In an almost side-splitting laughable twist to expectations, the
basis of the lawsuit is, in fact, that the initiative campaign
violated the Voters Rights Act.
Legislating by ballot initiative, while a seemingly democratic way of governance, is turning out to be a very expensive method for state and local taxpayers. We have our very own example right here in Santa Clara County, illustrated by the Initiative for Conservation of Hillsides, Ranchlands and Agriculture, a land-use initiative that would, if it ever gets to the ballot and through the courts – and it’s not always in that order, nor just once for each facet, either – change the county’s general plan to limit development of land in county-governed hillsides, ranch and farmland.
Back in May, the People for Land and Nature (PLAN), based in Palo Alto, conducted a campaign to place its land-use initiative on the ballot. Oops, wait. Opponents – mostly hillside property owners, the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, and Realtors – then pushed for an economic impact study. How much to implement such a plan would impact the county coffers, they asked. Fair enough question, especially for a county facing a teeth-jarring deficit of $160 million. Edwin Resuello, president of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, suggested the initiative is a waste of time and money for voters. However, still, supervisors voted 3-2 against a $50,000 study. Onto the ballot it goes.
Oops. Wait. Now, the Alliance for Housing and the Environment (what the opponents of the measure call themselves, although a more revealing and accurate name should be Alliance for Our Housing and Our Environment), have filed a lawsuit. Given the backers of the opposition, one would expect that the complaint would be that the initiative violates the private property rights of owners, or circumvents the public processes of general planning processes of both cities and counties.
In an almost side-splitting laughable twist to expectations, the basis of the lawsuit is, in fact, that the initiative campaign violated the Voters Rights Act. Hillside property owners, farm and ranchland representatives, and Realtors decided to stand up for the little guy and complain the petitions weren’t translated into foreign languages like Spanish and Vietnamese.
The lawsuit causes a delay that will cost taxpayers at least $500,000 and up to $1 million. Their lawyers claim that this is not a legal technicality to derail the initiative. While we appreciate that the opposition is getting its money’s worth from its creative and resourceful lawyers, we don’t even entertain that bogus assertion.
However, in the grand scheme of things, when there is the opportunity to conduct studies that will answer questions on all sides and show both sides that all important factors were considered, better that the Board of Supervisors had spent the $50,000, 1/10th to 1/20th of the cost of this delay, on the economic impact study in the first place.
