30
neighborhoods. They typically operate in low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. “Most
CDCs more or less share goals such as the empowerment of neighborhood constituencies,
community control over local businesses, industrial and residential development, the
economic improvement of poor neighborhoods and their residents, and the strengthening of
institutions that will accomplish these goals (Wiewel, Weintraub, 1990:160). The movement
of CDC has grown since the 1980s. Many CDCs are active in providing financial assistance
for the production of low-cost housing, commercial and industrial development projects, and
the encouragement of small businesses in their communities. They supply equity capital,
loans and technical assistance to businesses. Housing and rehabilitation, however, is the
primary activity of CDCs. “The work that many CDCs engage in is called gap financing”
(Wiewel, Weintraub, 1990:160). In addition, private foundations are traditionally involved in
social partnerships.
The proposed typology of public-private partnerships reflects the wide range of intersectoral
partnership activities in the US. The growing number of functional areas being addressed by
public-private partnerships includes first and foremost downtown commercial development as
well as housing, education, high-technology business, and neighborhood revitalization. Most
critics assert that public-private partnership models in the US are broadly focus on downtown
development at the expense of neighborhood revitalization.
IV. Case Studies
The following chapter deals with partnership approaches in the Sunshine state. For that
purpose I chose Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Ana as case studies. The big cities of Los
Angeles and San Diego are highly engaged in public-private partnerships in urban
development. Here, public-private partnerships have been established particularly in the
context of redevelopment under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code, § 3300 et seq.). Especially the City of San Diego has been engaged in intersectoral
partnership approaches. Moreover, the city can be described as highly entrepreneurial since it
has been involved in equity participation. Two development projects should provide an
overview of the risk sharing partnership approach of the City of San Diego. Santa Ana, in
contrast, has hardly been involved in co-development and equity participation in urban
development. The city, however, provides interesting examples of public-private partnership
approaches on a low involvement level of the public sector as well as informal or indirect
intersectoral partnerships. Furthermore, I consider Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) as
a form of public-private partnerships. I found several examples of such public-private sectors
cooperation particularly in the City of Los Angeles and San Diego.
A. Formal and Informal Partnerships in Santa Ana in efforts to revitalize
downtown
To understand the formation of public-private partnerships in the City of Santa Ana it is
useful to describe the evolution of the city after the World War II at first. Santa Ana is the
oldest city of Orange County and lies 33 miles southeast of Los Angeles. Before 1965 the
city was the political, cultural, and economic center of the county. In the 1960s, however, the
economy of the city changed considerably. As the wealthy of Orange County moved to the
mountains and Newport Beach, retail in the city began to deteriorate. New centers of retail
were developed in Newport Beach (Fashion Island) and Costa Mesa (South Coast Plaza).