Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carlsbad, CA: Property rights at issue (PLF Alert)
San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 16 August 2006 | Michael Burge

Posted on 04/06/2007 12:01:08 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture

Property rights at issue

CARLSBAD – A property-rights group has sued the city, claiming it requires property owners to give up their right to vote on forming an assessment district in return for obtaining a permit to improve their property and waive development fees.

However, the city attorney said the lawsuit misses the point that development is a privilege and that the city has a right to place conditions on it.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in San Diego federal court by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Craig and Robin Griswold, focuses on a city ordinance that requires owners who are making property improvements in excess of $75,000 to pay a “street improvement fee” to the city.

In the Griswolds' case, the fee amounted to $114,979 for a 1,400-square-foot expansion of their house, the lawsuit says.

The city offers an option to waive the fee if owners sign a “neighborhood improvement agreement.” The couple signed the agreement, by which they promised to include their property in an assessment district that may be formed in the future to pay for street improvements. In other words, the Griswolds agreed that they would give up their right to oppose any assessment district placed on the ballot in the future.

The lawsuit claims the fee is an assessment in disguise, and that the agreement forced the couple to turn their vote over to the city to support a formation of a future assessment district, a violation of the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: carlsbad; lawsuit; plf; propertyrights
Got a Pacific Legal Foundation alert today, hence the August article.
1 posted on 04/06/2007 12:01:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Have an update on this?

2 posted on 04/06/2007 1:21:30 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Sounds like an illegal exaction, not to mention arbitrary and capricious, and PLF is the right organization to handle this case. A similar issue was covered by the USSC in Tigard v Dolan. The fascist city attorney will come out looking like a squashed bug. Hope the city gets hit for $100 million in punitive damages.

3 posted on 04/06/2007 1:27:11 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Ice-cubes melting in the sun is an act of God. Get over it, Gore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

It’s “an offer they can’t refuse”.

4 posted on 04/06/2007 1:35:26 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

Cities were doing this for years, until one builder took a Texas city to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that the cities couldn’t assess a builder for something that he didn’t directly benefit from. It’s going to be hard for the city to prove that the homeowner gets $114,000 in city benefits for that fee.

5 posted on 04/06/2007 1:46:46 PM PDT by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson