January 2011

The core of California redevelopment law tells redevelopment agencies what they can fight against – blight – and it enables them to identify project areas in which to do so. Generally, the law does not, however, indicate what blight should be replaced with. As a result, critics have charged that redevelopment often funds vanity projects such as stadiums at the expense of what they consider more socially beneficial developments.

What would life be like in California without redevelopment?

The Second District Court of Appeal has upheld a determination by the Department of Industrial Relations that required public improvements in a master planned community project to abide by prevailing wage laws. The court further ruled that Mello-Roos proceeds are “public funds,” and that once a project is deemed a “public work” under the Prevailing Wage Law, all public portions of the project are subject to the law – including those public improvements that are privately financed.

The clamp on local governments in California grows only tighter and tighter.

The number and detail of state mandates continues to increase. The ability to raise revenue continues to decrease. The amount of litigation never decreases. Redevelopment is in doubt. Keeping a city or county out of financial or legal trouble seems to get more difficult every year.

Those were the implicit – and sometimes explicit – messages during the UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference in Los Angeles last Friday. As always at the conference, expert practitioners and analysts reviewed last year’s lawmaking, rulemaking and courtroom activity, and speculated about the year ahead. It was difficult to detect many rays of light for cities or counties.