“In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay.” (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46.)
“Under this method [of financing], those public entities entitled to receive property tax revenue in a redevelopment project area (the cities, counties, special districts, and school districts containing territory in the area) are allocated a portion based on the assessed value of the property prior to the effective date of the redevelopment plan.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246; see also Sec. 33670.) “Any tax revenue in excess of that amount — the tax increment created by the increased value of project area property — goes to the redevelopment agency for repayment of debt incurred to finance the project.” (Id.) “In essence, property tax revenues for entities other than the redevelopment agency are frozen, while revenue from any increase in value is awarded to the redevelopment agency on the theory that the increase is the result of redevelopment.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246-47; see also § 33670.) “The excess or increased property tax revenue that was purportedly generated by redevelopment (and that was thus allocated to the redevelopment agency) was referred to as “tax increment.” (Id. at 246-47.) By 2011, redevelopment agencies were receiving 12 percent of all property tax revenue in the state. (Id. at 247.)
“A redevelopment agency may be (and usually is) governed by the sponsoring community's own legislative body.” (California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246 citing 33200; Coomes et al., Redevelopment in California (4th ed. 2009) pp. 21–23.) “An agency is authorized to ‘prepare and carry out plans for the improvement, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of blighted areas.’” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246 citing sec. 33131(a).) “To carry out such redevelopment plans, agencies may acquire real property, including by the power of eminent domain (Sec. 33391(b)), dispose of property by lease or sale without public bidding (Secs. 33430, 33431), clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites (Secs. 33420, 33421), and undertake certain improvements to other public facilities in the project area (Sec. 33445). (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246.)
“While redevelopment agencies have used their powers in a wide variety of ways, in one common type of project the redevelopment agency buys and assembles parcels of land, builds or enhances the site's infrastructure, and transfers the land to private parties on favorable terms for residential and/or commercial development.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 246 citing Coomes, at 16–19; see, e.g., Marek v. Napa Community Redevelopment Agency, supra, 46 Cal.3d at 1075.)
“In 1976, the Legislature amended the Community Redevelopment Law to require redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20 percent of their tax increment to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of low and moderate income housing in their territorial jurisdiction.” (Sec. 33334.2; Sec. 33334.3; Craig v. City of Poway (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 319, 325-26.) “The court refers to this as the ‘20 percent set aside requirement’ or the ‘20 percent housing set aside.....’ [t]his money had ‘to be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used.’” (Sec. 33334.3(a).)
In June 2011, the Legislature enacted AB1X 26, eliminating both redevelopment agencies and the tax increment funding that financed them. In December 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AB1X 26 in Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th 231. Since then, the Legislature has amended the provisions of AB1X 26 several times. The court refers to AB1X 26 and the various amendments thereto as the “Dissolution Law.” One of the primary goals of the Dissolution Law was to increase the share of property taxes going to cities, counties, schools and other local entities by reallocating to them the tax increment formerly allocated to redevelopment agencies. (See, e.g., Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 241, 250, 263; 2011 Stats., 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 5, Sec. 1.) A complete reallocation, however, would not happen immediately because the Dissolution Law did not eliminate redevelopment agencies’ existing obligations even though the agencies themselves were eliminated. Once redevelopment agencies were dissolved, the Legislature established successor agencies to wind down their affairs. (Secs. 34173, 34177.) Among other things, successor agencies are responsible for making payments due on the former redevelopment agencies’ “enforceable obligations.” (Sec. 34177, subds. (a), (c).)
The Dissolution Law provides the term “enforceable obligation” includes “[a]mounts borrowed from, or payments owing to, the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of a redevelopment agency, which had been deferred as of the effective date of the [Dissolution Law],” provided the successor agency’s oversight board approves the repayment schedule. (Sec. 34171(d)(1)(G).)
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.) "To carry out such redevelopment plans, [RDAs could] acquire real property,... clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . ."
Jan 08, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Jan 08, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Nov 20, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Factual And Procedural Background Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Sep 04, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Factual And Procedural Background Background of Redevelopment Prior to Jime 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, etseq.) ("CRL") authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies ("RDAs") to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Sep 04, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
The Community Redevelopment Law expressly requires that CRA/LA provide the required housing “[p]rior to the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan.” (Ibid.) How CRA/LA elects to satisfy the 15% Requirement is a matter of discretion and may be completed at any time before the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan expires on May 7, 2027. (SGSUPP1336, 1304.)
Jun 30, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. V. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.) "To carry out such redevelopment plans, [RDAs could] acquire real property,... clear land and construct infrastructure necessary for building on project sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . ."
Mar 13, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevel. Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Mar 13, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. /// /// /// Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) (“CRL”) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Feb 14, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. /// /// ' III Background of Redevelopment Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 33000, et seq.) ("CRL") authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies ("RDAs") to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted commimities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Feb 14, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
On February 28, 2019, AHF and Liveable LA filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, alleging five causes of action: Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Violations of Planning and Zoning Law and Community Redevelopment Law Requirements Violations of Community Redevelopment Law by Failure to Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area Writ of Mandate – Compel Compliance with the CRL Replacement Obligation
Feb 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
For present purposes, it is sufficient to note the following: The Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; 3 see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].)
Dec 06, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
On February 28, 2019, AHF and Liveable LA filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, alleging five causes of action: Violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Violations of Planning and Zoning Law and Community Redevelopment Law Requirements Violations of Community Redevelopment Law by Failure to Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area Writ of Mandate – Compel Compliance with the CRL Replacement Obligation
Nov 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law in 1945, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; 1 see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].) Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
Oct 04, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
The Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law in 1945, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf Code § 33000 et seq.;' see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4"' 231, 245-46 {''Matosantos"].) Redevelopment agenciesftmdedtheir activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
Oct 04, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Ca/. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Aug 09, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Aug 09, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
The FAP assert causes of action for (1) violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); (2) violations of Planning and Zoning Law (“PZL”) and Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”) requirements; (3) violations of the CRL for failure to provide sufficient affordable housing in the Hollywood Redevelopment Area; (4) writ of mandate to compel compliance with the CRL; and (5) declaratory relief. The FAP alleges in pertinent part as follows.
Jun 10, 2019
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
THE RELEVANT LAW The Community Redevelopment Law and Tax Increment Financing In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
Jun 07, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
In so doing, the Legislature declared that "a transfer of assets by a redevelopment agency...is deemed not to be in the furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law and is thereby unauthorized." Health & Safety Code § 34167.5. In addition, pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 34178(a), "agreements, contracts, or arrangements between the city or county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency and the redevelopment agency are invalid and shall not be binding on the successor agency[.]"
Jun 06, 2019
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
THE RELEVANT LAW The Community Redevelopment Law and Tax Increment Financing In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.;' see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4* 231, 245-46 ["Matosantos"].) Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
Mar 08, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
THE RELEVANT LAW The Community Redevelopment Law and Tax Increment Financing In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate blight and urban decay. (Health & Saf. Code § 33000 et seq.; 1 see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46 [“Matosantos”].) Redevelopment agencies funded their activities primarily through what is known as tax increment financing.
Mar 08, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Mar 01, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Prior to June 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33000, et seq.) (CRL) authorized the establishment of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to remediate urban decay and revitalize blighted communities. {Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 246.)
Mar 01, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Following the announced closures, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 419 (presently Health and Safety Code § 33492.40) as part of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL.)
Feb 15, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.