City of Montclair v. Cohen

The question of first impression presented by these consolidated appeals was whether housing authorities that assume the housing functions of their former redevelopment agencies, when a city or county purportedly elect not to, were eligible for the housing entity administrative cost allowance the city or county was not eligible to receive. The parties conceded that the entities involved in these appeals were a reporting entity of the city or county, a component of the city or county, or are controlled by the city or county. In City of Montclair et al. v. Michael Cohen, Director of the Department of Finance, et al. (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2014, No. 34-2014-80001948-CU-WM-GDS) (City of Montclair), the trial court found the housing authority was eligible for the allowance; but in Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Rosa et al. v. Michael Cohen, Director of the Department of Finance, et al. (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2015, No. 34-2015- 80002051-CU-WM-GDS) (City of Santa Rosa), the trial court found the statutory scheme rendered the housing authorities ineligible for the allowance. In construing the statutes de novo, the Court of Appeal concluded the cities and county did not transfer the housing assets and functions to housing authorities unrelated to the cities and counties, and therefore, the Legislature determined that these housing successors were not entitled to the housing allowance in the same way that the cities and counties, of which they are a part, were ineligible for the allowance. The Court therefore reversed the judgment in City of Montclair, granting the housing authority’s petition for a writ of mandate, and affirmed the judgment in City of Santa Rosa, denying four housing authorities’ petition for a writ of mandate. View "City of Montclair v. Cohen" on Justia Law