The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments did not illegally campaign for a ballot measure to fund transportation projects, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
By preparing a transportation plan and making presentations to member agencies and the public about the benefits of a proposed sales tax extension, the Association of Governments was simply performing its duty, the court determined. The Government Code and a key state Supreme Court decision preventing campaign activities by public agencies concern measures that have been certified for the ballot – not measures that are only being drafted and proposed, the court noted.
The ballot measure in question – a 30-year extension of a half-cent sales tax in Santa Barbara County for transportation projects – passed with 79% voter approval on November 4. It is unclear what would have happened to Measure A had the Court of Appeal ruled for the opponents.
In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) began work on a new transportation expenditure plan. After examining funding options, SBCAG recommended preparation of a measure to extend the half-cent sales tax, which was originally approved in 1989 and scheduled to expire in 2010. The association hired a consultant to identify the best arguments for the tax, likely opposing arguments and strategies to win voter approval. Staff from SBCAG met with civic groups to explain the plan and the importance of maintaining the sales tax beyond 2010.
In March 2008, a newly formed group called Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies sued SBCAG, arguing that the association's promotion of Measure A interfered with the electoral process and that the association improperly used public funds for a "government-sponsored political campaign." At the time the coalition filed the lawsuit, Measure A had not qualified for placement on the ballot.
A few weeks later, SBCAG filed a response, calling the coalition's lawsuit a SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation – that attempted to chill constitutionally protected activities. In June, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle upheld SBCAG's activities, finding they were within SBCAG's rights of free speech and petition.
On appeal, Measure A opponents first argued that government entities do not have free speech rights. The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, ruled otherwise. Government agencies and their representatives do have First Amendment rights and they are "persons" entitled to protection by the anti-SLAPP law (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16), the court ruled.
Measure A opponents argued that SBCAG's use of public funds to advocate for the sales tax violated the state constitution and state law. The opponents based their constitutional argument on Stanson v. Mott, (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206. In Stanson, the state Supreme Court ruled the State Department of Parks and Recreation had improperly spent public funds to advocate the passage of a park facilities bond. Without clear legislative authorization, the court ruled in Stanson, "A public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign."
However, the appellate court noted, Stanson and similar cases involved measures that had already qualified for the ballot – not the drafting of a measure. Here, SBCAG had been authorized by the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act to do exactly what the association had done.
"In essence," Justice Steven Perren wrote the court, "the [opponents'] complaint alleges that SBCAG was performing its statutory duty under the Act. SBCAG prepared a transportation expenditure plan and an ordinance necessary to place Measure A on the ballot in order to raise revenue necessary for the transportation program and projects set forth in the expenditure plan. It then circulated the plan to member agencies for approval, and made public presentations concerning the merits of the plan and extension of the county sales tax."
The statute at issue – Government Code § 54964 – also addresses only partisan activity regarding a measure scheduled for the ballot. The law "does not prohibit the expenditure of public funds by local agencies to propose, draft or sponsor a ballot measure, including expenditures to marshal support for placing the measure on the ballot, or to inform the public of need for a sales or use tax or bond offering to provide revenue to pay for public improvements," Perren wrote.
The court also rejected arguments that SBCAG violated the state Political Reform Act, which concerns campaign expenditures, and the federal Hatch Act, which specifically limits public employees' official activities.
The Case: Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, No. B209525, 08 C.D.O.S. 13599, 2008 DJDAR 16290. Filed October 28, 2008. Modified November 5, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 16555. The Lawyers: For the coalition: Eugene Wilson, (805) 683-4648. For SBCAG: Jordan Sheinbaum, county counsel's office (805) 568-2950.
A referendum on a redevelopment plan for San Francisco's Bayview and Hunters Point districts will not appear on the ballot. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a Superior Court judge's ruling that referendum proponents violated elections law by not including a copy of the redevelopment plan in referendum petitions.
A state appellate court has sided with a city attorney who declined to prepare ballot titles and summaries for proposed ballot initiatives because they were unconstitutional. The court rejected the initiative backer's arguments that the Ojai city attorney acted too late, that judicial review at the "pre-petition" stage was inappropriate, and that a lawsuit filed by the city attorney was a SLAPP.
A Los Angeles property owner who leased a multi-family dwelling could not collect a rent increase of more than about 3% per year, even if the tenant agreed to pay more. That is the most broadly applicable portion of a recent appellate court ruling in a nasty dispute between a landlord and tenant.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has dismissed as moot an animal rights group's challenge of the environmental review documents for a program in which the National Park Service eradicated feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island.
A $400 million economic stimulus grant from the federal government for the proposed Transbay Terminal in San Francisco will provide the final piece of financing for construction of the first, $1.2 billion phase of the terminal project. However, federal transportation officials appear to have stepped into the middle of a dispute between local officials and the California High Speed Rail Authority over the precise terminus for high-speed rail in San Francisco by siding with the locals. In addition, one rail authority board member, former judge and state Sen.
Local road and street maintenance needs an additional $71 billion investment over the next 10 years, according to a study prepared by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. The study identified $99.7 billion worth of maintenance needed to roads, streets and their essential components, such as storm drains, sidewalks and signals. However, only $28.3 billion is expected to be available.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority business plan released at year's end is inconsistent, unrealistic and potentially illegal, according to a Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report to the Assembly Transportation Committee.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.