Didn’t the California Supreme Court already deal the final blow to California’s redevelopment agencies when it held that the state legislature could eliminate redevelopment agencies without violating the California Constitution because what the lege giveth, the lege may taketh away? In California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, No. S194861 (Dec. 29, 2011) the court upheld the statute dissolving redevelopment agencies.
Apparently, however, there are residual issues. In 2009, “the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 26, requiring redevelopment agencies throughout the state to contribute portions of their property tax increment funding for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years into supplemental educational revenue augmentation funds (SERAF‘s) to be used for financing K-12 education in redevelopment areas.” As a result, redevelopment agencies were forced to transfer funds to the state general fund to offset other state-funded local programs.
In the latest case, California Redevelopment Ass’n v. Matosantos, No. C064907 (Cal. App. Jan 24, 2013), the California Court of Appeal (3d District) held:
we conclude the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority in directing redevelopment agencies to deposit portions of their property tax funding into SERAF‘s. In California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231 (Matosantos), the California Supreme Court upheld the Legislature‘s power to dissolve redevelopment agencies altogether. Inherent in the power to dissolve is the power to limit funding available to redevelopment agencies. And because Assembly Bill 4X 26 does not otherwise violate constitutional limitations on the use of property taxes or impair contractual obligations of redevelopment agencies or their successors, we conclude it is a valid exercise of the Legislature‘s inherent budgetary powers.
Slip op. at 3.
We’re at the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain conference, so don’t have time to review the rather lengthy opinion (50 pages) or go into detail of how the opinion deals with each of the CRA’s challenges. But the opinion appears to be worth a read if this sort of thing floats your boat.
Bottom line: redevelopment agencies lose again.
California Redevelopment Ass’n v. Matosantos, No. C064907 (Jan. 24, 2013)