The California Redevelopment Association is challenging the constitutionality of a state budget trailer bill mandating redevelopment agencies throughout California to make a $2.05 billion state payment.
The association representing more than 350 redevelopment agencies filed suit against the state today in Sacramento Superior Court, contending that the state's taking of redevelopment funds is being used for non-redevelopment purposes.
The state action required several agencies to make budget cuts or rely on other funding resources to make their payments. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, for example, had to trim $10million from its budget and borrow $20million in housing funds to make the $30million payment.
This is the association's second lawsuit against the state. In April 2008, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly sided with the CRA, saying that lawmakers violated the constitution when they required agencies to contribute $350 million for education programs.
The funds didn't directly benefit redevelopment project areas, according to Connelly, noting that the funds are spent anywhere within a county and don't necessarily relate to school programs that benefit redevelopment project areas.
"We believe the second budget raid by lawmakers is just as unconstitutional as the first," CRA Executive Director John Shirey said in a statement. "Lawmakers ignored the State Constitution and attempted to write state budget legislation around it. That's simply irresponsible policy-making, and it illustrates why many have concluded state government is broken and needs fixing."
H.D. Palmer, deputy director of External Affairs for the California Department of Finance, has told the Press-Telegram that the state believes it has addressed the legal issues that had been at issue in the first trial.
The association representing more than 350 redevelopment agencies filed suit against the state today in Sacramento Superior Court, contending that the state's taking of redevelopment funds is being used for non-redevelopment purposes.
The state action required several agencies to make budget cuts or rely on other funding resources to make their payments. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, for example, had to trim $10million from its budget and borrow $20million in housing funds to make the $30million payment.
This is the association's second lawsuit against the state. In April 2008, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly sided with the CRA, saying that lawmakers violated the constitution when they required agencies to contribute $350 million for education programs.
The funds didn't directly benefit redevelopment project areas, according to Connelly, noting that the funds are spent anywhere within a county and don't necessarily relate to school programs that benefit redevelopment project areas.
"We believe the second budget raid by lawmakers is just as unconstitutional as the first," CRA Executive Director John Shirey said in a statement. "Lawmakers ignored the State Constitution and attempted to write state budget legislation around it. That's simply irresponsible policy-making, and it illustrates why many have concluded state government is broken and needs fixing."
H.D. Palmer, deputy director of External Affairs for the California Department of Finance, has told the Press-Telegram that the state believes it has addressed the legal issues that had been at issue in the first trial.
Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional
politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Kris Hanson reports on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
covering environmental issues, economic triumphs and
pitfalls and trade trends of America’s largest port.
He also writes a weekly column “On The Waterfront”,
appearing Tuesdays, and also produces an occassional video
and column titled “On The Job,” which follows the hard-working
men and women who keep Southern California’s economy humming.
Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
Leave a comment