| OCR Text |
Show Bureaucratic: Accountability: A Look at Utah's Redevelopment Agencies Adam Caldwell concerned about the economic and social deterioration of inner cities. The first federal legislation would follow with the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. This Act allowed the federal government to assist states in fixing unsafe and unsanitary dwellings for low-income individuals. Congress would take a more active role in redevelopment and the elimination of blight with the passage of the Housing Act of 1954- Redevelopment agencies were first authorized by the Utah State Legislature in 1969. The Utah Foundation, a private nonprofit agency, identifies two main purposes for their creation (Utah Foundation 1996). The first purpose was to revitalize blighted inner-city areas. The second purpose was to capture the full availability of federal grants that Congress had authorized for urban renewal. The growth of redevelopment agencies in Utah was gradual to begin with. A decade after redevelopment agencies were first authorized, only a couple were functioning in the state. But as cities caught on to the benefits of a redevelopment agency, they too created agencies. A shift occurred for many redevelopment agencies in the 1980s. This shift was away from redevelopment agencies participating in the redevelopment of previously developed neighborhoods that had become blighted, toward "economic development" for the purpose of attracting new commercial and industrial facilities. This shift occurred partly because the original laws for redevelopment were written very vaguely. While redevelopment agencies originally were intended to participate only in the redevelopment of previously developed areas containing blight, no statute prevented redevelopment agencies from expanding into economic development. Cities began seeing redevelopment agencies as a means to attract new businesses to their cities. With redevelopment agencies providing benefits in both redevelopment and economic stimulus, the number of redevelopment agencies in Utah would grow to fifty-five by the beginning of 1996. With this increase in actual numbers of redevelopment agencies has come an increase not only in the number of projects, but also in their size and dollars spent. From 1990 to 1997, the amount of tax increment collected by redevelopment agencies rose from $13.8 million to $54-6 million. This was also an increase in the percent of property taxes taken from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 4.8 percent in 1997 (Utah State Tax Commission 1997). It is estimated that of this $54-6 million taken in 1997, over $25.8 million would otherwise have gone directly to school districts (Utah State Office of Education 1997). Concern over Agency Powers With the growth in the size and number of Utah's redevelopment agencies comes increased concern about the agencies' powers. One concern is the power of eminent domain, or the government's right to take a person's property. The purposes for which one's property could or could not be taken have become increasingly controversial. Another criticism concerns the way redevelopment agencies finance their operations through the use of tax increment financing. Redevelopment agencies would keep any increase in the property taxes from a redevelopment area. A time limit then would be set so the redevelopment agency could then recollect the money it invested into the redevelopment area. Criticism arises about funding because this is seen as money that would otherwise go to the school districts. Criticism is even more intense if there is a feeling that economic development or redevelopment would have taken place at a specific site without the help of the redevelopment agency. A third problem arises in the selection of redevelopment sites. Many critics grow suspicious as to why a particular area is chosen for redevelopment. Many feel that their city government is giving special favors to rich developers at the expense of individual citizens. Since a project can be undertaken only if blight is found, the suspicion exists that the finding of blight is already a foregone conclusion. However, deciding on a project before the finding of blight is the same as drawing a conclusion and then setting out to prove it. As the growth in size and powers continues today in redevelopment agencies, one can ask to what extent these agencies are accountable to the Utah State Legislature. Also, have redevelopment agencies grown beyond the original intent of the legislature, and if so, is this problematic? Through the use of John P. Burke's discussion in Policy Implementation and the Responsible Exercise of Discretion (Burke 1990), redevelopment agencies can be considered in greater depth with regard to accountability and its ramifications. Various Approaches Bi rke's Policy Implementation and the Responsible Exercise of Discretion Burke presents issues dealing with bureaucratic discretion, public policy and accountability. It is quite normal that as bureaucrats work on a daily basis discretion will be involved, which will inevitably lead to questions as to the propriety of those decisions. Burke suggests such daily discretion has not always been seen as "quite normal." Earlier in the history of public administration the proper role of a bureaucrat was seen as fairly simple in that the proper political authorities would formally authorize any act of discretion. Burke points out that as further research was done on the issue of policy implementation, it became clear that such a concise view of a bureaucrat's discretion was not realistic. An example of this research comes from Luther Gulick's 1933 essay, Politics, Administration, and the New Deal. Gulick saw discretion as an essential element in the implementation of policy. "It is impossible to analyze the work of any public employee from the time he steps into his office in the morning until he leaves it at night without discovering that his every act is a seamless web of discretion and action" (61). It therefore would be almost impossible to find any office in government where the element of discretion was missing. 28 |
