15
Fulton stresses that there “is simply no other planning tool in California that gives local
governments such sweeping power [...]” (Fulton, W., 1999:246).
To conclude, since federal urban programs have dropped remarkable and Proposition 13 in
California further diminished the ability of local governments to pay for needed infrastructure,
cities have few alternatives to redevelopment activities.
TIF has been used as financial tool for infrastructure improvements especially in downtown
by cities of all sizes. Common redevelopment projects have been: (1) the improvement or
expansion of an existing shopping center through, for instance, redesigning and reconstructing
a nearby freeway interchange and improving access, (2) the improvement of CBDs in
cooperation with downtown business owners, and (3) encouraging more nighttime uses in
downtown and provide parking for daytime shoppers. As we have seen, redevelopment
provide an essential framework for public-private partnerships in the US. In this connection
TIF is an important financial tool that have backed public-private development financing. A
TIF redevelopment project has to pay for itself. Through the issuance of tax increment bonds
local governments have provided ‘up-front’ financing. Since TIF and the financing of
redevelopment projects depend on private sector investment, plans and agreements are, in
contrast to urban renewal, in accordance with the need of the business community.
b) Institutional Innovation Partnerships have brought about
Discussing redevelopment including TIF in the preceding section I already mentioned
redevelopment agencies as institutional innovation in the 1950s and important instrument for
public-private cooperation in urban development. Another essential tack toward public-
private partnership building in urban development in the US was the establishment of quasi-
public and quasi-private organizations.
Public-private development institutions were new launched in urban redevelopment in the late
1970s for carrying out development projects. They have been formed to join the public and
the private sectors as well as to pool resources more efficiently. The combination of both
public and private representatives on the same task force or corporation “represents a major
shift from traditional public/private relationships” (CUED, 1978:165). The development and
use of a new kind of public-private development institution have unquestionable been
contributed to joint public-private development projects. Public-private institutions reflect the
institutionalizing process of public-private partnerships. The establishment of formal
institutions have occurred at both the planning and implementation levels (CUED, 1978:166).
Joint planning institutions include committees to set up new development policies. Joint
institutions with implementation capacities are quasi-public corporations or private
development authorities.
“These organizations can be either quasi-public corporations that exercise public powers and
authority to use special financial tools provided through federal, state, and local governments
or independent, usually nonprofit corporations established under general nonprofit
corporation law serving public purposes with boards made up of public- and private-sector
representatives” (CED, 1982:43). Development Corporations provide a specialized service to
the city on a contractual basis in contrast to city agencies which serve a permanent function
(Lyall, 1982:40).
Quasi-public corporations, nonprofit development corporations, and economic development
corporations are organizations with delegated powers and responsibilities from both sectors
that has been growing since the 1980’s (compare: Lyall, K. C., 1986:12). In quasi-public
entities public-private negotiating has taken place, actually beyond conventional public
entities. This corporations had and still have extraordinary powers traditionally reserved for