Bloodgood
Community Redevelopment Agency v. Bloodgood
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 ].)