Part of a common site for Neighborhood Councils and Homeowners groups of the San Fernando Valley and information concerning the Valley issues Information about the November 5, 2002 election

LOS ANGELES IN CONTEXT: A Comparative Analysis of Current and Proposed Cities in Los Angeles County

SECTION 4: Redevelopment

to main index

Table 4-1 Redevelopment Totals by Area of Los Angeles
Table 4-2 Redevelopment Per Capita by Area of Los Angeles
Table 4-3 Redevelopment Per Capita for Selected Cities in Los Angeles County and the Valley Tax Increment Per Capita
Table 4-4a Tax Increment Per Capita for Selected Large Cities
Table 4-4b Redevelopment Expenditures Per Capita for Select Large Cities
Table 4-4c Redevelopment Debt Per Capita for Selected Large Cities

Click on graph for a full size version
Graph 4-1a Redevelopment Tax Increment by Area, FY 97-98 through FY 99-00
Graph 4-1b Redevelopment Expenditures by Area, FY 97-98 through FY 99-00
Graph 4-1c Redevelopment Debt by Area, FY 97-98 through FY 99-00
Graph 4-2a Redevelopment Per Capita Tax Increment by Area. FY 97-98 through FY 99-00
Graph 4-2b Redevelopment Per Capita Expenditures by Area, FY 97-98 through 99-00
Graph 4-2c Redevelopment Per Capita Debt by Area, FY 97-98 through FY 99-00
Graph 4-3a Per Capita Redevelopment Tax Increment Revenue for Selected Cities, 1997-2000
Graph 4-3b Per Capita Redevelopment Expenditures for Selected Cities, 1997-2000
Graph 4-3c Per Capita Redevelopment Debt for Selected Cities, 1997-2000
Graph 4-4a Redevelopment Tax Per Capita for Large Cities in California, FY 1997-98 through FY 1999-00
Graph 4-4b Redevelopment Expenditures Per Capita for Large Cities in California, 1997-2000
Graph 4-4c Redevelopment Debt Per Capita for Large Cities in California, 1997-2000

Table 4-1 has three sections that include data on redevelopment detail for the Valley and the City of Los Angeles without the Valley. It should first be noted that the redevelopment project areas for the proposed Hollywood city could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the data for the City of Los Angeles, when referred to as "Residual Los Angeles", does not include the project areas in the Valley and those that are possibly associated with Hollywood (the East Hollywood/Beverly-Normandie project area and the Hollywood project area). Throughout this section Residual Los Angeles will be indicated by an asterisk.

The first section, "Tax Increment," shows the amount of tax increment revenue generated in the Valley redevelopment project areas and in the redevelopment areas in Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00. The tax increment generated for Residual Los Angeles* is in the $70 million per year range. Most of this comes from, and is used in, the two major downtown redevelopment project areas (the Bunker Hill project area and the Central Business District project area). As Table 4-1 indicates, relatively little redevelopment activity has taken place in the Valley.

The tax increment is the amount of new property tax revenue within redevelopment areas once the property values have been increased due to redevelopment. The tax increment money is typically used to retire redevelopment agency debt incurred in making various improvements (including assembling parcels of land for public and/or private projects) in the redevelopment areas.

As part of this arrangement, property tax revenues going to the city (and other agencies) are often capped at the amount generated prior to the establishment of the redevelopment area. In essence, this can frequently mean that the non-redeveloped areas of a city bear a relatively heavier tax burden in terms of relative support for citywide municipal services. Many advocates of redevelopment counter, however, that removing blight is of general benefit to the entire city. Redevelopment advocates also contend that increased retail sales tax revenue generated in the revitalized redevelopment areas benefits the entire city. The second section of Table 4-1, "Total Expenditures," shows the expenditures in the redevelopment project areas in the Valley and in Residual Los Angeles*. Readers will note that the total expenditures in this section of Table 4-1 for the three fiscal years listed (FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, FY 1999-00) exceed the tax increment revenues for the same years. This is probably because the proceeds of bonded debt (shown in section three of this table) were spent during these three years. Eventually, of course, expenditures financed by bonded debt must be halted in order for the tax increment or other revenues to retire that bonded debt. For the three years shown, the expenditures were much greater in Residual Los Angeles* than in the Valley.

*Residual Los Angeles entails all the redevelopment project areas in the City of Los Angeles excluding the Valley project areas, the Hollywood project area, and the East HollywoodBeverly-Normandie project area. Source: The State of California Controller's Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Reports for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00.

The third section of Table 4-1 shows the amount of debt for the redevelopment project areas in the Valley and in Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00. The redevelopment debt for Residual Los Angeles* project areas is over twenty times the amount for the Valley, which explains, in part, the difference in expenditures shown in section two of this table.

To index

 [Graph 4-1a shows redevelopment tax increment by area for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99 and FY 1999-00. While Residual Los Angeles* generates nearly $70 million per year in redevelopment tax increment, the Valley generates about $5 million, indicating relatively little redevelopment has taken place in the Valley.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Graph 4-1b shows in graphic form the data on total expenditures for redevelopment from section two of Table 4-1. As in Graph 4-1 a, the data reinforce the fact that little redevelopment has taken place in the Valley, while well over $100 million per fiscal year in redevelopment money has been allocated to Residual Los Angeles*.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Graph 4-1c shows in graphic form the data on redevelopment debt as is presented in Table 4-1. While upwards of $500 million of debt has been accrued by projects in Residual Los Angeles*, one-twentieth of that amount has been accrued by Valley redevelopment project areas.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Table 4-2 shows the data from Table 4-1 regarding tax increment, total expenditures, and debt in per capita terms for the redevelopment projects areas in the Valley and those in Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00. In per capita terms, the difference between the Valley and Residual Los Angeles* is even more pronounced than the relative amounts shown in Table 4-1 and in Graphs 4-1 a, 4-1 b, and 4-lc. For example, total expenditures per capita in Residual Los Angeles* redevelopment areas were at least ten times the comparable amount for the Valley redevelopment areas.

