Vol. 22 No. 06 Jun 2007

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.

» read more | add to cart

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.

» read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

The apportionment of lots in a subdivision is not an “exaction” under the Mitigation Fee Act, a state appellate court has ruled. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart

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. » read more | add to cart