Politics & Government
With Future of Redevelopment Agencies in Doubt, Supporters Cheer Lawsuit
New laws ending funding for revitalization projects violate state constitution, plaintiffs say.
A lawsuit filed with the state Supreme Court charges that lawmakers violated the state Constitution when they passed two laws aimed at eliminating redevelopment agencies.
Redevelopment supporters on the Peninsula cheered the suit, which was brought by the California Redevelopment Association, Union City, the city of San Jose, and the League of California Cities, which counts Pacifica as a member.
“California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22 just eight months ago to stop state raids, shifts and diversions of local redevelopment funds,” said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League. “The governor and Legislature have blatantly ignored the voters and violated the state Constitution. We must now go to the Supreme Court to uphold the voters’ will.”
Find out what's happening in Pacificawith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The state will save $1.7 billion this year if the changes survive the legal threat. Gov. Jerry Brown said in this crisis budget, the state needs to conserve that money for core services such as education and public safety.
The 126-page complaint filed Tuesday claims the two measures violate Proposition 22, a constitutional amendment set up to curtail state raids on local transportation funds, which voters passed easily last year.
Find out what's happening in Pacificawith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The first of the two new laws would shutter all 390 redevelopment agencies Oct. 1.
The second is a pay-to-play measure that would allow agencies to continue to operate at a greatly diminished level if their cities pay their portion of the $1.7 billion savings in the new fiscal year, and, starting in 2012-13 and continuing in perpetuity, part of $400 million.
“Many redevelopment agencies have notified us that they cannot afford the ransom payment and will cease to exist,” said John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association.
The suit seeks a stay on both laws until the case is heard by the court.
Brown has characterized redevelopment agencies as slush funds that encourage cronyism and gobble monies needed for human services. Brown and the Legislature have insisted the bills are legal.
“But the California Legislature has a long history of enacting laws that are contrary to the state Constitution, only to have them overturned later,” said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the League of California Cities.
