Year Published
2001
Abstract
For over half a century, federal and most state laws empowering local
governments to act as urban redevelopers have attempted to confine such
activity to blighted areas. Nowhere have the statutory definitions of blight,
and judicial enforcement of those standards, been more rigorous than in
California. In two recent cases, Diamond Bar and Mammoth Lakes, appellate courts
struck down redevelopment proposals for crossing the blight line. This paper
describes those cases in light of the evolution of the blight requirement. It ends
up questioning whether the 1993 California legislature was right in trying to
limit local government’s use of redevelopment solely to those older urban areas
showing unmistakable signs of physical decay.
governments to act as urban redevelopers have attempted to confine such
activity to blighted areas. Nowhere have the statutory definitions of blight,
and judicial enforcement of those standards, been more rigorous than in
California. In two recent cases, Diamond Bar and Mammoth Lakes, appellate courts
struck down redevelopment proposals for crossing the blight line. This paper
describes those cases in light of the evolution of the blight requirement. It ends
up questioning whether the 1993 California legislature was right in trying to
limit local government’s use of redevelopment solely to those older urban areas
showing unmistakable signs of physical decay.
Research Category