What is the Community Redevelopment Law?

Useful Rulings on Community Redevelopment Law

Rulings on Community Redevelopment Law

VERONICA JUAREZ;ET AL VS CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

“Except for those provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law that are repealed, restricted, or revised pursuant to the act adding this part, all … duties, and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies, under the Community Redevelopment Law, are hereby vested in the successor agencies.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 34173, subd. (b).) Therefore, the City has the duties previously imposed on the redevelopment agency, and the motion to strike the third cause of action is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2018

CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL LAW CITY VS. MICHAEL COHEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR

Following the announced closures, the Califomia Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 419 (presently Health and Safety Code § 33492.40) as part of Community Redevelopment Law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR

Following the announced closures, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 419 (presently Health and Safety Code § 33492.40) as part of Community Redevelopment Law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

CITY OF ANAHEIM A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY VS. MICHEAL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

The legislation later came to be known as the “Community Redevelopment Law.” The chief purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law were to help local governments remediate urban decay, revitalize blighted communities, and increase the supply of affordable housing. (Ibid; see also City of Cerritos v. Cerritos Taxpayers Assn. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424; Marek v. Napa Cmty. Redevelopment Agency (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1070, 1082.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2018

COALITION TO PRESERVE LA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES , A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

BACKGROUND Community Redevelopment Law In 1945 the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law, authorizing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies to remediate urban decay. (§ 33000 et seq.; see also California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 245-46.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2014

G8 DEVELOPMENT VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(b) All authority to transact business or exercise powers previously granted under the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) is hereby withdrawn from the former redevelopment agencies. The above language makes clear that as of Feb. 1, 2012, the CDC's function as a redevelopment agency was dissolved by operation of state law.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

G8 DEVELOPMENT VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

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[.]"

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

G8 DEVELOPMENT VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(b) All authority to transact business or exercise powers previously granted under the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) is hereby withdrawn from the former redevelopment agencies. The above language makes clear that as of Feb. 1, 2012, the CDC's function as a redevelopment agency was dissolved by operation of state law.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

The Legislature deemed such transfers not in furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law and thus “unauthorized.” (Id.) It is undisputed the RDA transferred millions of dollars of assets to the City after January 1, 2011. 2 (Opp. at 1:12-17; see also Ameling Decl., ¶¶ 11, 13, 19.) The City has little to say about who is likely to prevail on the merits. Indeed, its argument on this issue is slightly more than one page. (Opp. at 10:5 to 11:10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

As soon as the Dissolution Law took effect, the City was on notice that the Legislature had declared asset transfers like the one at issue here to be “not in furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law” and “unauthorized.” If the City nonetheless chose to contractually commit the $19.3 million over six months later, it did so at its own risk. C.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2015

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR

Factual Background 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. sites [citations], and undertake certain improvements . . . .” (Id. at 246.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2017

SKYSCRAPER BREWING COMPANY INC VS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY

SAIUDA, as the IUDA’s successor in interest, is responsible for the IUDA’s debts and obligations: “all…duties, and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies, under the Community Redevelopment Law, are hereby vested in the successor agencies.” Health & Safety Code § 34173(b). SAIUDA, then, is responsible for its predecessor’s alleged failure to keep its promise to approve the DDA prior to its dissolution.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

CITY OF GLENDALE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

CITY OF GLENDALE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

VINOD K SHARMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUDITOR CONTROLLER VS. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

The Allegedly Prohibited Transfers To preserve the assets of the former redevelopment agencies, the Legislature prohibited redevelopment agencies from transferring assets to their city sponsor after January 1, 2011: “The Legislature hereby finds that a transfer of assets by a redevelopment agency during the period covered by this section is deemed not to be in furtherance of the Community Redevelopment Law and is thereby unauthorized.” (§ 34167.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

. /// /// ' 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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

. /// /// /// 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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SUCCESSOR VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES VS. MICHAEL COHEN AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law to allow cities and 245-46.) RDAs were authorized to create and implement redevelopment plans for redevelopment project areas, and received tax dollars through a "tax increment" financing system where taxes generated by properties within a redevelopment project area were divided between local govemment entities and the RDA. (Health & Saf Code, §§ 3400 et seq.; Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 246-247.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SUCCESSOR VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES VS. MICHAEL COHEN AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

In 1945, the Legislature enacted the Community Redevelopment Law to allow cities and 1 Respondent James P. Erb, the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller, has appeared, indicating that he does not oppose the Petition. 245-46.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.