Store Research

Senate Bill 184 (Marks 1983)

Chapter 930, Statutes of 1983, SB 184

Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-800-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available.

As enacted in 1983, Senate Bill 184 was a single-section bill affecting Health and Safety Code section 33051 only, relating to redevelopment agencies.  (See Exhibit #1g)  Senator Milton Marks introduced this bill on January 20, 1983.  (See Exhibit #1a)


Senate Bill 184 was assigned to the Senate Committee on Local Government and the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development where policy issues raised by the bill were considered.  (See Exhibits #3 and #10)  The fiscal ramifications of the bill were considered by the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  (See Exhibits #2 and #12)  Five amendments were made to Senate Bill 184.  (See Exhibits #1b through #1f and #2)  Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor George Deukmejian signed Senate Bill 184 on September 19, 1983, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on September 20, 1983 as Chapter 930 of the Statutes of 1983.  (See Exhibits #1g and #2)


The Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 184 as last amended prepared by the Senate Democratic Caucus summarizes the provisions of the bill stating:


The Community Redevelopment Law generally prevents discrimination by public officials on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.  People who buy or lease property from a redevelopment agency are also bound by these prohibitions.


This bill allows the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to require its redevelopment agency to ban other discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, if the board has adopted a local ordinance prohibiting such discrimination.  The redevelopment agency would have to implement this additional policy in its property decisions as if it were state policy. 

(See Exhibit #7, page 1)