to average parcel valuation represent
only his own selection of value and are not based upon any
apparent documentary evidence. Again, Hr. Hurray's statement
does not dj_rectly address the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Project.
Nevertheless, the Report to ~2ity Council for the Southeast
Bakersfield Project Area contains property valuation data,
both in terms of assessed valuations and actual market values
of the properti. es. As reported in Section 6.5 of the Report
to Council for the Southeast Bakersfield Project Area, the
average per acre assessed value is only 27% of City-wide
values, and per acre market values are only 37% of City-wide
values. The average per parcel assessed valuation in
Southeast Bakersfield is $49,726, while the City-wide average
per parcel assessed valuation is S129,782. These documented
values show a clear discrepancy between values in the Project
Area and values in the City as a whole.
The Report to Council indicates that not every parcel in the
Southeast Bakersfield Project Area demonstrates obvious signs
of physical blight. But the law does not require such a
showing. The Report to Council also demonstrates that some of
the parcels contained in the Project Area are included for
effective redevelopmerit of the area as a whole; again well
within the requirements of the Community Redevelopmerit Law.
The size and shape of the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopmerit
Project Area was selected after careful consideration and
analysis. Only those properties meeting the requirements of
the Community Redevelopmerit Law were included in the Project
Area. The items that Mr. Murray suggests as "alternatives" to
redevelopmerit, such as "p'utting investors in touch with the
absentee owners whose properties adjoin each other, and
encourage those investor {even the property owners themselves)
to buy up and develop those small parcels" are the very type
of activities that are contemplated by the Agency' s
redevelopment program. I t appears that Mr. Hurray' s
objections to redevelopment relate more to the name or concept
of "redevelopmen~" than to the conditions of the Project Area
or the types of activities %o be undertaken by the proposed
redevelopment program.
10
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 "that 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 Mr. Murray's standing to
state his objections, although it disagrees with them. The
City appreciates Mr. Hurray's interest in the proposed
projects and participation in the process.
2. Mr. Murray asserts that the proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan
"by itself, does not satisfy the requirements of the CRL. It alone does not provide the basis
for an informed, defensible decision by the Council on this drastic legislative action.' He
also claims that the proposed Redevelopment Plan "does not give the taxpayers the details
required by the CRL."
Mr. Murray does not disclose what deficiencies he sees in the
proposed redevelopment plan; he does not identify any
"requirements of the CRL" that have not been satisfied in the
redevelopment plan adoption process.
The proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan takes
the form of a charter and grant (and limitation) of authority
for the CDDA to undertake a program of redevelopmerit.
California courts have recognized that a redevelopment plan
does not require the type of detail expected in architectural
or engineering plans, but rather contemplates a "comprehensive
method or scheme of action." The Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Plan was reviewed by legal counsel and contains
all the provisions required by the Communi. ty Redevelopmerit
Law.
The proposed adoption of the Southeast Bakers field
Redevelopment Project i s not dependent solely upon the
Redevelopment Plan, but is also based upon the months of
consultation with the community's Project Area Committee, the
documentation found in the Report to City Council, and the
information pre. sented at the Joint Public Hearing for the
proposed project. Together, there is more than sufficient
information and detail for both the City Council and taxpayers
to make an informed and defensible decision on the need for
redevelopment in the Project Area.
11
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 normally 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 considereel and tailored to produce the greatest
public benefit at the least public cost. With specific regard
to the "Grand Canal" proposal referred to by Mr. Murray, no
"incentive" or action has been approved at this time.
This comment does not deny the existence of blight or the need
for redevelopment in the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment
Project Area. It does not provide a reason or basis for
denying this community an important tool in revitalizing the
area.
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."
12
The Agency and City intend to do exactly that:. After
demonstrating tlhat the area -ks 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 the project areas.
2. b. Mr. Murray claims that the City has "rewarded" Galey and Stier RV "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 revitalizing these areas.
Neither the City nor the CDDA "rewarded" these businesses for
relocating to non-blighted areas of the City. These
businesses, like others mer~t. ioned in Mr. Murray's May 3
letter, selected their locations based upon independent
business judgments. These judgments undoubtedly included the
ability to fir!d sufficient land for operations, the price of
such land, and the ability to attract customers to their
locations. Areas that suffer from blighting conditions, such
as the Southeast. Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area, will
not compare favorably to other, non-blighted locations.
The fact is, without a program of redevelopment in place,
there is very little the City or Agency can do to help retain
these types oZ businesses. Rather than serve as examples of
reasons to object to redevelopment of the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopmerit 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 enable the City and Agency to work to lessen and
prevent the relocation of ongoing businesses and to encourage
new businesses to enter the Pzzoject Area.
These businesses did receive some assistance in the form of
Community Development Block Grant loans for which they were
eligible. As part of the City' 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 cited by Hr. Hurray, to the contrary, the CDBG loan
program was used in order to keep these businesses at least
within the City of Bakersfield, once they had already decided
thai their present locations }~ere no longer suiEable.
13
The Agency intends to use CDBG funds, along with tax increment
and other funds, to revitalize the Southeast Bakersfield
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 His. Murray philosophical objections to
"tax incentives," but musk also observe that the use of "tax
incentives" Ls widespread at all levels of government.
Federal tax law provides "incentives" for home ownership in
the form of ~r~come tax deductions for home mortgages, for
example. The State of California and other levels of
government use the tax systen as providing "incentives" for
other activities as well., Hr. Hurray does not make clear what
he considers "tax incentives" that the Agency could provide.
Redevelopmerit does not levy a tax but changes for a certain
time period the distribution of the property tax generated
under Proposi!ion 13. Using a portion 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 busir~ess 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 new and additional employment by
helping a business to expand. All of these "incentives" are
geared towards improving the ihealth, safety and welfare of the
community by e. liminating blight. Such "incentives" as may be
provided are generally ruinimal in comparison to the amount of
additional pr:i_vate capital and employment which come hand in
glove with the activity which receives the incentive.
These types off redevelopmerit: activities have been used with
great success up and down the State of California and have
improved the quality of life flor the residents and businesses
of these Project: Areas, as well as the communities as a whole.
I)Ik:S:x, REDVAREA\se city obj resp attach a
14