OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 I have personally watched the heartache of people who have, under the threat of RDA condemnation, surrendered their family homes. They were forced from their homes simply because a neighboring developer wanted their property. The ... officials of the RDA not only allowed it, they encouraged it, so that their own tax base would grow (Short 1996). Such comments are not meant to suggest that property rights should automatically trump the right of eminent domain. However, these comments do suggest a poor relationship between the redevelopment agencies and some property owners. If nothing else, some past projects have been perceived as badly exercising the power of eminent domain. The bill for which Short lobbied, sponsored by Representative Reese Hunter, ultimately was defeated. The original bill was designed to completely eliminate redevelopment agencies. This bill passed the House but was later called back to be watered down. In the end the final version of the bill simply eliminated the power of eminent domain. This version ultimately failed in the House by a few votes. There was no reform in 1996 nor did Senator Craig Taylor's reform bill make it past the Senate during the 1997 Legislative Session. Senator Taylor's bill originally attempted to remove the power of eminent domain, tighten the definition of blight, and reduce the number of years that a redevelopment agency could collect tax increment from a project. In the end, it took nearly the entire session simply to agree upon a compromise bill that could make it out of the Revenue and Taxation Committee. When the bill came up on the Senate floor there were nearly a dozen amendments prepared by other Senators. Some amendments were designed to make the bill have less impact on the redevelopment agencies, while other amendments would have further tightened the redevelopment process. A compromise could not be reached and the bill was never voted on. Redevelopment Agencies and Accountability Past years' legislative efforts seem to indicate that while the majority of legislators can agree that something must be done about current redevelopment laws, there is little consensus as to what exactly should be done. An example of this was Senator Taylor's RDA bill during the 1997 legislative session. Some legislators agreed with most of the provisions of the bill but would not vote for a bill that took the power of eminent domain away from the redevelopment agencies. Other legislators would only vote for the bill if it took the power of eminent domain away from the agencies. However, both sides would have been needed to get a majority in the Senate. Opinion also appears to be divided about whether redevelopment agencies in Utah are accountable to the state legislature and the public interest. While the majority of legislators feel that redevelopment agencies should be made more accountable, there is no consensus about specific changes to achieve further accountability. Finally, there appears to be a lack of accountability that threatens public interest. The public interest is not being served in cases where development would have taken place without the assistance of the redevelopment agency. One such example is seen in Sinclair Oil's development of the Little America Hotel. When this happens, the public loses money from the general tax fund and must then make up the difference. Such projects are a minor portion of all redevelopment projects, but they do indicate the presence of difficulties. Suggestions for Change Burke's typological approach has been useful in providing a better understanding of bureaucratic accountability. This typological approach shows that one can expect different levels of accountability from different bureaucracies, depending on which cell the agency falls into. A bureaucratic agency's accountability can then be assessed on an individual basis. The laws could be improved to better regulate redevelopment agencies and their activities. It should be noted that while it is the redevelopment agencies that have abused original interpretations of laws, it was the Legislature that made the laws vague to begin with. This essay now presents several suggestions about how to provide further accountability among redevelopment agencies. Taking into account all the recent bills that have failed, an attempt is made here to put forth suggestions that have realistic chances of passing. These suggestions certainly do not go as far as many lawmakers would like, and the redevelopment agencies will not necessarily be thrilled about further regulation, but so goes the life of political compromise. Before pointing out what can be changed, we should note that which politically cannot and should not be changed. Although businesses and developers are often at the very heart of much of the most heated controversy, they should not be blamed for taking advantage of the benefits that can be gained by using a redevelopment agency. Then U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum eloquently points this out in his article "Jobs vs. Schools" (1992). Metzenbaum argues that while businesses receive millions of tax breaks each year that directly affect the amount of tax revenue going into the public school system, they are not to be blamed. In fact, as long as it is permitted under the law, it is their corporate responsibility to seek such tax breaks. "They are not to blame; we are to blame, if we do not do something about it." Another change that cannot be made is to take away from redevelopment agencies the power of eminent domain. While this has been the very source of breakdowns in accountability, to take away this power would only make the overall situation worse. Even the 1991 audit that was highly critical of redevelopment agencies agreed on this point. If used properly, eminent domain can be a valuable tool in acquiring property. Under the federal "threat of condemnation" laws, property owners can receive significant tax breaks if they face condemnation. This makes it much easier for the property owner in the transition process, who becomes exempt from paying capital gains taxes on his property. This a? |