Resident and community organizations petitioned for writ of mandate challenging redevelopment agency’s, housing authority’s, and city’s alleged failure to use 20 percent of city tax increment revenues in support of low- and moderate-income housing under the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL).
The Superior Court sustained demurrer without leave to amend. Resident and organizations appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- CRL did not subject city to its redevelopment agency’s statutory duty to use tax increment revenues for affordable housing;
- Redevelopment agency dissolution law did not subject city to its redevelopment agency’s statutory duty to use tax increment revenues for affordable housing; and
- City’s agreement to receive tax increment revenues from redevelopment agency did not require city to use the revenues for affordable housing.