Yesterday, the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities and two Bay Area municipalities filed an original jurisdiction petition for writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court asserting that the California Legislature’s recent bills to eliminate redevelopment agencies, or allow them to continue to exist if they pay tribute to the state, violate the California Constitution. According the press release accompanying the petition:
The central claim in the lawsuit is that AB 1X 26/27 violate Proposition 22, the constitutional amendment passed by 61 percent of California voters in November 2010, just eight months ago. Prop. 22 was passed by voters to “conclusively and completely prohibit State politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending, or otherwise taking or interfering with” revenue dedicated to local government. The revenues protected by Prop. 22 specifically include the annual increments of property taxes allocated to California’s 400 redevelopment agencies.
The petitioners assert the petition was filed in the California Supreme Court because there was no way that a Superior Court would be able to issue a final judgment before January 2012, the date when the agencies must make a payment to the state under the bills. More from a P.R. web site with the catchy title “Redevelopment: Mend It Don’t End It” (as if the agencies have been eager to mend their ways).
We must admit to more than a touch of schadenfreude at redevelopment agencies grousing about having their “rights” trampled upon by the big bad government. Why are we ambivalent about their cries for justice? Check out “California Scheming,” the Institute for Justice’s report on how these agencies work, and then see if you don’t agree.