The end of redevelopment agencies would have different impacts to different communities.

In cities where redevelopment isn’t befitting of property values, income, or community goals; they will simply blink and move on. This article uses Berkeley as the example of a city that wouldn’t suffer without its Redevelopment Agency. Only 5% of the city is slated for development.

By comparison, however, more than 95% of Emeryville is designated for redevelopment.

Oakland would benefit on paper by Governor Brown’s plan to pass the tax dollars back to the city, but most of that money would go to debt and payroll obligations.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

It’s unclear if the state Legislature will go along with Gov.¬†Jerry Brown’s proposal to eliminate hundreds of redevelopment agencies across the state. But one thing is certain: The proposal would hit some East Bay cities much more than others.

The governor’s proposal would get rid of the state’s redevelopment program, which allows local governments to borrow against future property tax increases in designated redevelopment areas. The money can then be used to spur economic development. The governor, however, wants those tax dollars to help solve the state’s budget deficit for the coming year. In the 2012-13 year, the money would then flow directly to cities, counties and school districts.

In Berkeley, redevelopment zones cover only two slivers of land on the city’s west side, and its redevelopment agency is scheduled to cease operations in 2015. There, the impact would be felt no more than a pinprick.

Read the full article here.