Eminent Domain Report

The existence of California's redevelopment agencies continues to make headlines across the state.  Despite the pending lawsuit between the CRA and the State concerning the constitutionality of AB1X 26 and AB1X 27, local government agencies are still taking things into their own hands, sometimes in very opposite directions.  Two examples:

The City of Ukiah:  Over a year ago, we reported that the local business community was urging the City of Ukiah to reinstate its redevelopment agency's power of eminent domain in an effort to eliminate blight.  (Yes, you read that correctly.)  The ...

We reported earlier this month that a referendum to ultimately decide the fate of redevelopment agencies could make its way onto California's 2012 ballot.  Eminent domain opponent Marko Mlikotin had obtained clearance to begin collecting signatures to overturn ABX1 27, the bill that allows California's redevelopment agencies to avoid extinction by paying money back to the State.  With the CRA's pending lawsuit to decide the fate of ABX1 26 and ABX1 27, Mlikotin's collection efforts have apparently been nixed. 

According to a Capitol Alert article by Torey Van Oot, "Referendum of ...

On Thursday we reported the California Supreme Court’s decision to assert jurisdiction over the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of AB 26 X1 and AB 27 X1.  The Court also issued a partial stay of AB 26 X1 and a complete stay of AB 27 X1.  While the Court’s actions were designed to preserve the status quo until it renders a final decision in January, the status quo can mean very different things to different agencies.

For those that could not afford the payments necessary to re-establish themselves, the Court’s action is nothing short of a stay of execution.  But for those ...

We'll have more soon, but I wanted to report quickly that the California Supreme Court announced today that will assert jurisdiction over the CRA's lawsuit involving the constitutionality of AB 26 X1 and AB 27 X1, the bills involving the dismantling of California's redevelopment agencies. 

The Court also announced a partial stay of the legislation while it considers the case.  A news release by the Judicial Council of California describes the scope of the Court's stay as follows:

The court allowed the first statute [the one that eliminates redevelopment agencies] to remain in effect ...

The California redevelopment circus continues today, as California's Secretary of State approved two potential referendums for the 2012 ballot.  One involves rural homeowners and payments for fire services; for our purposes, it's not very exciting (and since I'm pretty sure I don't live in a rural area, I'm not going to join that fray). 

But the other one is more interesting.  It's a proposal promoted by eminent domain opponent Marko Mlikotin to overturn AB X1 27.  For those who have trouble keeping score with all the bill numbers, this is the one that allows California's redevelopment ...

The heavy-weight boxing match continues:  after California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an "informal" opposition, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) has countered with a not-so-"informal" reply brief of its own in an effort to overturn AB1X 26 and AB1X 27.

The CRA's informal reply requests oral argument in the Fall of 2011 since no one seems to dispute the urgent need for the California Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the recently passed legislation.  The CRA then focuses on the Attorney General's request to consider the statutes ...

The battle continues over redevelopment in California.  Yesterday, the Attorney General filed an "Informal Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate."  The document is 20 pages long, with a 4-page list of Legal Authorities, so it really isn't very "informal"; still, that's what she called it.

Not surprisingly, Attorney General Kamala Harris takes the positions that:

1. AB1X 26 and AB1X 27 are constitutional, and
2. The CRA has not justified a stay in their enforcement. 

The Attorney General does not challenge the CRA's decision to file its lawsuit directly in the California Supreme ...

While Governor Brown's push to eliminate redevelopment agencies seemed to drag on forever, California's redevelopment agencies were not so slow to act once the long-contemplated ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 became law.  On Monday, the redevelopment agencies filed suit directly in the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn the recent enactments.

The redevelopment agencies are represented by the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities.  San Jose and Union City also joined in the lawsuit claiming they will face elimination since they cannot make the ...

For months, we've been reporting on the impending death of California's redevelopment agencies.  Even we had started to feel like the "boy who cried wolf" as we reported on iterations of the Governor's budget plan that didn't come to fruition. 

But this time, it's real.  Along with an overall budget package, this week the Governor signed into law ABX1 26 and ABX1 27.  ABX1 26 eliminates redevelopment agencies in California.  ABX1 27 provides a means of survival if the agencies will pay the state, collectively, $1.7 billion next year (the savings the Governor claims ABX1 26 would generate by ...