UPDATED 2:46pm | The California Supreme Court announced today that it has agreed to take California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (S194861), the petition challenging the constitutionality of the recent budget bills (AB 1x 26 & 27) that eliminated redevelopment agencies unless they agree to make a payment to fund State obligations.  

The California Supreme Court also granted part of the stay requested by the California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities.  The stay, in effect, prevents redevelopment agencies from being forced to make the payments until the Court rules on the merits of the case.
 
“We’re very gratified that the California Supreme Court has agreed to take our case, issued the stay we requested to preserve the status quo, and that it is moving forward on an expedited basis,” said Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities. “The redevelopment bills are unconstitutional, violating Proposition 22 and other provisions of the state constitution. We look forward to presenting our case to the Court very soon. We’re confident the State Supreme Court will ultimately strike down this unconstitutional legislation that ignores the voters’ will and that will destroy local economies.”
 
The court established an expedited briefing schedule designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision before January 15, 2012, the date when redevelopment agencies are required to make their first payment.

According to the Supreme Court order, the schedule is as follows:

The return is to be served and filed by respondents on or before September 9, 2011.

A reply may be served and filed by petitioners on or before September 24, 2011.

Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be served and filed on or before September 30, 2011.

Any reply to an amicus brief may be served and filed on or before October 7, 2011.

The court does not contemplate extending any time set out above.  The briefing schedule is designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision before January 15, 2012.

10:51am | In response to the California legislature’s recent moves to abolish the state’s redevelopment program, on Tuesday night the city council unanimously declared an emergency ordinance “in order to permit the continued existence and operation of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach.”

Mayor Bob Foster ridiculed the idea that the ordinance is voluntary, “because this is clearly under duress. This is ransom. … It’s an outrage.”

On June 29, Governor Jerry Brown signed ABX 26 and ABX 27 into law. According to the recommendation presented to council by City Manager Pat West, ABX 26 more or less dismantled the state’s RDA system, while ABX 27 “establishe[d] an alternative voluntary redevelopment program … that exempts participating redevelopment agencies from the provisions of ABX 26.”

For Long Beach to participate in this program, the City “must enact an ordinance by October 1, 2011, committing the City to pay a certain amount of money into a Special District Allocation Fund and the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund on an annual basis starting in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.”

Foster called the state legislature’s handling of this issue “an entirely short-sighted process.”

Kraig Kojian, president of Downtown Long Beach Associates, spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating that while many RDAs statewide have suffered from “mismanagement,” in the case of the Long Beach RDA “we’ve seen some outstanding progress and some excellent, measureable results that have built strong communities.”

The ordinance passed 8-0, with Third District Councilmember Gary DeLong absent. A final vote on the ordinance is scheduled for August 16.

“We look forward to getting back to work,” said RDA Boardmember John Thomas. “We realize we’re going to be leaner and meaner, and that … we’re going to be a little bit more decisive in how we slice the RDA pie. But I’m glad we got the pie back.”

Foster noted that in Sacramento there are still bills pending, such as SB 450, “that would take what little redevelopment is left and make it worse. So we need to make sure that message gets to Senator [Alan] Lowenthal and others. … [Lowenthal] has said he’d like to work with us on that, so we’re going to test that notion.”