The First District Court of Appeal has cleared the way for Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown to participate in redevelopment decisions in neighborhoods where he owns property. In overturning a Fair Political Practices Commission ruling, the court held that Oakland's City Charter provides a loophole in state conflict-of-interest laws by requiring the mayor's participation in redevelopment activities. Brown championed the state's conflict of interest law, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code §81000), when he was secretary of state. But as mayor, Brown argued that his participation was "legally required" in a redevelopment project area near his home and two investment properties. The controversy has roots in the November 1998 election, when Oakland voters approved Measure X. The Brown-backed initiative amended the city charter to establish the mayor as head of the executive branch of city government, removing him from the City Council. Measure X also made the mayor the chief executive officer of the Redevelopment Agency. Armed with new powers, Brown became the leader of the Lower Broadway Project, negotiating with the county, landowners, lawyers and developers. He directed the city manager and city staff to revise zoning standards, and he lobbied city councilmembers regarding development strategies. However, Brown owns three parcels, including his primary residence, in the Central District Redevelopment Project Area. His real estate is within 500 to 1,500 feet of the Lower Broadway Project. Brown acknowledged that his property's proximity to the Lower Broadway Project posed a conflict under the Political Reform Act. But, citing Affordable Housing Alliance v. Feinstein, (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 484, Brown contended his participation in the Lower Broadway project was required by the revised city charter because there is no other source of decision making regarding economic development within the executive branch. The FPPC disagreed. Earlier this year, the commission determined that the "rule of legally required participation" did not apply because the city charter broadly authorized the city manager to administer affairs of the city. The FPPC held that Feinstein did not apply. In that case, then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein was allowed to exercise her veto power over a San Francisco rent control ordinance even though she owned rental property. The FPPC said that San Francisco's city charter required the mayor — and no one else — to either sign or veto all legislation. But in Oakland, the city manager or even the vice-mayor can perform the mayor's functions, the FPPC held. In overturning the FPPC, the appellate court held that the Brown matter was a closer call than Feinstein, because Brown sought a far wider exemption to conflict of interest laws and because the Oakland city charter assigns authority to the city manager. The court even called the FPPC conclusion "an understandable one." Still, in reviewing the history of Measure X, which sought to improve government by overhauling the system, the court held that the FPPC's interpretation was flawed. Measure X gave the mayor specific powers to propose legislation, call special City Council meetings, break council deadlocks and effectively veto legislation, the court held. "These are substantial legislative functions and the mayor is the only elected official in Oakland who can perform them (except for proposing legislation, which any council member may do). Particularly in the area of economic redevelopment, which the charter encourages the mayor to undertake, the ability to propose plans for the council's approval is a crucial first step in a complicated and difficult process, and one for which the mayor is uniquely qualified since he is the official in charge of carrying out the plans," Justice Joanne Parrilli wrote. "For purposes of the Lower Broadway Project, the FPPC's opinion would prohibit the mayor from even attempting to act as the chief executive promised by Measure X," Parrilli continued. "City government would effectively resume the power structure that existed under the former charter, which vested the city manager with broad administrative authority and prevented the mayor or the city council from interfering with the city manager's exercise of that authority. Such a result is obviously inconsistent with the charter in its present form, and with the will of the voters." Attorneys for the FPPC warned that overturning the commission's decision would "open the floodgates to other exception claims." But the court noted that the "strong mayor" form of government is rare in California and concluded, "[W]e are skeptical that any such flood is imminent." The Case: Jerry Brown v. Fair Political Practices Commission, No. A091305, 00 C.D.O.S. 8391, 2000 Daily Journal 11157, filed October 12, 2000. The Lawyers: For Brown: Lowell Finley, (415) 421-7151. For the FPPC, Kathleen Gnekow, general counsel, (916) 323-1937