Cohen

After reconsidering and reviewing this matter further in light of the rehearing petition and answer, I now respectfully dissent from Parts II and IV (in part) because I no longer believe the dissolution statutes worked to impair contracts as to the Avon/Dakota revitalization project. I concur in Part III, as to prejudgment interest. Because Part I was not challenged in the rehearing petition, I will concur in the result therein. 1

BACKGROUND

On June 22, 2010, the City of Anaheim approved an agreement (dated for identification purposes June 1, 2010), between the Anaheim Housing Authority (Authority) and real party in interest The Related Companies of California LLC (Related) to improve (revitalize) what was characterized as the blighted Avon/Dakota neighborhood. The revitalization agreement provided that one or more "cooperation agreements" between Related and the Authority, the City of Anaheim (City), or the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (RDA), would use federal, state, and local funds to "provide financial assistance for the Project along with preparation and implementation of the Plan." (Maj. opn., ante , at p. ----.) The Authority would pay Related up to $4.8 million. ( Id .…

In this redevelopment case, the city of Anaheim, acting in its capacity as successor to the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, sought approval from the California Department of Finance (the department) to obtain money from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (the fund or, sometimes, the RPTTF) to pay back the city of Anaheim for payments the City of Anaheim made to a construction company to complete certain real property improvements that the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was obligated to provide on a particular redevelopment project (the packing district project). 1 The city and the city as successor characterized the transaction between themselves as a loan, but the department ultimately denied the claim for money from the fund because the city did not disburse the loan proceeds to the city as successor, but instead paid the construction company directly, and because the city as successor did not obtain prior approval for the "loan" agreement with the city from the oversight board.

Around the same time, the city as successor sought approval from the department to obtain money from the fund to make payments to the Anaheim Housing Authority (the authority) under a…