To Index

Graph 4-2a displays redevelopment tax increment per capita for the Valley and Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00 as listed in Table 4-2. The per capita figure for the Valley is less than one-eighth of the per-capita figure for Residual Los Angeles*, reflecting the large difference between the redevelopment that has taken place in the Valley and that for Residual Los Angeles*.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

In Graph 4-2b, the per capita redevelopment expenditures for the Valley project areas and those in Residual Los Angeles*, are shown in graphic form for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00. The per capita expenditures for Residual Los Angeles* are more than ten times the per capita expenditures allocated to Valley redevelopment.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Graph 4-2c shows the gap between the per capita redevelopment debt for the project areas in the Valley and for those project areas in Residual Los Angeles*. This graph, based on the data in Table 4-2 for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00, shows that the per capita redevelopment debt for the Valley is one-tenth the per capita redevelopment debt accrued by Residual Los Angeles*.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Table 4-3 shows data for redevelopment in selected cities immediately adjacent to the City of Los Angeles (Santa Monica, Burbank, Pasadena, and Glendale). Also shown are the comparable data for the entire City of Los Angeles and for the Valley as well. The first section shows tax increment per capita for each of the selected cities, the City of Los Angeles, and also for the Valley. This section is ranked ordered by the tax increment per capita in FY 1999-00 (the far right column). In general terms, these data indicate that the redevelopment areas in the selected cities generated greater revenue than did those in the City of Los Angeles and in the Valley.

Similar patterns are reflected in the second section, expenditures per capita, and in the third section, debt per capita.

Great caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from such data because some redevelopment projects do generate substantial increases in municipal sales taxes, which is not reflected in these tables.

To Index

Graph 4-3a shows the data regarding per capita redevelopment tax increment revenue from Table 4-3 in graphic form. Data from FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00 is shown for each of the selected cities, for the City of Los Angeles, and for the Valley. At slightly above five dollars, the Valley has a per capita redevelopment tax increment that is less than a quarter of the per capita redevelopment tax increment for the City of Los Angeles.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Graph 4-3b shows per capita redevelopment expenditures for the City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and the selected cities adjacent to the City of Los Angeles as is presented in Table 4-3. The graphed data are for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00 and are rank ordered by FY 1999-00. Per capita redevelopment expenditures for the Valley are at most one-seventh of those for the City of Los Angeles, and the per capita redevelopment expenditures for the City of Los Angeles is lower than those of the other selected cities.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Graph 4-3c shows in graphic form the data on per capita redevelopment debt that is provided in Table 4-3. The graphed per capita redevelopment debt data are for the City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and for the other selected cities adjacent to the City of Los Angeles. The data are for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00, and are rank ordered by FY 1999-00. It should be noted that, due to its disproportionate size when compared to the other cities and areas listed in Table 4-3, Burbank's per capita redevelopment debt could not be fully represented on the scale used for this graph.

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Table 4-4a shows the tax increment per capita generated by redevelopment in selected large California cities for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00, rank ordered by FY 1999-00. Also included are the comparable data for the entire City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles*. Residual Los Angeles* ranked fifth out the ten cities and areas compared, the City of Los Angeles as a whole ranked eighth, and the Valley ranked tenth for FY 1999-00.

*Residual Los Angeles entails all the redevelopment project areas in the City of Los Angeles excluding the Valley project areas, the Hollywood project area, and the East HollywoodBeverly-Normandie project area. Source: The State of California Controller's Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Reports for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00; The State of California Controller's Cities Annual Reports for FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99; The U.S. Census 2000.

To Index

Graph 4-4a shows in graphic form the per capita redevelopment tax increment data that is presented in Table 4-4a. The graphed data is for selected large California cities, the entire City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00.

Graph 4-4a Redevelopment Tax Per Capita for Large Cities in California, FY 1997-98 through FY 1999-00

Click on graph for a full size version To index

Table 4-4b lists redevelopment expenditures per capita for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00 for selected large California cities, the City of Los Angeles as a whole, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles*. The table is rank ordered by FY 1999-00. Out of the ten cities and areas compared, Residual Los Angeles* ranked seventh, the City of Los Angeles ranked ninth, and the Valley ranked tenth.

To Index

Graph 4-4b shows the per capita redevelopment expenditure data that is provided in Table 4-4b for selected large California cities, the entire City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles* in graphic form. Residual Los Angeles*, the City of Los Angeles, and the Valley account for three out of the bottom four cities and areas compared in Table 4-4b.

To IndexClick on graph for a full size version To index

Table 4-4c shows the redevelopment debt per capita for selected large California cities, the entire City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles*. The data is for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00 and is rank ordered by FY 1999-00. Out of the ten cities and areas compared in this table, Residual Los Angeles* ranked eighth, the City of Los Angeles ranked ninth, and the Valley ranked tenth.

To Index

Graph 4-4c shows the per capita redevelopment debt for selected large California cities, the entire City of Los Angeles, the Valley, and Residual Los Angeles* for FY 1997-98, FY 1998-99, and FY 1999-00. The graph makes apparent the low per capita redevelopment debt for Residual Los Angeles* and for the City of Los Angeles as a whole relative to the other large cities in Table 4-4c. It also shows the low per capita redevelopment debt for the Valley when compared to that of Residual Los Angeles*, the City of Los Angeles, and especially the other selected cities.

SECTION 5 Police

Click on graph for a full size version To index

To main page