Legal Opinion
Lancaster Redevelopment Agency v. Dibley
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 18, 1993No. B071317PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
The question in this case is whether the Lancaster Redevelopment Agency may issue bonds secured by funds earmarked for low- and moderate-income housing to fund an “improvement” which has little, if anything, to do with the construction of affordable housing for the persons intended to be benefitted by the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), section 33000 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code. Our answer is no.
Overview of the CRL
A
In concept, the CRL was intended to help local governments revitalize blighted communities by reversing the decline of urban slum…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- South Central Coast Regional Commission v. Charles A. Pratt Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1982
- Olincy v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Leach v. City of San MarcosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Citizens for Non-Toxic Pest Control v. Department of Food & AgricultureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
3Cited by10 opinions
- California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- County of Riverside v. City of MurrietaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- FONTANA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. TorresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Craig v. City of PowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Greystone Homes, Inc. v. CakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.