Hogar Dulce Hogar v. Community Development Commission
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION1]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, J.
Under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, 2 § 33000 et seq.) (CRL), local redevelopment agencies receive so-called tax increment funds generated by redevelopment projects they have initiated. The CRL requires that 20 percent of such tax increment funds be placed in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (Housing Fund). The Legislature has directed that, in general, Housing Fund proceeds should be used to increase, improve or preserve a community’s supply of housing affordable to very-low-low-, and moderate-income individuals and families.
In this case an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of La HabraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Green v. ObledoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Dryden v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- Hogar v. Community Development CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- State Ex Rel. Metz v. Ccc Information Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Garrison v. Oracle Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.