The Sonoma Press Democrat has a four page overview Addressing Redevelopment Dissolution Issues. The article also addresses what may be instituted in the future — infrastructure finance districts (IFD) and how these districts differ from the defunct RDAs. They require public input for projects that hold genuine tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents. This article is worthy of a good read.
It’s doubtful that duplicating city buildings, or an unnecessary state-of- the-art subterranean performing arts theater would pass muster. So sad… I guess this means no magnanimous 29 Palms City Arch will be build over SR 62 as a gateway to a isolated and remote desert city with no services to the east for a hundred miles .
The abolishment of redevelopment programs touched off what has proven to be an enduring political and legal fight between the state and local governments. Here is a brief update:
Through mid-February, a total of 181 lawsuits had been filed by municipalities challenging the state’s move on various grounds.
Of those cases, 82 were decided in the state’s favor, six have gone against the state, five partially favored the state and 49 remain active pending Superior Court hearings, according to the state Finance Department. Another 39 suits were filed but are not active, said Finance Department spokesman H. D. Palmer.
Brown’s proposal says that local governments could take advantage of the expanded IFDs only “on the conclusion of any outstanding legal issues between the successor agency, the city or county that created the (redevelopment agency) and the state.” Other requirements include audits by the state controller and approvals from the Finance Department.
Does that mean Brown’s proposal, in its present form, could clear the decks of litigation by requiring warring parties to resolve their legal differences?
“We believe so,” Palmer wrote in an email.
Sonoma Press Democrat, page 4.
Twentynine Palms legal matter has been heard in a Sacramento County Court. It is pending Judge Kenny’s minute order.