Redevelopment Agency CEO Calls for More Strategic Transit Investment
Eric Richardson
[Flickr]
Community Redevelopment Agency CEO Cecilia Estolano speaks to Wednesday morning's ULI Marketplace audience.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Criticizing the federal stimulus package's focus on shovel-ready projects as "band-aids," Community Redevelopment Agency CEO Cecilia Estolano today called for more investment in projects with long-term benefits. "Little attention has been given to strategic development," she told the crowd, made up of approximately 600 individuals from the real estate and development communities.
She called on the audience to advocate for a shift in funding from highways to transit. "Can we just make it 50-50 or even 60-40? ... We need to be unabashed in our efforts" to secure money for transit, she told them.
Estolano gave the keynote Wednesday morning at the Urban Land Institute Los Angeles' Marketplace event at the Los Angeles Convention Center. This year's edition of the annual event was titled "At the Crossroads: Transportation and Development."
While Estolano was very supportive of public stimulus, she expressed regret that more of the federal package wasn't headed for projects like those her agency deals with. "There in fact very little money for economic development," she said.
Last year's economic meltdown has made it almost impossible for private projects to find the necessary funding. Estolano said that while her agency waits for that capital to return, it is focused on preparations that will make the job of development easier. She highlighted strategic infrastructure projects and community plan updates that will cut costs for developers later.
Councilwoman Jan Perry gave the event's opening remarks, for the third year presenting a poem by the winner of a high school poetry competition. This year's winner was Victoria Williams, an 11th grader. Her poem talked about lives that come together through transportation. Williams poem was selected by Perry and Downtown Poet-Broker Ed Rosenthal.
David on March 18, 2009, at 02:02PM – #1
Anyone else think the CRA should be dissolved and its functions, including its eminent domain ability (restrictted to the CRA areas), should be transfered to the Planning Department? The Planning Department is finally doing some real planning yet the CRA is creating their own plans that frequently conflict with the Planning Department's plans. Frankly, the CRA is a complete pain to work with. On a project level they rarely have any good ideas and are very slow. Plus, in CRA areas I have to get two separate set of approvals, which makes it more difficult to do developments in CRA areaa than in non-CRA areaa. This is backwards. CRA areas are supposed to be the blighted areas so instead of making it more difficult to develop, they should make it easier than in other parts of the city. Just wondering what other's opinions of the CRA are.
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on March 18, 2009, at 03:17PM – #2
David: Actually, the CRA is paying for a lot of the Planning department's current Community Plan updates.
David on March 18, 2009, at 03:57PM – #3
Good to hear. Maybe the two can get on the same page but I still think the CRA should be folded into the Planning Department just so I don't have to get two seprate set of approvals when doing projects in the CRA areas.
Tornadoes28 on March 19, 2009, at 08:27AM – #4
I agree with David.
joseph on March 19, 2009, at 11:17AM – #5
The community plans are a ruse to deflect attention away from the one overriding Villaraigosa plan, which is to please developers for his own personal ambitions. So density will increase everywhere: that's the "plan."
Why would a community even bother with the time when they see zoning change applications in every Council Office? We already have good land-use maps, and out-of-towner Gail Goldberg is only there to service the Mayor's out-of-town developers. It's an absentee-owner town already, but this Mayor's made sure it will never be anything but one.
Bert Green on March 19, 2009, at 12:26PM – #6
joseph, i think you are wrong. The alternative to adding density to transit corridors is stopping growth and forcing artificial housing shortages that increase housing costs, increase homelessness and serve only the wealthy. Your argument is an elitist, corrupt one. Protecting current owners from "density" is a smokescreen for using government to increase private property values at everyone else's expense.
I for one am very happy that we have leadership at the CRA that has the guts to disagree with the failed suburban model that strangled LA for the past 50 years.
Jack Skelley on March 19, 2009, at 02:22PM – #7
Bert Green has it correct and Eric’s quotes from Cecilia Estolano are right on: The economic collapse we are all suffering is tied to the collapse in Los Angeles of planning and transportation infrastructure. We now have an opportunity to remake this failed approach to urbanism by using stimulus funds to build long-term, sustainable transportation and living patterns. And create sustainable jobs at the same time. (Not just pothole projects.)
The old way has proven to be a disaster. (And it’s really the “new way” since it arose only since the end of WWII.) … I know, I know, no one wants to be spending a lot of public funds, especially in the light of today’s bank bailout horrors. But only public investment will make this happen. Just as only public subsidizing of freeways and suburbs made that happen.
Carlotta on March 21, 2009, at 10:45PM – #8
This Agency should be dismantled and perhaps some of it's top people jailed after due process. I am shocked to see that Estolano has guts to be asking for more Federal money when she is sitting on $500 million dollars in the bank of UNUSED tax increment money that she collected from all of us! Yes, that's right $1/2 billion she ALREADY has available.... How dare they...