“In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay.” (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46.)
“Under this method [of financing], those public entities entitled to receive property tax revenue in a redevelopment project area (the cities, counties, special districts, and school districts containing territory in the area) are allocated a portion based on the assessed value of the property prior to the effective date of the redevelopment plan.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246; see also Health & Safety Code § 33670.) “Any tax revenue in excess of that amount — the tax increment created by the increased value of project area property — goes to the redevelopment agency for repayment of debt incurred to finance the project.” (Id.) “In essence, property tax revenues for entities other than the redevelopment agency are frozen, while revenue from any increase in value is awarded to the redevelopment agency on the theory that the increase is the result of redevelopment.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246-47; see also § 33670.) “The excess or increased property tax revenue that was purportedly generated by redevelopment (and that was thus allocated to the redevelopment agency) was referred to as “tax increment.” (Id. at 246-47.) By 2011, redevelopment agencies were receiving 12 percent of all property tax revenue in the state. (Id. at 247.)
“A redevelopment agency may be (and usually is) governed by the sponsoring community's own legislative body.” (California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246 citing Health & Safety Code § 33200; Coomes et al., Redevelopment in California (4th ed. 2009) pp. 21–23.) “An agency is authorized to ‘prepare and carry out plans for the improvement, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of blighted areas.’” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246 citing Health & Safety Code § 33131(a).) “To carry out such redevelopment plans, agencies may acquire real property, including by the power of eminent domain (Health & Safety Code § 33391(b)), dispose of property by lease or sale without public bidding (Health & Safety Code §§ 33430, 33431), clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites (Health & Safety Code §§ 33420, 33421), and undertake certain improvements to other public facilities in the project area (Health & Safety Code § 33445). (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246.)
“While redevelopment agencies have used their powers in a wide variety of ways, in one common type of project the redevelopment agency buys and assembles parcels of land, builds or enhances the site's infrastructure, and transfers the land to private parties on favorable terms for residential and/or commercial development.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246 citing Coomes, at 16–19; see, e.g., Marek v. Napa Community Redevelopment Agency, supra, 46 Cal.3d at 1075.)
“In 1976, the Legislature amended the Community Redevelopment Law to require redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20 percent of their tax increment to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of low and moderate income housing in their territorial jurisdiction.” (Health & Safety Code § 33334.2; § 33334.3; Craig v. City of Poway (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 319, 325-26.) “The court refers to this as the ‘20 percent set aside requirement’ or the ‘20 percent housing set aside.....’ [t]his money had ‘to be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used.’” (Health & Safety Code § 33334.3(a).)
In June 2011, the Legislature enacted AB1X 26, eliminating both redevelopment agencies and the tax increment funding that financed them. In December 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AB1X 26 in Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th 231. Since then, the Legislature has amended the provisions of AB1X 26 several times. The court refers to AB1X 26 and the various amendments thereto as the “Dissolution Law.” One of the primary goals of the Dissolution Law was to increase the share of property taxes going to cities, counties, schools and other local entities by reallocating to them the tax increment formerly allocated to redevelopment agencies. (See, e.g., Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 241, 250, 263; 2011 Stats., 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 5, § 1.) A complete reallocation, however, would not happen immediately because the Dissolution Law did not eliminate redevelopment agencies’ existing obligations even though the agencies themselves were eliminated. Once redevelopment agencies were dissolved, the Legislature established successor agencies to wind down their affairs. (Health & Safety Code §§ 34173, 34177.) Among other things, successor agencies are responsible for making payments due on the former redevelopment agencies’ “enforceable obligations.” (Health & Safety Code § 34177, subds. (a), (c).)
The Dissolution Law provides the term “enforceable obligation” includes “[a]mounts borrowed from, or payments owing to, the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of a redevelopment agency, which had been deferred as of the effective date of the [Dissolution Law],” provided the successor agency’s oversight board approves the repayment schedule. (Health & Safety Code § 34171(d)(1)(G).)
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.) "To carry out such redevelopment plans, [RDAs could] acquire real property,... clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements…. " (Id., at p. 246.)
THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC ENTITY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH & VS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SECOND SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED OVERSIGHT BOARD, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC FORMED
34-2020-80003382-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 13, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC ENTITY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH & VS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SECOND SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED OVERSIGHT BOARD, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC FORMED
2020-80003382
Aug 13, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.) "To carry out such redevelopment plans, [RDAs could] acquire real property,... clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . ."
CITY OF CHULA VISTA VS. KEELY BOSLER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CALIFORNIA STATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
34-2019-80003123-CU-WM-GDS
Jan 08, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF CALEXICO VS. KEELY MARTIN BOSLER AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2020-80003339-CU-WM-GDS
Nov 20, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Factual And Procedural Background Background of Redevelopment Prior to Jime 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, etseq.) ("CRL") authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies ("RDAs") to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS SUCCESSOR VS. KEELY BOSLER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2018-80003028-CU-WM-GDS
Sep 04, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
The Community Redevelopment Law expressly requires that CRA/LA provide the required housing “[p]rior to the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan.” (Ibid.) How CRA/LA elects to satisfy the 15% Requirement is a matter of discretion and may be completed at any time before the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan expires on May 7, 2027. (SGSUPP1336, 1304.)
COALITION TO PRESERVE LA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES , A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCP00017
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. V. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.) "To carry out such redevelopment plans, [RDAs could] acquire real property,... clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . ."
CITY OF CHINO, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. KELLY BOSLER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2019-80003140-CU-WM-GDS
Mar 13, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. /// /// /// Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2019-80003149-CU-WM-GDS
Feb 14, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
On February 28, 2019, AHF and Liveable LA filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, alleging five causes of action: Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Violations of Planning and Zoning Law and Community Redevelopment Law Requirements Violations of Community Redevelopment Law by Failure to Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area Writ of Mandate – Compel Compliance with the CRL Replacement Obligation
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP03387
Feb 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 28, 2019, AHF and Liveable LA filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, alleging five causes of action: Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Violations of Planning and Zoning Law and Community Redevelopment Law Requirements Violations of Community Redevelopment Law by Failure to Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area Writ of Mandate – Compel Compliance with the CRL Replacement Obligation
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP03387
Nov 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law in 1945, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; 1 see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].) Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH
34-2018-00228770-CU-BC-GDS
Oct 04, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF BEAUMONT, A CHARTER CITY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2019-80003049-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 09, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
The FAP assert causes of action for (1) violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); (2) violations of Planning and Zoning Law (“PZL”) and Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”) requirements; (3) violations of the CRL for failure to provide sufficient affordable housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area; (4) writ of mandate to compel compliance with the CRL; and (5) declaratory relief. The FAP alleges in pertinent part as follows.
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP00520
Jun 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
THE RELEVANT LAW The Community Redevelopment Law and Tax Increment Financing In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL LAW CITY VS. MICHAEL COHEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002762-CU-WM-GDS
Jun 07, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
In so doing, the Legislature declared that "a transfer of assets by a redevelopment agency...is deemed not to be in the furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law and is thereby unauthorized." Health & Safety Code § 34167.5. In addition, pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 34178(a), "agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city or county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency and the redevelopment agency are invalid and shall not be binding on the successor agency[.]"
G8 DEVELOPMENT VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
37-2015-00030154-CU-BC-NC
Jun 06, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
THE RELEVANT LAW The Community Redevelopment Law and Tax Increment Financing In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.;' see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4* 231, 245-46 ["Matosantos"].) Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
CITY OF GLENDALE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2018-80002919-CU-WM-GDS
Mar 08, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2018-80002930-CU-WM-GDS
Mar 01, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Following the announced closures, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 419 (presently Health and Safety Code § 33492.40) as part of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL.)
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
34-2017-80002637-CU-WM-GDS
Feb 15, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
“Except for those provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law that are repealed, restricted, or revised pursuant to the act adding this part, all … duties, and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies, under the Community Redevelopment Law, are hereby vested in the successor agencies.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 34173, subd. (b).) Therefore, the City has the duties previously imposed on the redevelopment agency, and the motion to strike the third cause of action is denied.
