Difference between revisions of "California"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(change to 2011 dpl)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|<DPL>
 
|<DPL>
category=California 2010 news
+
category=California 2011 news
 
count=1
 
count=1
 
ordermethod=firstedit
 
ordermethod=firstedit
Line 39: Line 39:
 
</DPL>
 
</DPL>
 
|-
 
|-
|style="color:#000;" align="right"| [[California ballot news|...more California ballot news]]
+
|style="color:#000;" align="right"| [[California political news|...more California political news]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 14:52, 4 January 2011

California on Ballotpedia

List_of_California_ballot_measures
Ballot measures
Getting_Started_on_Ballotpedia
Contribute
California_city_and_county_ballot_initiatives
Local initiatives
Ballotpedia:California
The California project

California ballot news

Proposition 22 an insufficient bulwark against Brown's plan to end state's redevelopment agencies

SACRAMENTO, California: On December 30, the California Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of local California redevelopment agencies when it ruled that Jerry Brown and the California State Legislature did have the right to enact Assembly Bill 1X 26 in 2011. AB 1X 26 eliminates the state's approximately 400 local redevelopment agencies.[1]

Cities throughout the state, along with the League of California Cities, futilely hoped that Proposition 22, enacted in 2010, would protect the redevelopment agencies. They filed their unsuccessful lawsuit against AB 1X 26 on July 18, 2011. Plaintiffs included the California Redevelopment Association and the cities of San Jose and Union City.[2]

Brown applauded the court's ruling, saying, "Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety." Abolishing the redevelopment agencies is expected to save the state at least $1 billion a year.[1]

Some city officials decried the ruling. John Shirey, the city manager of Sacramento, said, "It means the same for us as it means for every city and county in the state, which is the redevelopment agency's out of business. Along with it are various affordable housing projects and projects to continue the revitalization of downtown that are now gone."[1]

Darrell Steinberg, Senate President Pro Tem, said that the League of California Cities may be suffering a case of 'Be careful what you ask for because you might get it': "I think it's important to recognize but for Proposition 22, the League (of California Cities)-inspired initiative, we would have a lot of flexibility to amend redevelopment in a way to keep it alive and help fund schools. I hate to say it, but it's an example of all-or-nothing politics that leads to nothing."[1]

...more California political news

California Government

Government of California
California ConstitutionSupreme CourtState AssemblyState SenateGovernorLieutenant GovernorAttorney GeneralSecretary of StateLegislative Analyst's Office

California Counties
AlamedaAlpineAmadorButteCalaverasColusaContra CostaDel NorteEl DoradoFresnoGlennHumboldtImperialInyoKernKingsLakeLassenLos AngelesMaderaMarinMariposaMendocinoMercedModocMonoMontereyNapaNevadaOrangePlacerPlumasRiversideSacramentoSan BenitoSan BernardinoSan DiegoSan FranciscoSan JoaquinSan Luis ObispoSan MateoSanta BarbaraSanta ClaraSanta CruzShastaSierraSiskiyouSolanoSonomaStanislausSutterTehamaTrinityTulareTuolumneVenturaYoloYubaAll California counties...


Ballots and elections

Laws and history

Media and activism


Californians can vote on...

Statutes from citizens
Allowed
Vetoing legislation by referendum
Allowed
Recalling officials
Allowed








Contribute to Ballotpedia

...get started now


Transparency and Judiciary

California on Sunshine Review
California Judges on Judgepedia
California Transparency on Sunshine Review California Judges on Judgepedia


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found