Victor Valley Econ. Dev. Auth. v. California CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 25, 2014C072518California4,162 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Legal Background Regarding Redevelopment Agencies As briefly summarized by our Supreme Court:

“In the aftermath of World War II, the Legislature authorized the formation of community redevelopment agencies in order to remediate urban decay. [Citations.] The Community Redevelopment Law [CRL] ‘was intended to help

2 local governments revitalize blighted communities.’ [Citations.] It has since become a principal instrument of economic development, mostly for cities, with nearly 400 redevelopment agencies now active in California.” (California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-246 (Matosantos).)

“Responding to a declared state fiscal emergency, in the summer of 2011 the Legislature enacted two measures intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or eliminating the diversion of property tax revenues from school districts to the state’s community redevelopment agencies. (Assem. Bill Nos. 26 & 27 (2011-2012 1st Ex. Sess.) enacted as Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, chs. 5-6 (hereafter Assem. Bill 26 and Assem. Bill 27) [Citations].) [Assem. Bill 26] bars redevelopment agencies from engaging in new business and provides for their windup…

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.