‘Free at Last!’ to ‘We Don’t Know’ in Oceanside : Land-Use Ruling Is Assessed

Nick Banke could hardly hide his glee.

Asked Wednesday about the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could dramatically alter the power that local governments wield in land-use matters, the attorney flashed a toothy grin and spread his arms wide.

“Free at last! Free at last!” chanted Banke, who represents numerous developers before the Oceanside City Council. “It’s the Emancipation Proclamation!”

Though not everyone shares Banke’s assessment, the high court’s decision has triggered debate about its effect in cities throughout San Diego County and beyond.

Perhaps no community, however, was abuzz with talk of Tuesday’s ruling quite like Oceanside.

Because of recent voter approval of a slow-growth initiative that gives the city what appear to be the tightest land-use regulations in the county, Oceanside could be profoundly affected by the landmark decision.

Tight Growth Laws Under Gun

Some city officials speculate that the Supreme Court’s ruling, which requires landowners to be compensated if governments impose rules preventing or drastically restricting private property development, could ultimately lead to revocation of Oceanside’s tough new growth-control law, Proposition A.

“I don’t think anyone knows just what the ramifications are going to be,” said Mayor Larry Bagley, a Proposition A opponent who in recent weeks has taken on the ticklish task of implementing a law he doesn’t back. “Eventually, the court’s decision is bound to have a tremendous impact on several things we’re doing besides just Proposition A.”

Too Early to Worry

Slow-growth advocates, meanwhile, expressed irritation with the ruling but suggested that the final verdict on the issue will rest with the lower courts, which will interpret the Supreme Court decision.

“It will have to shake down according to how the lower courts look at it,” said Melba Bishop, a leader of Oceanside’s slow-growth forces. “It’s too early to get worried. I’m not pleased, but I’m not worried at this point.”

Moreover, Bishop and other slow-growth boosters say the most profound effect of the court’s decision may be political.

Because the entire Oceanside City Council opposed Proposition A before it was approved by voters April 21, Bishop worries that city leaders might be tempted to use the ruling as an excuse to water down the new law and allow avalanche development.

“My fear is that a weak City Council that is leaning toward the developers in the first place will use this as an excuse,” Bishop said. “I want to believe they won’t. However, I think the council is pretty inclined to give developers the benefit of the doubt.”

In the meantime, Oceanside legal officials say the city has little to worry about.

“I think everyone is jumping to some wild conclusions as to its impact on both Proposition A and our entire land-use authority,” said City Atty. Charles Revlett. “I don’t see it as having any really significant impact.”

Revlett said the city has been proceeding to enact the new law in a cautious manner with “an eye toward our liability” to lawsuits from both developers and slow-growth advocates.

Proposition A limits development of new dwellings in Oceanside to 1,000 units in 1987 and 800 in each subsequent year through 1999.

Although the Supreme Court ruling requires that land owners be compensated for property deemed to be unjustly restricted by local governments, Revlett maintains that Proposition A does not represent such a “taking” of private property. The law does not limit a property owner’s right to develop his land, only the pace at which construction takes place, Revlett noted.

Despite such assessments, developers with projects in Oceanside generally took heart from the ruling.

‘Ecstatic About It’

Barry Ross, managing general partner of Robinhood Homes Inc., which sued Oceanside for $12 million after Proposition A scuttled plans for a 1,200-unit housing project, expressed hope that the decision would bolster his firm’s case.

“We’re certainly ecstatic about it,” Ross said. “We don’t know exactly what the ramification of it will be, but we sure hope it’s positive.”

Revlett maintains that such lawsuits are doomed to failure.

“Our feeling is the courts will say that while such developers can’t build as quickly as they may want, we haven’t prohibited them from the ultimate use of their property,” he said.

But Banche and other land-use attorneys contend that the Supreme Court ruling will, at the very least, cause local governments to think twice before wielding their regulatory powers.

Before the decision Tuesday, cities and other government agencies that lost land-use cases in court were merely required to rescind the decision, not pay damages. The ruling Tuesday changed all that. If a landowner is entitled to develop property and suddenly that right is unfairly taken away by voters or a City Council, the landowner would stand to be paid, Banche said.

“I think it puts a price tag on the actions of administrative agencies,” Banche said. “No longer will they be able to hide behind the fact that they don’t have to pay compensation for a taking of private property.”

But slow-growth backers such as Bishop contend that Oceanside is not in danger of such penalties because of Proposition A.

“I do not believe that telling a fellow he can only build 100 units this year instead of 600 is taking his land,” Bishop said. “We’re not taking land. We’re saying that he must develop his property within guidelines that allow the city to protect the health, safety and welfare of people who live in homes that are there already.”

Without such justified restrictions, unchecked development threatens the rights of people already in a community, she said.

“If the court wants to look at the taking of something, they ought to talk about the taking of property rights of folks already here,” Bishop said. “I don’t think property rights are only for those people who have undeveloped land.”