Public Law Section
News from the Section
Nominations now being Accepted for 2012 Public Lawyer of the Year
The Executive Committee of the Public Law Section of the State Bar of California is pleased to announce that it is accepting nominations from members of the Public Law Section, the State Bar and the public at large for the 2012 Ronald M. George Public Lawyer of the Year Award. For more information, see Public Lawyer of the Year Award.
Enter the Public Law Section Student Writing Competition – Deadline May 18
The Public Law Section seeks entries for its annual Student Writing Competition, which has a deadline of May 18, 2012. If you teach at a law school, mentor a student, or have student interns in your office, be sure to pass along information about this great opportunity. Students need not be Public Law Section members to enter the competition.
The competition is open to students at all California-accredited law schools, and the winner receives a $2,000 cash prize, transportation and hotel expenses for two nights at the State Bar Annual Meeting in October where the winner will be recognized at an awards reception, and publication in the Public Law Journal.
Articles must be 2,000-3,000 words (not including endnotes) and may be on any topic related to public law, a wide field that covers areas such as administrative law, constitutional law, municipal law, open meeting/records law, political/election law, education law, state and federal legislation, public employment and labor law, government contracts, government tort liability and regulations, land use/environmental issues, public law ethics, public finance, and water law.
Students, if you’re working on a paper for class or a law journal, and it relates to a public law topic, get more bang for your buck by entering it in the Student Writing Competition. You might win $2,000!
For more information about the Student Writing Competition, see Student Writing Competition.
Sign Up for Municipal Law Institute Symposium – February 10 at Stanford Law School
The City Attorneys’ Department will hold its annual Municipal Law Institute Symposium on Friday, February 10, 2012 at Stanford Law School.
The program, “The Once and Future City: Transformation in an Era of Financial Challenges,” qualifies for 5.5 hours of MCLE credit and is the 15th Cities on the Cutting Edge Symposium. The symposium will address how cities operate when financial resources are no longer available to provide services the public has come to expect.
The symposium will feature four panels on:
| • |
“Extreme Solutions: Reducing the Scope of Local Government,” which will include discussions of privatization efforts in several jurisdictions
|
| • |
“Entrepreneurial Cities: Reinventing Government or Disenfranchising Citizens,” which will explore matters such as contracting out, making services and public facilities self-sustaining, and public-private partnerships
|
| • |
“Pensions and the Role of Employee Unions,” which will include a discussion of avoiding public pension obligations through bankruptcy, as well as the perspective of public safety unions
|
| • |
“Stimulating the Local Economy: At What Cost?,” which will explore local hiring preferences, as well as discussion of development incentives
|
Advance registration is $100 for in-house government attorneys and $150 for others. On-site registration is $175.
For more information and the full schedule, visit http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/mlisymposium2012/ or http://www.certain.com/system/profile/form/index.cfm?PKformID=0x12061971af9
California Supreme Court Decides in California Redevelopment Association et al. v. Matosantos et al.
On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, the case which challenged the validity of recent legislation (ABX1 26 and ABX1 27) passed as part of the State’s budget compromise that sought to dissolve and reenact with changes the framework for redevelopment agencies in California. The Court unanimously upheld ABX1 26, allowing the dissolution of redevelopment agencies to proceed, but in a 6-1 decision, invalidated ABX1 27, the “voluntary” buy-back program that would have allowed redevelopment agencies to continue to operate if payments were made to state funds benefitting schools and special districts.
Regarding ABX1 26, the Court reasoned that because redevelopment agencies (or “RDAs”) were created by the Legislature, the Legislature could also eliminate them: “A corollary of the legislative power to make new laws is the power to abrogate existing ones. What the Legislature has enacted, it may repeal.” As such, the Court concluded that "Assembly Bill 1X 26, the dissolution measure, is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state Constitution."
With respect to ABX1 27, the Court felt differently. All but Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye concluded that the “voluntary payment” portions of ABX1 27 ran afoul of Proposition 22, adopted by voters in November 2010. The Court concluded that ABX1 27 was substantively indistinguishable from earlier efforts by the State to shift property tax increment from RDAs to the State’s educational revenue augmentation funds (or “ERAFs”) – the very circumstance that Proposition 22 sought to prevent. The Court therefore concluded that “Proposition 22 expressly forbids the Legislature from requiring such payments."
The Court further concluded that based upon specific provisions in the respective legislation, the Legislature intended ABX1 26 to be severable and to act independent of ABX1 27,whereas the remaining provisions in ABX1 27 were not severable from the improper payment provisions. Consequently, with respect to the issue of severability, the Court upheld ABX1 26 in its entirety, and struck down ABX1 27, also in its entirety.
Finally, the Court examined the implementation of ABX1 26 in light of the Court’s earlier partial stay and the passage of time that has rendered some of the law’s original time frames impossible. The Court concluded that it had the power to reform the law, and chose a relatively simple solution in reforming the original time frames within the law: all initial dates in ABX1 26 which fall before May 1, 2012 are shifted by four months, representing the time period during which the Supreme Court’s partial stay was in place.
For example, ABX1 26 originally required RDAs to cease operation and dissolve by October 1, 2011, unless the counties or cities that established the RDAs agreed to reduced funding (by way of committing to the payment provisions in ABX1 27). With ABX1 27 now declared invalid, only the dates in ABX1 26 remain applicable, subject to the four-month court extension for dates arising before May 1, 2012. As a result, the deadline of October 1, 2011 for redevelopment agencies to be dissolved and successor agencies to be established (such successor agencies would be responsible for continuing to make payments due for enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency), is shifted now by four months, to February 1, 2012.
However, for any time frames in ABX1 26 that occurred after May 1, 2012 or that span multiple fiscal years, the Court did not reform the deadlines. This means, for example, that for the distributions from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund required to be made by the County Auditor-Controller on January 16 and June 1 every year, the January 16, 2012, distribution is shifted by four months and is now due May 16, 2012, but the June 1, 2012, distribution (and all future distributions) remain due as set forth in ABX1 26.
The Supreme Court’s decision in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos is expected to have significant impacts on development projects depending on or expecting to receive funds or other benefits from a RDA, if the expected funds or benefits are not due pursuant to an “enforceable obligation” under AB 1X 26. In addition, the dissolution of RDAs may cause confusion and delays as municipalities restructure certain regulatory and housing-related activities from RDAs to other departments or agencies.
The full opinion can be found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S194861.PDF.
The Fall 2011 Public Law Journal Was Recently E-mailed to Members
Volume 34, No. 4, Fall 2011 - Posted in the Members Only Area
MCLE Self-Study Article
Walking the Tightrope Over Stormwater Management and Liability
By Shawn Hagerty & Gene Tanaka, Page 1
Apply for a Seat on the Public Law Section Executive Committee
Applications are due February 1, Page 6
A Message from the Chair
By Sheryl Bratton, Page 9
Meet your Executive Committee, Page 10
Public Law Section Appoints New Committee Chairs, Page 11
Why California Charter Schools Are Not, and Should Not Be, Subject to Government Code § 1090
By Gregory V. Moser, Page 13
Case Law on the Limits of CEQA Review for Design Review Is Good News for Cities and Counties Looking to Bring in New Development
By Sarah Owsowitz, Page19
2011 Ronald M. George Public Lawyer of the Year Award
State Bar Honors Richard Winnie as 2011 Public Lawyer of the Year, Page 23
Remarks of Public Law Section Immediate Past President Justine Block, Page 25
Remembering Richard Winnie: Remarks of Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Page 27
Legislation Update
By Doug Haubert, Page 29
Litigation & Case Law Update
By Scott Dickey, Page 32
Online CLE & Podcasts Available for Public Law Section Programs
A growing catalog of courses from the Public Law Section is available for purchase online. The programs offer participatory CLE credits. To view current offerings, go to www.calbar.org/online-cle and click on Public Law.
Save Money with CEB
Continuing Education of the Bar, California (CEB) is extending some special discount offers to our section. As a member of the Public Law Section, you're eligible for:
- 10% off selected CEB print or online books
- A rebate on your section dues that can be applied to the cost of a CEB Gold CLE Passport or a CLE program ticket
A complete list of the products eligible for a discount is available on a CEB web page accessible through our Members Only Area. Information about the section dues rebate program can be found on the CEB Web site.
Contact Us
The Public Law Section
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
415-538-2448
FAX 415-538-2368