Capitol Alert: Cities say Jerry Brown's redevelopment plan is unconstitutional

The League of California Cities today called Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies unconstitutional.

League Executive Director Chris McKenzie and lawyer Steve Merksamer, who drafted Proposition 22, said in a call with reporters this morning that the governor's redevelopment plan would violate the measure passed by voters in November.

McKenzie said the the agencies will sue if Brown 's plan to eliminate them clears the Legislature.

"We have authorization, from both the League of California Cities and the California redevelopment agencies, to file a lawsuit if this legislation is approved by the legislature," McKenzie said.

He added that the suit would likely be based on the legal grounds laid out in the call. Other jurisdictions would likely join the suit, he said.

Proposition 22 prohibited the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment or local government projects and services.

"If they are going to directly violate Proposition 22 within months of the voters telling them how to vote, then they will have to deal with the consequences of an outraged electorate," McKenzie said.

Merksamer said the plan violated other portions of the state constitution that require all redevelopment tax increment funds be deposited into the special fund of a redevelopment agency to repay loans and indebtedness to finance redevelopment projects.

On top of that, he said the proposal would violate portions of Proposition 13 that require property tax revenue be collected and distributed to the local districts within each county. Merksamer said the governor's plan also violates 2004's Proposition 1A, which amended the constitution to prohibit the state from using property tax revenue to reimburse local governments for mandated new programs.

Brown spokesman Evan Westrup defended the redevelopment plan.

"We are confident that the governor's proposal is legally sound," he said. "While bloated redevelopment agencies are fast-tracking billions of dollars, hiring high priced law firms and threatening lawsuits, teachers are facing layoffs and public safety budgets are being slashed in cities across the state. Legal obstruction and obfuscation won't get us any closer to addressing California's massive budget deficit."

Merksamer rejected the notion that the governor's proposal skirted Proposition 22 by totally eliminating redevelopment agencies.

"Proposition 22, in and of itself, is not concerned with the existence of redevelopment agencies," Merksamer said. "It simply controls the use of tax increment funds and says they can't be used to benefit the state in any way, shape or form, with or without redevelopment agencies, period, end of story."

"For all these reasons," he said, "the administration's proposal, in our collective view and we've discussed with this a lot of city attorneys as well and a lot of other attorneys, in our collective view, is unconstitutional."