If Measure A and Proposition 90 pass, potential lawsuits and
financial backlash are possible outcomes
Gilroy – Voters who decide this fall to bolster their property rights and restrict development on hillsides and ranchland could be swirling a lethal cocktail for county government, according to Santa Clara County officials coping with a $201 million deficit.
The claim hinges on a clause in Proposition 90, also known as the Protect Our Homes Initiative, that entitles landowners to financial damages not only for the outright taking of land, but for governmental actions that negatively affect property values.
“If Proposition 90 and Measure A, the land use initiative, both pass, there would likely be numerous claims for compensation filed by property owners who contend that their property has been substantially damaged as a result of the restrictions on property contained in Measure A,” Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel warned last week in a memo to county officials.
The ballot initiative broadly defines possible grounds for compensation. They include limitations on access to a piece of land or use of its private air space, as well as “downzoning” – a key component of Measure A that involves restricting the development potential of land. The ballot initiative put forth by a coalition of environmental groups seeks to cap development on hillside land at four homes per 160 acres, while allowing only one home on the same amount of ranchlands. Current regulations allow up to 8 homes per 160 acres on both types of land.
Combined with Prop. 90, the resulting loss in land value sets the stage for numerous lawsuits for compensation at a time when the county can least afford it, according to Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage.
“If we’re going to be subject to that kind of liability because of that law, then it’s a bad law,” Gage said. “We’re getting caught between a rock and a hard place. Just like Measure A, we’re going to have to enforce it, but it’s going to be us footing the bill.”
Pete Drekmeier, spokesman for People for Land and Nature, the environmental coalition behind Measure A, said PLAN is “obviously opposed” to Prop. 90.
“It would have a devastating effect on the county and cities’ ability to zone,” he said.
Prop. 90 is the California flavor of a national backlash against the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, which gave governments the power to seize property from one private owner and hand it to another in the name of economic development.
Supporters of Prop. 90 say they are fighting for the little guys against a powerful consortium of big business, developers and local governments empowered by the Kelo decision.
But opponents say the initiative goes far beyond a narrow effort to blunt the effects of Kelo, which caused a nationwide furor, and threatens to impose major costs for even the most routine regulatory changes. In Santa Clara County, the proposition comes as supervisors prepare to approve layoffs and major cuts in programs and services to cope with a spiraling deficit.
The county’s “financial mismanagement” is no justification for preventing people across the state from safeguarding their property rights, according to Kevin Spillane, spokesman for the Yes on 90 movement.
“At the end of the day, we’re trying to protect the average citizen from the government taking their property,” he said. “It’s as simple as that – it’s about the American Dream. If the government is trying to take that away from you, or dramatically take away from its value, then you should be compensated.”
Ravel declined to comment on the memo until next week, when county supervisors vote on a legislative subcommittee’s recommendation to officially oppose Prop. 90. The meeting takes place 9:30am Oct. 3 at the County Government Center, 70 West Hedding St., San Jose.
To learn more about Measure A and Prop. 90, visit
www.smartvoter.org.
