Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2011, the California Supreme Court in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos upheld AB 1X 26-a bill eliminating redevelopment agencies in California. Even though redevelopment officially ended with Matosantos, discussion concerning the state of redevelopment has since been revived. The purpose behind the dissolution of redevelopment agencies was to fund special districts in a time of financial crisis, but what instead followed was dissension within California as cities and counties strongly opposed the dissolution of redevelopment and instead filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of AB 1X 26, and its subsequent "clean up" bill, AB 1484. Moreover, the redevelopment wind-up process has been anything but clean, as cities fight with the State over what redevelopment obligations prior to dissolution should still be honored by the State. As a result, over 150 lawsuits have been filed in California courts challenging redevelopment dissolution on many different legal grounds.\nThis Note looks at the state of redevelopment after the California Supreme Court's decision in Matosantos. This Note will contextualize the current redevelopment debate by looking at the history of redevelopment and the events leading up to the passage of AB 1X 26, the redevelopment dissolution bill. This Note will also describe the aftermath of Matosantos, most notably the problems that dissolution created for the cities in light of AB 1X 26 and the subsequent "clean up" bill, AB 1484. The Note will also survey the lawsuits that have been filed against the State concerning redevelopment, and its legal and constitutional arguments. Finally, this Note will analyze the state of redevelopment in California going forward by evaluating the legal arguments posed by both sides in the redevelopment debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".