Yesterday afternoon the California Supreme Court issued a partial stay as requested by the lawsuit brought against the State by the California Redevelopment Association and the California League of Cities. And, just like the governor, legal analysts, and legislators before them, the court also failed to actually read the legislation before choosing what bits to stay and what bits to allow to remain active.
In a nutshell, AB 26 is the legislation that went into effect on June 30, 2011 that suspended all rights of Redevelopment Agencies and provided the framework for the dissolution of those agencies and the wind-down of all redevelopment activities. AB 27 is the legislation that provides the formula and the legal mechanism by which Redevelopment Agencies could pay a ransom to reactivate and then would make yearly ransom payments to continue to function. Most agencies in the state had selected to pay the ransom. A few were still deciding.
About this legislation – first, I’m no lawyer, but I’ve been immersed in this legislation for the last three weeks or so – to the point that I have a working list of serious problems. It is two pages long. Single spaced. And I didn’t even attempt to work out the problems in the formula – though the accountants I’ve been working with tell me that the formula has two gaping holes – one of which results in a circular calculation that breaks Excel and the other of which results in the Agency, after making the first payment, never having to make another payment to the state again.
Dear legislature – nice job. You broke Excel.
My list has things like blatant contradictions and spots where the same money is supposed to go to three different places at the same time and things like mandates without processes. The legislation tells agencies what they are supposed to do, but not how they are supposed to do it, and just to make things as interesting as possible, it eliminates the most straightforward means of complying with its own rules.
The stay, though, takes that whole convoluted mess to a new level. It maintains the limbo that strips redevelopment agencies of their operating rights, and it maintains the financial obligations that redevelopment agencies have in bonds and existing debt and contracts. BUT then it stays the part of the legislation that gives redevelopment agencies the ability to actually pay on those obligations. So after August 28 every redevelopment agency in California will either be in violation of the stay or in violation of the still active section of AB 26.
Yossarian? Are you listening?
Each agency will need to decide what law to break. Do they violate the stay and adopt the payment schedule required by the active section of the legislation to pay on their contracts? Or do the break the still active law and default on their legal obligations so that they don’t violate the stay?
Hmm. What to do…
Here’s the kicker. I’m an intern. Just an intern. And I’ve picked up on this. Over there at the Capitol building and over in the courthouse there are supposed to be some seriously smart people doing some seriously smart stuff. And then they hand out product like this. Stuff like this sure adds validity to all those complaints about the efficiency and effectiveness of government – even as I sit and work in the offices of a local government that has created new standards of efficiency – standards that rival private industry.
One bad apple…
Oh, and that affordable senior housing project that I’ve been working on? The one that was on this infill site situated between two light rail stops? The one that was so green that it was going to be a net-zero energy consumption project? That one? It’s dead. As of yesterday afternoon. And the hundreds of hours spent on it gone to waste. I’d almost call it ironic that the actual victim of both the legislation and the court ordered partial stay is affordable housing, but then that’s no fly in my chardonnay.
urbanhistori 