California Supreme Court Decides to Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies


Book Description

This project consists of a study of the Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) throughout California and the most recent actions from the Supreme Court shutting down more than 400 RDAs. Prior to the dissolution, RDAs "received over $5 billion in property tax revenues annually and had tens of billions of dollars of outstanding bonds, contracts, and loans." (O'Malley, 3) Due to the most recent ruling by the California Supreme Court, approximately 400 RDAs has been eliminated, leaving many questions unanswered. The purpose of RDAs was to promote local economic development in blighted urban areas. Redevelopment activities create jobs and expand businesses opportunities, provide housing for families most in need, and help reduce crime. However, many state audits throughout California concluded cities were not spending the RDAs funds correctly. On December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court upheld its decision in the California Redevelopment Association v. Ann Matosantos case, finding Assembly Bill X1 26 (AB X1 26). This meant RDAs throughout California had to "...freeze any new debt, loans, grants or acquiring any new assets or new contracts." (O'Malley, 9) The primary role of the successor agency is to make sure payments and any pending obligations with projects must be paid. An "Oversight Board" consist of seven members to assist as the successor agency. With the elimination of the redevelopment agencies leaves many worries for cities to see growth and job increases without the assistances of the state.




Kelo and California


Book Description

Report from the Committee's informational hearing -- A background paper for the Committee's informational hearing -- Written materials received by the Committee.










What is to be Done?


Book Description

Thursday, November 17, 2005, State Capitol, Sacramento.




Redevelopment and Blight


Book Description




Statewide Redevelopment Agencies


Book Description







Who Will Redevelop Redevelopment?


Book Description

Although California's redevelopment law is among the strictest in the nation, from a layperson's perspective, redevelopment agencies (RDAs) appear to be no more obstructed from their projects in California as they would be in, say, Connecticut. This article addresses a sort of tragedy of the commons problem applied to redevelopment: If redevelopment powers are over-harvested such as to instigate serious political revolt against them, they will become barren and useless, and will no longer be available for the purposes for which they were intended and for which they are still needed. Even assuming that redevelopment is efficacious and necessary, restrictions on redevelopment ought not be vacuous. In a post-Kelo society, redevelopment finds itself in danger of being neutered of its ability to do what it is truly meant to do: to overcome market failure in urban areas and restore and preserve the vitality of our communities. If redevelopment agencies abuse their powers by manipulating the market rather than facilitating it, they expose themselves to political attack in an already volatile property rights climate. We are in need of reform that reminds RDAs why they exist in the first place: market-facilitation, not revenue-generation. The problem cannot be properly addressed at the local level. In the example of 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, it became clear that unscrupulous businesses will employ hostage-taker strategies to capture the RDA's eminent domain power. Cities are left resorting to economically-cogent-yet-legally-pathetic claims such as future blight in order to appease 800 pound gorillas such as Costco or Wal-Mart. Thus it is not enough simply for local governments to self-regulate their use of eminent domain - it must be regulated from without. Because an ill-conceived redevelopment regime allows rent-seekers to blackmail cities, and entices cities to use coercive bargaining and offend landowners' sensibilities, RDAs are in danger of ruining the tools it needs to achieve the purpose of true blight removal, the purpose for which it was designed. Thus without careful review, RDAs threaten to kill the golden goose. The solution is to remove the blight in our redevelopment law, and redevelop the principles and policies underlying redevelopment agencies.