State Senator Rod Wright (D-Inglewood) introduced a “compromise” redevelopment bill last week. SB 286 is intended to deal with the excesses of current redevelopment by introducing new levels of oversight, including regular audits of redevelopment agencies. The agencies themselves would remain largely intact, but they face new restrictions on what specific types of projects they could take on. A big one is the elimination of projects on currently non-urbanized parcel five acres or larger in size. Simply put, all projects have to be done on infill land. Development on “blighted” farmland and open space would be verboten. Direct assistance also couldn’t be provided to casinos, race tracks, speedways, and golf courses. And there’s one extremely important new rule related to sports facilities.
SEC. 7. Section 33426.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
33426.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 33391, 33430, 33433, and 33445, or any other provision of this part, an agency shall not provide any form of direct assistance to the following:
…
(e) A development or business, for the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, or replacement of property that is or would be used for a stadium, coliseum, arena, ballpark or other sports facility that is intended for use by a professional sports franchise unless the proposed assistance or another component of the financing for the proposed project is submitted to the electorate that resides in the territorial jurisdiction of the agency providing assistance, and is approved by a majority of the voters voting on the proposed development.
The upshot is that every stadium or arena project throughout the state would require a vote if the bill is passed. In San Jose that’s not such a big deal because a vote is required per the city charter. Now everything from LA’s Farmers Field to Oakland’s Victory Court to Sacramento’s Kings-saving railyards arena would automatically trigger referenda. If it’s a city project, city voters would have to approve. If it’s a county project, county voters would have to approve.
Keep in mind that the alternative, as we know it right now, is the complete elimination of redevelopment as dreamed by Governor Jerry Brown, and redevelopment’s replacement by successor agencies with an even smaller scope and breadth of powers than specified in SB 286. Furthermore, SB 286 is sponsored by the pro-redevelopment League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association. While the bill could undergo changes in committee, it’s unlikely that the sports facilities clause will see a big change since a reversal would strike at the heart of the bill’s intent, weakening the bill in the process.
So, that talking point that the Oakland-only crowd has but putting out about not needing a vote in The Town? Might have been a little premature about that one.
Updated 3:04 PM – Governor Brown is pushing AB 101, which would kill all redevelopment agencies and cap borrowing as of July 1. The League of California Cities has said the bill is unconstitutional. That makes it SB 286 vs. AB 101 for the future of redevelopment. It’s possible that one or both don’t make it out of committee. It’ll be interesting to see if they end up as competing ballot initiatives with poison pills.
newballpark.org 
from the bill: “stadium, coliseum, arena, ballpark or other sports facility”…
Aren’t stadium, coliseum and ballpark all words for the same thing, the only difference is branding?
Hopefully this bill passes because it would be a shame in redevelopment in CA dies. I’m not just concerned about ballparks. I’m concerned about keeping and attracting businesses in the state.
@bc: I’m sure it’s just to drive home the point and avoid any ambiguities.
How would this impact the successor agency in San Jose that is already running the ballpark effort in that city. And just to clarify this would only impact stadiums receiving redev funds, not private parks like the Earthquakes Stadium in SJ or future Pac Bell type parks?
@Dan – The bill calls for a vote if any agency provides “direct assistance.” That’s a catch-all term that could mean money and/or land contributions. The Quakes stadium wouldn’t be affected since it’s already under contract. Any new project which hasn’t been city approved with a certified EIR would be at issue. SJDDA was created just in case redevelopment was eliminated. If SB 286 were approved, SJDDA’s scope may be limited to planning for the area while SJRA continues on.
Well if “direct assistance” would refer to a land sale is obviously debatable (and undoubtedly fodder for future litigation).
@Dan – What it will probably do is force cities to tread carefully when considering stadium projects since that extra gating mechanism could be required. Land sales at market value shouldn’t be an issue. Mayor Reed and staff have been prescient in assuming a vote would be required regardless.
Here I go again (sorry RM). TECHNICALLY speaking, a vote in San Jose is only necessary if direct public funds go towards actual stadium construction costs. If the city of SJ leases or sells the Diridon plot to Wolff/A’s for the PRIVATELY FINANCED ballpark project, no city-wide vote is needed. Yes, Reed/SJ have been prescient in assuming a vote would be required, but in reality one might not be required. Whew, glad I got that off my chest.
Since the League of CA Cities and CA Redev Assn are sponsoring SB 286, I would expect Republicans to support the bill. And given that SB 286 was introduced by a Democrat from a less-than-affluent area, perhaps this is a sign that Democrats who previously supported AB101 will be jumping ship post haste.
Hey there was a 10% increase in attendance tonight over last night—topping out at 10,193—and about 6000 of those actually in the ballpark—-guess this proves to Jk and AO what a great baseball market Oakland is….its like going to a freakin’ funeral—-when is this joke going to end-
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_17986354