We're trying to keep on top of the developments over the future of redevelopment in California, but by the time we can get something drafted and posted, the story has already changed. Here's a quick recap of what we know (and what we don't):
- Back in January, Governor Brown announced plans to eliminate California's redevelopment agencies as part of his plan to fix California's budget woes.
- After several heated legislative sessions, bills to accomplish the Governor's proposal repeatedly fell a single vote short in the Assembly.
- In the aftermath of the failure to pass the Governor's plan, the CRA and League of Cities (among others) worked - unsuccessfully - on various compromise solutions.
- After a period of relative silence, yesterday morning as part of another effort to adopt a budget, the legislature announced the text of two new bills to end redevelopment, AB 26x and AB 27x, which would likely eliminate redevelopment in California, at least as we currently know it.
- Within hours, both houses had passed the bills, along with the rest of the new budget plan. The CRA and other redevelopment supporters reacted almost immediately, describing the legislation as simple extortion.
Today, the game changed again - maybe. Governor Brown took swift action on the budget plan, vetoing it in dramatic fashion.
But what does this mean for the redevelopment bills? Who knows. At least as of this post, there are rumors the the Governor may also veto the various budget trailer bills, including AB 26x and AB 27x (so far, he has only vetoed the main budget bill, not the companion, or "trailer" bills such as AB 26x and AB 27x). There are also rumors that the Democrats will not submit those bills to the Governor. And there are yet other rumors that the Governor may view at least some of the trailer bills as "helpful," presumably signaling an intent to sign them.
And then there's the questions about what happens if the bills do get signed. They were passed on a simple majority vote, which would typically mean that they could not take effect until January 1, 2012. But they were coupled with the budget bill, under new authority that allows the legislature to make such bills effective immediately, even on a simple majority vote. Now that the Governor has vetoed the main budget bill, does the exception still apply to AB 26x and AB 27x? Would they instead not take effect until January 1? Or maybe they can't take effect at all, since they purport to take effect this year, something not allowed under the ordinary legislative process.
By the time you read this, the story likely will have changed again.
In the end, I cannot help but think about the ancient Chinese proverb/curse, May you live in interesting times. Interesting times, indeed.
(Disclaimer: It turns out the ancient Chinese proverb may not be so ancient - or so Chinese, but it's still an apt phrase here, with all its implications.) More later.
Rick Rayl is an experienced litigator on a broad range of complex civil litigation issues. His practice is concentrated primarily on eminent domain, inverse condemnation, and other real-estate-valuation disputes. His public ...
California Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain in California. We cover all aspects of eminent domain in California, including condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts, and report on all major California eminent domain conferences and seminars.
Stay ConnectedRSS Feed
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- Court Decisions
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- New Legislation
- Public Agency Law
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take