Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationCal. Supreme Court Won't Review San Francisco Redevelopment Initiative
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
According to this report from the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Supreme Court has denied review of Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco, 167 Cal. App. 4th, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the decision held:
The Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee (DBHPC) gathered the required number of signatures on a petition to force a citywide referendum on an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point community. The City and County of San Francisco (the City) rejected the petition because it failed to include a copy of the 57-page redevelopment plan that had been incorporated by reference in the ordinance when the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco voted to approve it. DBHPC's ensuing petition for a writ of mandate compelling the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Clerk) to accept the referendum petition was denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment denying DBHPC relief.
According to the report:
The Board of Supervisors voted in May 2006 to place nearly 1,400 acres, more than half of Bayview-Hunters Point, under control of the city Redevelopment Agency.
Backers said the plan would reduce blight, promote affordable housing and provide startup money for businesses from new tax revenue.
Opponents, the Committee to Defend Bayview Hunters Point, said property seizure and gentrification would displace residents and businesses.
In other words, the redevelopment plan will not be put to a vote of the people, and it is full steam ahead for the project. The critical part of the report is the last paragraph:
When Hunters Point underwent redevelopment in the 1970s, the city said it would replace housing for residents who were forced to leave, but most of the promised housing was never built. The city is now offering the former residents or their descendants top priority for any available affordable housing if they live in San Francisco and meet income standards.
Any bets on whether it will be diffferent this time around?
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on January 29, 2009 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
Condemned Redevelopment
City of Baltimore agrees to $7.8 million property use dispute settlement with Warner Street Inc.
Bay Bridge Oil Spill
Hudson Marine Management Services pays city of San Francisco $2 million settlement to help with cleanup costs.
FDA Issues Update on Safety Review Orlistat
Orlistat FDA Issues Update on Safety Review
Ballot Device
Election Systems and Software agrees to pays city of San Francisco $3.5 million settlement after problems with AutoMARK lead to prolonged hand counting of votes.
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

Redevelopment Plan - Implementation
Designation of Property as Being Necessary for Redevelopment
State Supreme Court to hear arguments against Prop. 8
Supreme Court May Hear San Francisco ERISA Healthcare Case
"Gay rights groups ask California Supreme Court to block initiative banning same-sex marriage"
Redevelopment Takings - Statutory Authority and Limitations







