Corrections. A case involving enforcement of the Williamson Act in Tehama County and the payment of attorney fees to the state has in fact been published in full. A story in the June edition erroneously reported that only a portion of the case was certified for publication. The case is People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama County Board of Supervisors.
Why did nobody tell me that market-rate housing had become a NIMBY issue? Did I sleep this momentous event, just as I sawed a log through the Northridge earthquake? Here I am, bumbling through life as if nothing special is happening, while unbeknownst to me The Walt Disney Company is having one of its most creative moments since it released Dumbo.
A proposal to develop what amounts to a 5,000 housing-unit new town in the foothills of Yuba County is advancing, but the project still faces numerous hurdles.
A real estate company's purchase at a tax sale of townhouses owned by the Los Angeles County Housing Authority is not valid, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The City of Poway did not conduct an adequate hearing before issuing tax-exempt bonds for the purchase of a mobile home park, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The state attorney general cannot recover fees under the Code of Civil Procedure's "private attorney general" provision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled in a Tehama County case involving the Subdivision Map Act and the Williamson Act.
A California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit over the City of Fresno's move to metered water rates has been dismissed because attorneys missed a deadline.
The City of Alameda's approval of a development and disposition agreement (DDA) with a developer for restoration of an historic theater and construction of a new theater and parking structure was a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. The ruling was a loss for historic preservation advocates who did not challenge the City of Alameda's environmental review of the DDA when the city approved the study.
The City of Fresno's policy of not requiring mitigations for developments' impact on state highways is illegal, according to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
