<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stop Kelo Or Get Fired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372</link>
	<description>High Flying Political Debate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sbd</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372/comment-page-1#comment-4587</link>
		<dc:creator>sbd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372#comment-4587</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redevelopment.com/norby/ch01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Redevelopment: The Unknown Government&lt;/a&gt;

The Unknown Government
Chapter 1 
There is an unknown layer of government in California, which few understand.

This unknown government currently consumes 8 percent of all property taxes statewide, $1.5 billion in 1997. It has a total indebtedness of over $41 billion.

It is supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby, backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.

Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without a vote of the citizens affected.

Unlike other levels of government, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval.

Unlike other government entities, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests.

This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries.

It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created.

Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on California&#039;s public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight.

This unknown government is Redevelopment.

It is time Californians knew more about it.

State law allows a city council to create a redevelopment agency to administer one or more &quot;project areas&quot; within its boundaries. An area may be small, or it can encompass the entire city.

These project areas are governed by a redevelopment agency with its own staff and governing board, appointed by the city council.

Thus, an agency and city may appear to be one entity. Often city councils appoint themselves as agency members, with council meetings doubling as redevelopment meetings. Legally, however, a redevelopment agency is an entirely separate government authority, with its own revenue, budget, staff and expanded powers to issue debt and condemn private property.

Out of California&#039;s 471 cities, 359 have created redevelopment agencies. No vote of the residents affected was required. No review by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was done.

Californians often confuse redevelopment with federal &quot;urban renewal&quot; projects typical of large eastern cities of the 1940s-&#039;60s. Sadly, the methods and results are often similar. Yet redevelopment is a state-authorized layer of government without federal funds, rules or requirements. It is entirely within the power of the California legislature and voters to control, reform, amend or abolish.


SBD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.redevelopment.com/norby/ch01.htm" rel="nofollow">Redevelopment: The Unknown Government</a></p>
<p>The Unknown Government<br />
Chapter 1<br />
There is an unknown layer of government in California, which few understand.</p>
<p>This unknown government currently consumes 8 percent of all property taxes statewide, $1.5 billion in 1997. It has a total indebtedness of over $41 billion.</p>
<p>It is supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby, backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.</p>
<p>Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without a vote of the citizens affected.</p>
<p>Unlike other levels of government, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval.</p>
<p>Unlike other government entities, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests.</p>
<p>This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries.</p>
<p>It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created.</p>
<p>Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on California&#8217;s public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight.</p>
<p>This unknown government is Redevelopment.</p>
<p>It is time Californians knew more about it.</p>
<p>State law allows a city council to create a redevelopment agency to administer one or more &#8220;project areas&#8221; within its boundaries. An area may be small, or it can encompass the entire city.</p>
<p>These project areas are governed by a redevelopment agency with its own staff and governing board, appointed by the city council.</p>
<p>Thus, an agency and city may appear to be one entity. Often city councils appoint themselves as agency members, with council meetings doubling as redevelopment meetings. Legally, however, a redevelopment agency is an entirely separate government authority, with its own revenue, budget, staff and expanded powers to issue debt and condemn private property.</p>
<p>Out of California&#8217;s 471 cities, 359 have created redevelopment agencies. No vote of the residents affected was required. No review by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was done.</p>
<p>Californians often confuse redevelopment with federal &#8220;urban renewal&#8221; projects typical of large eastern cities of the 1940s-&#8217;60s. Sadly, the methods and results are often similar. Yet redevelopment is a state-authorized layer of government without federal funds, rules or requirements. It is entirely within the power of the California legislature and voters to control, reform, amend or abolish.</p>
<p>SBD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: clintsf</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372/comment-page-1#comment-4572</link>
		<dc:creator>clintsf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372#comment-4572</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s worth remembering when the New York Times pontificates on eminent domain, that they have a vested interest:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what&#039;s going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times. 

The world&#039;s most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block&#039;s other property owners didn&#039;t want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted. &lt;/a&gt; (via CBS)

It&#039;s a bit disingenuous for them to now pretend to be a disinterested party in this debate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s worth remembering when the New York Times pontificates on eminent domain, that they have a vested interest:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml" rel="nofollow">In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what&#8217;s going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times. </p>
<p>The world&#8217;s most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block&#8217;s other property owners didn&#8217;t want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted. </a> (via CBS)</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a bit disingenuous for them to now pretend to be a disinterested party in this debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Political Pit Bull</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372/comment-page-1#comment-4566</link>
		<dc:creator>The Political Pit Bull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1372#comment-4566</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The Washington Post, Justice Stevens, and Kelo&lt;/strong&gt;

The Washington Post has a front page&#160;story today practically begging Justice John Paul Stevens not to retire:





Stevens&#039;s remarkable staying ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Washington Post, Justice Stevens, and Kelo</strong></p>
<p>The Washington Post has a front page&nbsp;story today practically begging Justice John Paul Stevens not to retire:</p>
<p>Stevens&#8217;s remarkable staying &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

