California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos
Supreme Court of California
267 P.3d 580 (2011)
To redirect property-tax revenue back to schools, the California legislature passed two measures: one dissolving redevelopment agencies outright, and another letting agencies continue operating only if they made payments benefiting school districts. Affected agencies and municipalities (plaintiffs) sued the state finance director (defendant), arguing both measures violated Proposition 22, a constitutional amendment barring the state from requiring such payments from redevelopment agencies; the state argued the payments were technically voluntary since agencies could choose dissolution instead.
Whether the state legislature retains inherent power to dissolve an agency it created, and whether a separate measure conditioning an agency's continued operation on payments to the state violates a constitutional provision barring the state from requiring such payments.