Although they cannot be false and misleading, ballot arguments need not be relevant, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The panel issued its opinion in a lawsuit challenging the title of, and ballot arguments for, a City of Huntington Beach measure on the March ballot that would impose a tax on a power plant.
The unanimous three-judge panel reinstated a number of the city's ballot arguments that a trial court had struck down. However, the appellate panel removed a few of city's arguments as false and misleading, and the court slightly modified the title of the measure.
"In the political arena, after all, one person's relevant argument is another person's nonsense. Only when there is no relationship to the measure does the trial court have the authority to strike it," Justice David Sills wrote.
Huntington Beach has had a 5% tax on utilities — including natural gas, electricity and cable television — since 1970. The ballot measure would extend the tax to AES Corporation's wholesale purchase of natural gas to fire an electricity generating plant. The city proposed the tax, which would raise about $2 million a year for a proposed "infrastructure fund," shortly after the California Energy Commission allowed AES to restart two units of the plant despite local objections.
AES President Ed Blackford challenged the title of the ballot measure, the ballot argument and the city's rebuttal. In December, Orange County Superior Court Judge Derek Hunt ruled in favor of Blackford. One week later, Hunt backed away from some of his initial decision. Both the city and Blackford appealed.
The Fourth District refused to strike anything as irrelevant. However the court replaced the word "exemption" in the measure's title with "exclusion," so the title became, "Amendment of Utility Tax by Removing Electric Power Plant Exclusion." The court ruled that the word "exemption" connoted "unfair influence and special treatment," which amounted to advocacy in what should be a neutral title.
The court also struck all or portions of five ballot arguments submitted by the city because the court held that they were false or misleading. For example, the city's argument said the measure would only require the power plant to pay the same tax that all residents pay. The court ruled, "It [AES] gets hit with Huntington Beach's 5% utility sales tax on its utility bills the same as everybody else does. What it doesn't pay is a tax that only it could pay. So to say that AES is the only business that does not pay ‘this tax' is to mislead."
The court also removed as false a sentence claiming AES refused to sign a contract for sale of electricity solely in California.
Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court of Orange County; Ed Blackford v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G030075, 02 C.D.O.S. 205, 2002 DJDAR 261. Filed January 8, 2002.
For Huntington Beach: Gail Hutton, City Attorney, (714) 536-5555.
For Blackford: Donald R. Brown, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, (310) 312-4318.
An Orange County ballot initiative that sought to block the development of a civilian airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station has been thrown out by a state appellate court. The court ruled that Measure F from March 2000 interfered with essential governmental functions, crossed the line into administrative activities, and was vague.
The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that subdivision maps recorded prior to the first version of the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels. In January, all seven of the state's high court justices voted to review the decision in Gardner v. County of Sonoma (see CP&DR Legal Digest, November).
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an endangered species decision in a California case handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court's decision, issued in mid-January, means that the appellate court opinion upholding the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services listing of four species of fairy shrimp that live in California as either endangered or threatened will stand.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
The City of Los Angeles was correct to treat as one project a builder's various proposals for 21 new houses on existing parcels on two streets, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the builder's contention that the city could not demand an environmental impact report on the 21 houses, five of which have already been built.
Opponents of a proposed recycling center were too late in filing a lawsuit regarding a city's failure to prepare an environmental study on the city's sale of land to the recycling company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled.
The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.