For the handful of cities that have declined to serve as their own successor agencies, Gov. Jerry Brown has appointed governing boards that will oversee the dismantling of those cities' redevelopment agencies. The governor appointed one governing board per county, so in counties with multiple cities without successor agencies, one board will oversee all of those cities.
As redevelopment agencies shut down last week, criticism shifted from the decision to dissolve them in the first place to the method by which they were dissolved. Assembly Bill X1 26 has been roundly decried as sloppy legislation that was, according to some potential scenarios, never intended to be implemented. Critics say that its provisions may hinder successor agencies' ability to make bond payments and that it includes ambiguous language that could leave projects in limbo.
For now, redevelopment in California is dead. But that hasn't eliminated the need for public policy to support urban revitalization. Indeed, Gov. Jerry Brown still supports aggressive policies in this vein – for example, implementing the SB 375 regional planning law passed in 2008 as part of the climate change effort, and streamlining environmental review for infill projects.
San Diego politicians and land-use officials have become polarized over an unusual controversy pitting one of the city's largest private employers against an apartment developer in the city's downtown area. At issue is whether the proposed Fat City development in the Little Italy neighborhood threatens the operations of nearby Solar Turbines.
On the occasion of redevelopment's demise in California, CP&DR editor Josh Stephens caught up with Jim Kennedy, the interim executive director of the California Redevelopment Association. Kennedy has been on the front lines of the unsuccessful effort to win CRA vs. Matosantos and, since the Dec. 29 Supreme Court ruling, has been lobbying for legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown to extend the Feb. 1 deadline for dissolution while also helping member agencies prepare for the worst. >>read more
The California Supreme Court's decision to strike down AB X1 27 and uphold AB X1 26 set off a frantic timeline by which redevelopment agencies essentially must preside over their own funerals while "successor agencies" take control of their assets and contracts. Since the Dec. 29 court decision, at least one legislative effort -- Senate Bill 659 -- and two lawsuits have tried to delay dissolution, but to no avail.
Among the roughly 400 redevelopment agencies that will shut down tomorrow, the vast majority have effectively elected to dig their own graves. That was one of the stipulations of AB X1 26, that cities may serve as their own successor agencies, which will oversee the wind-down of operations, liquidation of assets, and payment of outstanding obligations.
UPDATE: Friday afternoon Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly refused to grant a stay against the dissolution of redevelopment, rejecting arguments advanced in two separate suits, led by the cities of Cerritos and Carlsbad. The ruling means that the dissolution of redevelopment will proceed Feb. 1 as ordered by the state Supreme Court.
Despite intense lobbying from supporters of redevelopment, Senate Bill 659, sponsored by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles) appears headed for defeat. Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento) yesterday told the Sacramento Bee, "It's not going to happen."