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 their zoning actions do not cause unreasonable financial suffering for property owners.

Increasing Interest

“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.

The federal decision reverses a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that the “inverse condemnation” legal doctrine does not apply in this state. This legal theory holds that property owners are entitled to compensation when the value of their property has been reduced drastically by government action.

In the 1979 case, the court ruled that Donald W. Agins, a Marin County dentist, and his wife, Bonnie, were not entitled to compensation when authorities in the San Francisco suburb of Tiburon refused to allow them to develop a five-acre parcel.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling in the Glendale Lutheran Church case “basically overturns the Agins case and changes California law,” said Judith K. Herzberg, counsel for the California Assn. of Realtors.

Bonnie Agins, reached by telephone at her San Anselmo home, said, “I hope this means we’ll finally be able to do something with our land.” She said she and her husband have spent more than $500,000 in improvements ordered by Tiburon authorities but have been prevented from building anything.

More Suits Expected

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.”

But another Century City attorney, Kenneth B. Bley, who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the National Assn. of Home Builders, 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 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 were rezoned for open space or parks, the owner would have to be compensated.