California's redevelopment agencies are to shut down Feb. 1. Good riddance.

Too often, they abused their power to siphon off property taxes and subsidized projects of questionable value to the general public.

Still, there are some issues that need resolving to protect taxpayers from further harm. One is to make sure cities don't have to hold fire sales of property.

"Successor" agencies – in most cases the cities that created the redevelopment agencies – will be responsible for completing projects already under way and paying off debts. Under the direction of new local oversight boards, they are to also dispose of agency assets "expeditiously and in a manner aimed at maximizing value."

But there are no timelines or guidance what to do if those two goals come into conflict.

Sale proceeds, once debts are repaid, are to go to school districts and other local taxing agencies. That windfall would be on top of property taxes – about $5 billion in 2011-12 – that redevelopment agencies are diverting from the state, school districts and counties.

Senate leader Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento (who gives his views on Page 5 in today's Forum) says he favors giving at least some proceeds to cities to help fund economic development, perhaps targeted to transit-friendly projects and those that create high-wage jobs. That's certainly worth exploring.

No one really knows the full extent or value of the hundreds of properties and other holdings; that will become clearer with audits that are due by July 1, but it could be in the billions of dollars.

Redevelopment agencies control some prime pieces of property across the state. For instance, West Sacramento's has the site for the planned California Indian Heritage Center. Agencies also own scattered parcels that cities need for future sidewalks and rights-of-way.

If they are forced into quick sales, officials fear that speculators might buy up properties on the cheap, and then later resell them to cities at jacked-up prices. While cities shouldn't be allowed to hold on to these assets forever, dumping lots more property into an already depressed real estate market doesn't seem wise, either.

There are always going to be complications in unwinding sprawling operations like redevelopment agencies, however. That isn't reason enough to delay their demise.

Redevelopment supporters are spinning all sorts of doomsday scenarios and warning of mass layoffs and unending lawsuits as they push legislation, Senate Bill 659, to give the 400-odd agencies a reprieve until April 15.

There's no need for the bill. The agencies have had plenty of time to get their affairs in order, and cities and other successor agencies can handle their dissolution.

The redevelopment agencies were originally set to dissolve Oct. 1, until they sued. The Feb. 1 date was set by the state Supreme Court, which in its Dec. 29 decision not only upheld the Legislature's right to abolish the agencies, but also wiped out a bill to allow them to stay in business in a more limited form – if they made payments to the state.

The agencies want the postponement for yet another chance to cut a deal to stay alive in some form. Legislators should be very wary. If they consider anything at all, they should focus on giving local officials more flexibility to finance affordable housing, transit-oriented development and truly urban projects that have difficultly securing private funding.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who has been talking with other big-city mayors about the situation, is concerned that two projects crucial to downtown's future – K Street and the railyard – will be slowed considerably.

West Sacramento, which has spent some $130 million on redevelopment projects, could be in better shape. Officials there are exploring whether they can use the economic development powers of the port district, which covers the entire city. Mayor Christopher Cabaldon still worries, however, how the city will fund parks, piers and other amenities for the riverfront.

With the end of redevelopment, cities will have fewer economic development tools. They are going to have to be much more selective on what projects to pursue, to pick those that will have the biggest and widest benefit to the public.

That's not such a bad result.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.