Even as the redevelopment wind-down process continues, the Legislature is beginning to play around with possible ways to bring it back in a more limited form. Many of the ideas involve tinkering with tax-increment financing in ways that will hold the state financially harmless. Others would allow cities to keep some or all of their former redevelopment agencies' cash and land assets, which are likely worth several billion dollars.

LOS ANGELES -- For the wind-down of redevelopment to be anything short of a train wreck, successor agencies and oversight boards are going to need a keen understanding of real estate, public policy, economic development, and, of course, accounting. They're also going to need a lot of coffee and patience. But, according to Timothy McOsker, a member of the three-person board serving as successor agency for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, the successful completion of the wind-down process is going to require something more subtle. 

As cities across the state are contemplating if and how they can spur economic and real estate development in the absence of redevelopment, the Los Angeles County city of Alhambra has taken early steps towards a self-help plan.  

Last week the Alhambra City Council heard a first reading of an ordinance that would empower the city to employ a range of economic development tools and to pursue funds to pay for them now that tax increment financing is no longer available. The ordinance would vest in the city many of the powers that the redevelopment agency held. 

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. 

Towards the waning moments of yesterday's UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference in downtown Los Angeles, I was on the verge of deploying the following tweet via @Cal_Plan: 

"Ucla Land Use Law Conf: am in a roomful of lawyers and all seem in accord: no one has voiced support for death of #redevelopment"

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.