OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 come from within the agencies. It seems clear that any real, long term changes of substance will have to come from the Utah State Legislature. For the past several years, reform bills have been submitted which narrowly pass the House or Senate Committees and then fail by a couple of votes on the floor. Each year these bills have been comprehensive in nature. These bills have contained finer points that have had a near consensus. Yet due to the larger implications of the bills, the smaller, less controversial points have died along with the larger bills. It would be wise for legislators who have struggled with their bills of years past to put through the less controversial proposals and then worry about the larger picture after the incremental changes have safely passed. Something is always better than nothing. In 1997, two common arguments during the Senate's Revenue and Taxation Committee meetings ran rampant among the defenders of redevelopment agencies. The first comes from the redevelopment agencies themselves. This argument comes in the form of "That problem was fixed with legislation from two years ago." The redevelopment agencies take the defense that while there may have been a problem two, three, or five years ago, that problem no longer exists because legislation has since changed that which is in dispute. One retort to this is that the very same redevelopment agency opposed those very changes a few years back when no problems supposedly existed. Now the argument is that any problems are fixed. Moreover, the very people in charge of the redevelopment agencies that circumvented the laws in the first place, bringing about further control, are still in power today. A second argument commonly heard in committee meetings from senators who favor redevelopment agencies is that "this issue is simply too complicated for us to tinker with." This is a classic example of Burke's Cell III conditions. Legislators argue that these issues are too complex for them in good judgement to "tinker with" and therefore make motions to put such bills on interim study committees. The problem is that when the bill returns the following year the same argument is made once again about the issue being too complex. It is therefore the responsibility of the legislators involved to learn about those issues that they do not understand, for they are the only true mechanism of accountability. If legislators attempt to stall a bill merely as a cloaked way of killing it, then this is understandable and can be understood as part of the legislative process. But if these legislators delay such action year after year simply because they do not understand the issues, and fail year after year to learn about them, then the public interest is not being served. Legislators are elected to learn about such complex issues in order to make the proper decisions in regulating these agencies. Persons who find themselves in an area targeted for redevelopment should take every measure necessary to learn all of their rights. These rights can change on a yearly basis. If one's property is found to be "blighted" and facing eminent domain, the best defense a person has is to simply clean up the blight. Even RDA directors admit that if a property owner were to do so, even after the blight finding, it would be extremely difficult for a redevelopment project to win in front of a jury. Redevelopment agencies are some of the most complex agencies that the State of Utah has to deal with. These agencies also provide many positive benefits to the state. But at what cost do these benefits come? Clearly, accountability has been lacking, but have the benefits outweighed the costs? This essay has suggested several instances where costs have indeed outweighed benefits, and has made a case for closer legislative scrutiny of the process of redevelopment. Finally, this essay has provided a basis for evaluating the accountability of redevelopment agencies in Utah. Redevelopment laws are constantly changing and it is a task in and of itself for one to stay current on redevelopment law. Since 1996 there have been no redevelopment projects of significant controversy. This does not guarantee that all problems have been solved and all future problems have been prevented. An evaluation, such as the one presented here, is intended to assist elected officials in systematically using these concepts in their future assessments of Utah's redevelopment agencies. References Baltezore, Jay. 1995. "Illegal RDA Subsidy? High Court to Decide." Salt Lake Tribune. B-l. June 16. Baltezore, Jay. 1996. "Lawsuits Cite City Officials' Conflicts of Interest." Salt Lake Tribune. January 13. Bradley, Jim. 1994- "Statements to Salt Lake County Commission regarding Proposed Agreement for the Disposition of Land for Private Development at Union Fort." February 25. Bernstein, Marver. 1955. Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Burke, John P. 1990. Policy Implementation and the Responsible Exercise of Discretion. New York: Greenwood Press. Cates, Karl. 1996. "Flower Patch Is Suing S.L. Bigwigs." Deseret News. January 13. Eisner, Marc A. and Kenneth L. Meier. 1990. "Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust." American Journal of Political Science, 34(1): 269-287. Funk, Marianne. 1996. "Court's Ruling May Be the Blight of Sinclair's 5-Star Hotel Plans." Deseret News. June 29. Greer, Douglas. 1983. Business, Government, and Society. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Gulick, Luther. 1933. Politics, Administration, and the New Deal. New York: J. Cape & H. Smith. Harmer, Gary W. 1995. Salt Lake City School District, Business Administrator. Letter to Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency. December 20. Jorgensen, Chris. 1992. "New Roof on Block 57 Building Increases Cost, Ire of Critics." Salt Lake Tribune, B-l. October 22. Legislative Auditor General. 1991. A Performance Audit of Utah 39 |