Yesterday's landmark ruling  by the California Supreme Court upholding San Jose's inclusionary housing ordinance was rightly hailed as a huge victory for affordable housing advocates. But the truth is that the ruling shouldn't be viewed as a surprise. It was a very difficult case for the building industry to win - at least the way the industry's lawyers has set the case up.

So, why does a court ruling on a medical marijuana ban in Upland affect the Chargers ability to build a new stadium in San Diego?

Despite a budget deficit so large that it triggered the first gubernatorial recall in California history, the administration of Gov. Gray Davis has shown scant interest in stimulating the economy. But with the chaos in Sacramento – and the fact that elected officials have a smaller and smaller role to play in actually shaping the state’s budget – it may be that no California governor can devise an effective economic development strategy.

In light of a similar ruling by the California Supreme Court in a case from San Diego, the First District Court of Appeal has ordered Cal State East Bay to revisit the question of offsite traffic mitigation in the environmental impact report for its long-range master plan. As the Supreme Court did in San Diego, the court ruled that Cal State cannot simply declare mitigations infeasible unless the state legislature appropriates funds specifically for that purpose.

San Bernardino County is not entitled to the return of $9 million in loan principal to the former county redevelopment agency, even though the funds were not tax-increment revenues and had come from the county's general fund, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled Monday.

United Water Conservation District may charge urban water users higher groundwater pumping fees than agricultural users, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court concluded that the fees are not property-based and therefore not subject to Proposition 13. In addition, the court concluded that the pumping fees fall under one of Proposition 26's exceptions, saying that the pump fees represent "payor-specific benefits" not subject to Prop. 26's requirements.

The environmental review for a proposed Sacramento housing project that apparently conflicted with planned unit development zoning for the site was inadequate, an appellate court has ruled. Instead of adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the City of Sacramento should have prepared an environmental impact report that addressed the conflict between the project and the PUD's objectives, the court ruled.

Rarely does anything with a lawn, a photovoltaic canopy, a “great lawn," no fewer than 13 design collaborators, and an estimated $50 million budget, qualify as simple. But, relative to its competitors, that’s exactly what the winning design in the Pershing Square Renew competition is.

In a split decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has upheld the Coastal Commission's conditions on two property owners' reconstruction of a seawall in Encinitas after it was destroyed in a storm, including limiting the new seawall's permit to a 20-year term.

In a case that would appear on its face to conflict with a different appellate ruling filed just two weeks ago, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled that a groundwater pump charge is a property-related charge subject to Proposition 218.

The First District Court of Appeal has argued that Humbolt County did not create a taking of property by requiring the owners of a mobile home underneath an airport flight path to provide an overflight easement in exchange for a permit to build a carport and porch that had been illegally built by the previous owners of the property.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate ruling that Priceline, Expedia, Travelocity and similar "online travel companies" (OTCs) did not have to pay San Diego hotel tax on income they derived using a "merchant model" approach to marketing local hotel rooms. The Second District ruled that if an OTC contracts with a hotel for a block of rooms at a fixed wholesale rate, and then retails them to guests at higher prices, then city hotel tax is due only on the wholesale rate, not the difference the OTC receives. The case is In Re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases , also referred to as City of San Diego v. Priceline . It addresses a coordinated group of cases involving several online hotel room brokers. The Second District decision, as amended on rehearing March 27, is at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243800A.PDF. The ruling looks back strongly to two prior cases in Santa Monica and Anaheim, as shown in the Second District's online docket at http://bit.ly/UPLUTn. The Supreme Court online docket is at http://bit.ly/1soYBAy. For further details see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3464. The League of California Cities posted a comment welcoming the review decision, which it had supported in an amicus letter, at http://bit.ly/1o88aV9.