City of Bellflower v. Cohen
245 Cal. App. 4th 438
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- This is a facial constitutional challenge to AB 1484’s tax-withholding remedies under §§34179.6(h) and related provisions.
- Proposition 22 (2010) prohibits the state from reallocating or using local tax revenues for local government purposes.
- Redevelopment agencies were dissolved; successor/sponsoring agencies must remit unobligated balances to county auditor-controller for distribution to local taxing entities.
- AB 1484 imposes remedies including offsetting sponsoring agency shares of sales/use taxes or property taxes when funds aren’t properly remitted.
- Two consolidated cases (Bellflower and League of California Cities) challenge these withholding mechanisms as unconstitutional under Proposition 22.
- The court analyzes purely the text of the statute in a facial challenge and applies the stricter standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 1484’s tax-withholding provisions violate Proposition 22. | Cities contend withholding local tax revenue is an impermissible reallocation. | State argues withholding is a valid remedy for nonremittance. | Unconstitutional to the extent it permits withholding. |
| Whether withholding of property tax revenues under §34179.6(h)(1)(C) is constitutional. | Cities challenge any withholding of local tax revenue. | State asserts permissible offsets (sales and use or property tax). | Unconstitutional under Proposition 22 as a reallocation. |
| Does the plain meaning of Proposition 22 bar any withholding, despite legislative intent or other constitutional provisions. | Plain language prohibits taking local tax revenues for other uses. | Provisions could be harmonized with other constitutional goals. | Plain meaning prohibits withholding; Proposition 22 controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matosantos (People v. California Redevelopment Assn.), 53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011) (confirming dissolution power and related tax considerations)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995) (facial challenges rely on text, not application)
- Matosantos (2011), 53 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011) (discusses purposes of Prop. 22 and redevelopment shifts)
- City of Cerritos v. State of California, 239 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. App. 2015) ( redevelopment dissolution issues related to Prop. 22)
- City of Brentwood v. Campbell, 237 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. App. 2015) (relevant Prop. 22 interpretation in dissolution context)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993) (interpretation of constitutional provisions consistent with voters’ intent)
- Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach, 158 Cal.App.3d 804 (Cal. App. 1984) (facial challenge framework for municipal remedies)
- San Diego County v. Milotz, 46 Cal.2d 761 (Cal. 1956) (discusses circumstances when penalties apply to withholding)
- Fricker v. Uddo & Taormina Co., 48 Cal.2d 696 (Cal. 1957) (limits on using cases as authority for propositions not considered)