VERONICA JUAREZ;ET AL VS CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PSC1403469
Dec 04, 2018
Riverside County, CA
. /// Background of Redevelopment Prior to Jime 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) ("CRL") authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies ("RDAs") to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF HAYWARD VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2018-80002804-CU-WM-GDS
Nov 30, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Following the announced closures, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 419 (presently Health and Safety Code § 33492.40) as part of Community Redevelopment Law.
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR
34-2016-80002502-CU-WM-GDS
Oct 19, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law to allow cities and 245-46.) RDAs were authorized to create and implement redevelopment plans for redevelopment project areas, and received tax dollars through a "tax increment" financing system where taxes generated by properties within a redevelopment project area were divided between local govemment entities and the RDA. (Health & Saf Code, §§ 3400 et seq.; Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 246-247.)
CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES VS. MICHAEL COHEN AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002743-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 17, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
The Allegedly Prohibited Transfers To preserve the assets of the former redevelopment agencies, the Legislature prohibited redevelopment agencies from transferring assets to their city sponsor after January 1, 2011: “The Legislature hereby finds that a transfer of assets by a redevelopment agency during the period covered by this section is deemed not to be in furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law and is thereby unauthorized.” (§ 34167.5.)
VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
34-2013-80001396-CU-WM-GDS
Jul 26, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
LEGAL BACKGROUND In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].) 2 Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as “tax increment” financing.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002603-CU-WM-GDS
May 18, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
The legislation later came to be known as the “Community Redevelopment Law.” The chief purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law were to help local governments remediate urban decay, revitalize blighted communities, and increase the supply of affordable housing. (Ibid; see also City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Assn. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424; Marek v. Napa Cmty. Redevelopment Agency (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1070, 1082.)
CITY OF ANAHEIM A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY VS. MICHEAL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002691-CU-WM-GDS
Apr 20, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].) 2 Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as “tax increment financing.”
CITY OF NORCO A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY VS. MICHAEL J COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOROF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002653-CU-WM-GDS
Apr 13, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SUCCESSOR VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2017-80002615-CU-WM-GDS
Mar 09, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Factual and Procedural Background Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF BRENTWOOD VS. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2016-80002498-CU-WM-GDS
Oct 13, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
. /// /// Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
CITY OF BRENTWOOD VS. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
34-2016-80002498-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 18, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Factual Background Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . .” (Id. at 246.)
INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR
34-2016-80002502-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 11, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).
ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING V. EL DORADO COUNTY
PC-20160346
Jul 20, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
(b) All authority to transact business or exercise powers previously granted under the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) is hereby withdrawn from the former redevelopment agencies. The above language makes clear that as of Feb. 1, 2012, the CDC's function as a redevelopment agency was dissolved by operation of state law.
G8 DEVELOPMENT VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
37-2015-00030154-CU-BC-NC
Jun 05, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
SAIUDA, as the IUDA’s successor in interest, is responsible for the IUDA’s debts and obligations: “all...duties, and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies, under the Community Redevelopment Law, are hereby vested in the successor agencies.” Health & Safety Code § 34173(b). SAIUDA, then, is responsible for its predecessor’s alleged failure to keep its promise to approve the DDA prior to its dissolution.
SKYSCRAPER BREWING COMPANY INC VS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
KC068505
Jan 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
As soon as the Dissolution Law took effect, the City was on notice that the Legislature had declared asset transfers like the one at issue here to be “not in furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law” and “unauthorized.” If the City nonetheless chose to contractually commit the $19.3 million over six months later, it did so at its own risk. C.
VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
34-2013-80001396-CU-WM-GDS
Apr 24, 2015
Sacramento County, CA
BACKGROUND Community Redevelopment Law In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay. (§ 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46.)
VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
34-2013-80001396-CU-WM-GDS
Oct 31, 2014
Sacramento County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
