Last April, the City Manager Blair King and I met with the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors to discuss using county funds for refurbishing the Grape Bowl.

During the meeting, Board Chairman Victor Mow quickly recognized the opportunity a redevelopment project presented to the city of Lodi.

"This is a classic case of where redevelopment money might be the answer to this problem," Mow said, referring to a potential Grape Bowl project. It was obvious to the chairman, and it should also be obvious to the residents of Lodi that the time has come for us to take a serious look at the benefits of redevelopment.

Thursday evening's joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission at the Lodi Boys and Girl's Club was the first step in what will be a two-year process in revitalizing a large part of our community. I don't yet know what area may be designated as a redevelopment project area. I don't know how much money will be raised or what projects this capital might fund.

But I am firmly convinced that a redevelopment area is right for Lodi.

By having an active redevelopment area, we keep a greater share of newly generated property tax revenue in Lodi. Despite commentary from critics, funding for the county and school districts isn't reduced in a redevelopment area.

During the meeting, we heard encouraging testimony from a school district representative. In fact, revenues to counties and school districts continue to climb as property values increase.

The cities of Stockton, Manteca, Tracy and Ripon have active redevelopment agencies that have funded millions of dollars in public improvements — projects which may not have been possible without the revenue stream provided through the state's redevelopment laws.

Manteca, similar in size to Lodi, generated $12.8 million in revenue during fiscal 2005-2006 through its redevelopment agency. In the same year, Tracy generated $5.9 million in redevelopment income. Galt's redevelopment agency received nearly $2.5 million in the same time frame.

In Lodi, a redevelopment project will provide more money for affordable housing programs. It will also be a funding source for projects the city can't currently afford. It might provide money for the installation of water meters, help rehabilitate the Grape Bowl, replace an aging HVAC unit at the library, fund needed street improvements, etc. — all without imposing a sales or parcel tax. Using redevelopment money for such worthy projects will free the city to spend more money on such essential services as public safety.

The Lodi District Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Committee, and the Lodi Conference and Visitors Center recognize the benefit of a redevelopment agency and are supporting this exciting method of providing additional funding for our city.

Redevelopment Agencies have their critics who continually ignore the benefits of these funding mechanisms. They would rather focus on their favorite red herring: "eminent domain." This argument fell out of bed last year when the Lodi City Council passed an ordinance banning the use of eminent domain for the benefit of a private interest. Those who may be skeptical of council motives should note that the California Legislature is working toward placing an amendment to the State Constitution on the November 2008 ballot. If passed, this amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain for anything other than a "public" benefit.

Curt Pringle, former Assembly Speaker and now Mayor of Anaheim, touts his city's successful use of redevelopment without the use of eminent domain. Anaheim received nearly $35 million in redevelopment funds in fiscal 2005-2006, and some property values more than quadrupled 18 months after the plan was adopted.

There is absolutely no reason why redevelopment can't work for the city of Lodi! The time has come to embrace this concept!

Bob, You state you do not know what area, or how much money, or what projects, but you are firmly convinced a redevelopement area is right for Lodi. You don't know all the important stuff but are firmly convinced? What? How? I think others have convinced you. You go on to state how much money cities have raised but leave out the important "at what price" factor. Deductive reasoning is gathering all the facts and making a considered decision. What I see is you and a few others making a decision and then looking for excuses to prove you are right and hiding all the negative aspects which I am finding are considerable and scary. You have the power to fix this. If only you get the facts and change your vote this whole problem will go away. You alone can make the difference. Be a hero.