By Darrell Steinberg

The run by cities and redevelopment agencies to freeze "their" funding is disappointing but not surprising. For decades, our city partners have successfully used the popular canard, "The state is balancing its budget on our backs." This finger-pointing ignores the truth that we are all part of a broken finance structure and portends one of the biggest obstacles to Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to put California's fiscal crisis behind us.

Forget the fact that the state's unhealthy relationship with local government began after Proposition 13 wiped out funding for local services. Forget the fact that the state saved local services by directing billions of dollars to local governments soon after. History guides us but doesn't necessarily move us forward together.

The governor's proposal does not seek to eliminate redevelopment in a vacuum. He proposes unprecedented cuts to every area of government. Take away the $1.7 billion redevelopment solution and the choice is to make it up with more cuts somewhere else. His budget asks a necessary question - how does a $1.7 billion subsidy for development projects rank with an additional $1.7 billion in cuts to education, child care, child welfare, and local police and fire services.

Redevelopment is funded by the property tax, which otherwise goes directly to schools and local public safety services for cities where redevelopment does not exist. Redevelopment has helped many communities. So have education and health care and help for the elderly.

The people want their representatives to make choices without considering artificial political boundaries. Every California mayor and council member represents the same constituents that my legislative colleagues represent. Those constituents care about local economic development and redevelopment. Those same people send their children to public schools and California's universities and community colleges. Those same people depend on police and fire agencies to respond quickly when they are in need. They want a government that works. They expect us to work together and don't really care who makes it work.

We must all decide together to prioritize and make choices when we don't have enough money to keep everything the same. It is not constructive for cities and redevelopment agencies to retreat and cry "don't touch us," while every other investment and service gets hit that much harder.

The history of redevelopment never contemplated the use of money otherwise intended for schools and local public safety. California's redevelopment law was enacted 65 years ago to allow local government to clear slums through the use of eminent domain. In 1952, voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing redevelopment agencies to pledge the growth in property tax revenues to the repayment of bonds. At that time, the state was not obligated to pay for the amount of school funding not covered by the property tax, as it is today. Consequently, the state now must pay for each property tax dollar that redevelopment agencies divert from schools to development projects.

The debate should not be whether redevelopment is good, but whether the state should continue this subsidy for development ahead of investing in health care, education and services for disabled people. That is the question before us today.

California's unemployment rate requires that local economic development and job creation be a high priority. The redevelopment debate should spur a broad commitment to empower cities and counties to invest in higher-wage job creation. Is redevelopment the only way? Is it the most effective way? Are there reforms to redevelopment which save money?

The debate would undoubtedly be different if cities and counties had the ability to ask their voters with 55 percent approval - like local school bonds - to fund physical infrastructure and development. We should give local communities that power.

Empowering cities and counties to grow local and regional economies is consistent with bringing services closer to the people, another key piece of the governor's budget, and crucial to fixing California's fiscal problems.

Recently, Los Angeles County Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina noted they were "anxious to partner with the governor and the Legislature" to craft a financially sustainable realignment proposal, but warned that "we can't, and won't, willingly agree to (one) that threatens to bankrupt local government."

Their admonition that these fundamental reforms be done intelligently and carefully is right. They recognize these are serious times requiring serious solutions. Their approach provides a sharp contrast to the "hide and protect" actions of some local officials.

The state is willing to make tough choices; we would rather make them with our partners. Bringing services closer to the people and creating a more stable source of funding for local and regional job creation will require a monumental lift even if we work together.

Many of my colleagues, like myself, started public service as local elected officials. We haven't forgotten where we started or the importance of local control. But the taxpayers care less about where their dollar is deposited than how it is spent.

To our local partners: We are you, and you are us. Let us decide what is most important, put the fiscal crisis in the rearview mirror, and begin rebuilding our great state.