Legal Update: Redevelopment Bills Challenged: CRA Files Lawsuit Challenging Redevelopment Bills By Basil "Bill" Shiber and JoAnne L. Dunec

more+
less-

ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were enacted by the State Legislature in late June as “trailer bills” to help implement the state budget bill. The purpose and effect of the bills is to reallocate tax revenue which would otherwise go to redevelopment agencies to other government functions.

ABX1 26 dissolves current redevelopment agencies as of October 1, 2011. Property tax increment that would have been allocated to the agency will be deposited into a trust fund in the county in which the agency operates, to be allocated to other local taxing entities. ABX1 27 provides that if a local jurisdiction commits to make specified payments to fund local schools and other local government functions by adopting a “continuation ordinance,” the agency may continue to operate and function without regard to the October 1, 2011 elimination date specified in ABX1 26. The agency’s payment obligation is its proportionate share of $1.7 billion, which the Legislature views as the local jurisdiction’s share of the approximately $5 billion in property tax revenues which will be “diverted” to redevelopment agencies in 2011-2012. The redevelopment agencies view the legislation as an effort to strong-arm financial contributions to fund obligations of the State, under threat of termination of the agencies.

On July 19, the California Redevelopment Agency, League of California Cities, City of Union City, and City of San Jose filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to restrain implementation of these bills, and a temporary stay pending resolution of the petition. The petition was filed in the California Supreme Court due to the importance of the issue. The primary argument made in the petition is that the legislation violates Proposition 22, adopted by the voters in November 2010. Proposition 22 added Article XIII, Section 24(b) to the California Constitution and provides that the Legislature “may not reallocate, transfer, borrow, appropriate, restrict the use of, or otherwise use” a tax imposed by a local government for local government purposes, and also prohibits the Legislature from requiring redevelopment agencies to “pay or transfer their property tax increment for the benefit of the State.”

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Business Organization Updates, Elections & Politics Updates, Commercial Real Estate Updates, Residential Real Estate Updates, Tax Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Miller Starr Regalia | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »