Public Law Section
News from the Section
2012 Public Lawyer of the Year Honoree Announced!
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing director Phyllis Cheng has been named the 2012 Ronald M. George Public Lawyer of the Year Award by the California State Bar’s Public Law Section.
Appointed in 2008, Cheng heads the largest state civil rights agency in the nation. She previously was of counsel at national employment and labor law firm Littler Mendelson; a senior appellate attorney for 2nd Court of Appeal Justice Laurie Zelon; a deputy attorney general in the Civil Rights Enforcement Section of the California Department of Justice; and an associate at Hadsell & Stormer, where she practiced employment discrimination law.
Cheng will be honored Oct. 12 at the State Bar’s Annual Meeting in Monterey. The Public Lawyer of the Year Award recognizes Cheng as an exceptional lawyer who dedicated a significant portion of her career to public service.For more information, see Public Lawyer of the Year Award.
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 Spring 2012 Public Law Journal Was Recently E-mailed to Members
Volume 35, Number 2 - Posted in the Members Only Area
MCLESelf-Study Article
Legal Issues in Automated Photo Enforcement Cases: Two Published Decisions Place Spotlight on Red Light Camera Prosecution
By Melissa Crosthwaite, Page 1
A Message from the Chair
By Sheryl Bratton, Page 10
Public Law Section to sponsor 7 MCLE programs at State Bar Annual Meeting
Page 11
There’s Still Time to Enter the Public Law Section Student Writing Competition – Deadline May 18
Page 12
Off-Site Public Improvements as a Map Condition: Negotiating an Off-Site Acquisition Agreement and Litigating the Developer-Funded Eminent Domain Case
By Alan A. Sozio and Thomas D. Jex, Page 14
Can A Lawful Arrest Be Negligent?
By Michael R. Linden and Justin B. Atkinson, Page 19
Legislation Update
By Doug Haubert, Page 22
Litigation & Case Law Update
By Scott Dickey, Page 26
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