Cohen

City of Montclair v. Cohen

Good Law
20 Cal. App. 5th 238·228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 844
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 2018C080430; C081817California6,487 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Raye, J.

*846 *242 The question of first impression presented by these consolidated appeals is whether housing authorities that assume the housing functions of their former redevelopment agencies, when a city or county purportedly elect not to, are eligible for the housing entity administrative cost allowance the city or county is not eligible to receive. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 34171.) 1 The parties concede that the entities involved in these appeals are a reporting entity of the city or county, a component of the city or county, or are controlled by the city or county. (§ 34167.10.) In City of Montclair et al. v. Michael Cohen, Director of the Department of Finance, et al. (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2014, No. 34-2014-80001948-CU-WM-GDS) ( City of Montclair ), the trial court found the housing authority was eligible for the allowance; but in Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Rosa et al. v. Michael Cohen, Director of the Department of Finance, et al. (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2015, No. 34-2015-80002051-CU-WM-GDS) ( City of Santa Rosa ), the trial court found the statutory scheme rendered the housing authorities ineligible for the allowance. 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.