Bloodgood

Community Redevelopment Agency v. Bloodgood

Good Law
182 Cal. App. 3d 342·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1711·226 Cal. Rptr. 924
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 13, 1986B013145California1,300 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

The issue in this case is whether a community redevelopment agency is entitled to a share of the delinquency penalties, interest and redemption penalties arising from unpaid property taxes within its jurisdiction. We find the agency is entitled to share in this revenue when property sold for unpaid taxes is redeemed. Therefore, we affirm the judgment below.

Facts and Proceedings Below

The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (agency) is an agency created by law and charged with the duty to prepare and implement a plan to halt and eradicate blight within its jurisdiction. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33030-33039.) The agency itself has no power to levy taxes to finance its projects. It is authorized to borrow money by issuing bonds and other means. (Health & Saf. Code, § 33601.) The agency’s major source of funds to repay its debts is its share of property taxes levied by other government agencies on property within a redevelopment project area. (Cal. Const., Art. XVI, § 16; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33670-33677; see Bell Community Redevelopment Agency v. Woosley (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 24, 27 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 788 ].)

The system by which the agency shares in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.