This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

CIty Council Moves Forward with Plans to Keep Redevelopment and Pay the State 'Ransom'

One resident shares his story as City Council moves a step closer to supporting the continuation of the Imperial Beach Redevelopment Agency.

They finally got the call. Almost two years had passed since Ed and Jeanne Sorrels applied, and with a couple more sheets of paper, the 75-year-old Imperial Beach resident and his wife were about to become the recipient of $30,000 from an Imperial Beach Redevelopment Agency grant.

“In fifteen minutes, I had the papers done,” he said.

Three days later, it was set in stone. Sorrels was able to replace his tired roof, his 52-year-old forced air heater and a dilapidated fence at his 9th Street home.  

Find out what's happening in Imperial Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“It was like Christmas in June,” he said, a 46-year IB resident.

Sorrels came to share his story with City Council at the July 20 meeting to support redevelopment, and shortly after voted unanimously in support of ordinance 2011-1121 to bring the city's redevelopment agency one step closer to opting into the alternative voluntary redevelopment program.

Find out what's happening in Imperial Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Council's vote means, in accordance to new rules for redevelopment agencies established as part of the new state budget, the city will pay the state of California $2.86 million the first year and nearly $700,000 each year after that to keep its redevelopment agency. The matter will be set for final adoption at the next council meeting.

There was little doubt the city will move towards continuing redevelopment since City Council and city staff were clear about their intentions last week's , where City Manager Gary Brown referred to the payments as "ransom."

There City Council discussed the probability of getting as many redevelopment projects under contract as possible. If redevelopment was forced to cease for any reason, theoretically a successor agency would be required to take responsibility of any active contracts.

“Well, that’s the theory at least,” City Manager Brown said.

Sorrels said the redevelopment money gave him ease of mind. His wife, ten years his junior, will be able to live the rest of her days in a sound home if something were to happen to her veteran husband.

“Now it’s done,” he said. “And we can focus on getting on with the rest of our lives.”

Councilwoman Lorie Bragg sees the option as the lesser of two evils. She estimates almost 90 percent of the projects accomplished over the last decade were due to redevelopment, she said.

“Individuals like Mr. Sorrels would not be enjoying a rehabilitation of his home,” she said. “Everywhere you look you see the fingerprint of redevelopment in this community.”

With that kind of track record, she said, putting a halt on continuing projects is out of the question.

“You can’t give up yet,” Bragg said. “Our community has too much at stake and too much business to be left undone if we don’t proceed.”

The IB Redevelopment Agency is considered a separate entity than the city of Imperial Beach though the City Council are the board members.

“Here we are, faced with AB 26 which is abolishing and just stopping everything right now where it is, or AB 27, paying a huge ransom over the next year, and then try and do business with whatever pennies are left,” said Councilman Ed Spriggs.

Hopefully, he said, the lawsuit launched last week by the League of California Cities and other entities will result in an injunction. But some think the legal battle could take years.

“I’m dismayed that [the] governor would have opted for this kind of draconian solution to the state budget problems,” Spriggs said. “I think it leaves us with little choice. We either go out of business or we keep trying to keep the lights on on redevelopment and hope that the lawsuit succeeds.”

City Attorney Jennifer Lyon, suggested a last minute addition to the ordinance before voting took place with the intent of giving IB more protection.

“By adopting this the city is basically stating they do not agree these laws are valid,” Lyon said. "Everybody believes these laws are unconstitutional, however, until a court invalidates them, we are left with operating with what they say right now.”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?