The heavy-weight boxing match continues: after California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an "informal" opposition, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) has countered with a not-so-"informal" reply brief of its own in an effort to overturn AB1X 26 and AB1X 27.
The CRA's informal reply requests oral argument in the Fall of 2011 since no one seems to dispute the urgent need for the California Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the recently passed legislation. The CRA then focuses on the Attorney General's request to consider the statutes independently and instead urges the Court to read the two together.
The reason? The CRA knows the worst-case outcome of its lawsuit is for AB1X 27 to be declared unconstitutional while AB1X 26 survives. In such a case, redevelopment agencies would lose their option to stay in existence by making the required payment to the State. And, I've heard at least a few comments that the CRA seems to have a stronger argument on the unconstitutionality of AB1X 27 since it diverts redevelopment funds (which may contradict Proposition 22).
Finally, in an effort to preserve the status quo, the CRA reiterates its request that the Supreme Court issue a temporary stay of the two statutes until an ultimate decision is made so redevelopment agencies across the state are not required pay the required funds to stay alive or cease existence.
Send us your predictions and thoughts on who will -- and should -- win this battle.
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.