Supreme Court Upholds Law Eliminating California's Redevelopment Agencies
Today, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, the case challenging ABX1 26 and ABX1 27. In a decision foreshadowed by the tone of last month's oral argument, the Court upheld ABX1 26, but struck down ABX1 27 as a violation of California's Proposition 22:
- "Assembly Bill 1X 26, the dissolution measure, is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state Constitution."
- "A different conclusion is required with respect to Assembly Bill 1X 27, the measure conditioning further redevelopment agency operations on additional payments by an agency‘s community sponsors to state funds benefiting schools and special districts. Proposition 22 ... expressly forbids the Legislature from requiring such payments."
This means that the law eliminating California's redevelopment agencies stands, while the law that would have provided a mechanism to reinstate redevelopment agencies upon making certain "voluntary" payments was struck down. The bottom line: the decision ends redevelopment in California.
We will have more on the opinion in the very near future. In addition, we will be hosting a free webinar on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the opinion, its implications, and what happens from here. We hope you'll join us, you can register here.
UPDATE, 2:05 p.m. While we digest the opinion and attempt to write something meaningful about it, Robert Thomas has already managed two substantive blog posts on the case today, including a short summary of the opinion and a good collection of early reports on the decision.
