California Redevelopment Association, Petitioners v. — Cantil-Sakauye, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

The Chief Justice concurred in specified portions of the majority opinion but dissented from the conclusion that Assembly Bill IX 27 was facially unconstitutional. She reasoned that Proposition 22, strictly construed according to its text, prohibits compelling redevelopment agencies to transfer tax-increment funds but does not prohibit community sponsors from making payments with otherwise available funds or using tax-increment amounts as a calculation measure. She further concluded that petitioners' limited and contrary evidence failed to establish an unconstitutional conflict in all or most applications. No separate opinion was provided in the supplied record.