Ruling May Weaken No-Growth Movements

The Supreme Court’s ruling in a Glendale land-use case significantly weakens the burgeoning “no-growth” and “limited-growth” movements in California, several attorneys who handle such cases said Tuesday.

“This is a definite slow-down for ‘no-growth,’ ” said Douglas R. Ring, a Century City lawyer who represents developers in land-use cases. “This is clear handwriting on the wall that the Supreme Court is going to take a hard look at ‘no-growth’ movements.”

Ring and other analysts said that the decision does not rule out “down-zoning” and other planning measures taken to control growth and attendant congestion but that it does place a burden on city and county planners and politicians to make sure that their zoning actions do not cause unreasonable financial suffering for property owners.

Orange County Reaction

In Orange County, opponents of a proposed slow-growth initiative predicted that the ruling will increase the odds that the measure will be tied up by court challenges for years.

The final wording of the proposed initiative has not been worked out. But John Erskine, executive director of the Orange County chapter of the Building Industry Assn., said proponents of the measure have indicated that they hope to impose standards for traffic flow that would have to be met before new construction would be allowed.

Erskine said the standards discussed so far would be impossible to meet, resulting in a building freeze.

“This would be subject to today’s Supreme Court ruling, I think. Property owners would have to be compensated” if a slow-growth initiative made use of their land too difficult, he said.

Jim Erickson is the attorney for a pro-development coalition that successfully sued two years ago to block Irvine residents from proceeding with a slow-growth ballot measure aimed at removing the city from a freeway financing plan approved by the City Council.

“I think (the Supreme Court) decision may have a very significant effect on some of the (slow-growth) proposals I have seen to impose regulations intended to achieve some social purpose,” Erickson said Tuesday.

He said that if a landowner currently is entitled to develop property and suddenly that right is taken away by voters or local government, the decision rendered Tuesday means the landowner will have to be paid.

“That’s a fundamental change in California law,” Erickson said. Previously, he said, local governments losing land-use cases in court were merely required to set aside the land-use decision, not pay damages.

Irvine City Attorney Agrees

Roger Grable, attorney for the City of Irvine, agreed. “Now cities and counties will have to make planning decisions based on the pocketbook.”

But slow-growth advocates in Orange County doubted that the ruling will have a significant impact on their efforts.

“The facts in today’s case are totally different,” said Belinda Blacketer, a lawyer who is one of the authors of the proposed initiative. “The case before the court today involved a landowner prevented from restoring land to an already existing use after a fire” and not undeveloped land.

“As long as some use is left, I don’t think we have a problem,” Blacketer said.

“The real significance of the case is that we can expect a little more self-discipline on the part of the regulators,” said Robert K. Best, deputy director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative-oriented public interest law firm in Sacramento that filed a friend of the court brief in the Glendale case.

The decision occurs at a time when actions to curtail or moderate growth have been taken throughout California. In Los Angeles, Proposition U, a limited-growth measure, was approved by voters by a more than 2-1 ratio last November. In last week’s Los Angeles City Council elections, the defeat of President Pat Russell by challenger Ruth Galanter was widely interpreted as a sign of increasing voter interest in limiting growth.

More Suits Expected

Los Angeles attorney Ring said the Supreme Court decision “opens the door to lawsuits against local governments when they impose moratoriums or other regulatory actions that limit the property owner’s use of his property.”

A dissenting view was expressed by Century City attorney Kenneth B. Bley who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the National Assn. of Home Builders. Bley said he does not expect a rash of huge financial awards because the Supreme Court made it clear that local governments retain authority to pass zoning laws and other reasonable measures.

“Cities still have the power to govern,” Bley said, “and part of that is the zoning power.”

Bley said that local governments still can “down-zone” to relieve traffic congestion or improve air quality or for other purposes but that if they deprive a property owner of “all reasonable use and value” of his land as a result, they will have to pay the owner.

For example, Bley said, if residential land was rezoned for open space or parks, the owner would have to be compensated.