Challenge to Farm Preservation Law Rejected

A Ventura County judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the farmland preservation ordinance that Ventura voters approved last November, ruling that the restrictive measure does not rob farmers of their property rights.

Despite opponents’ election-time warnings that Measure I would be struck down, Superior Court Judge John C. Hunter ruled earlier this week that all zoning discriminates in some way and that the effort to slow development on farmland does not deny landowners equal protection.

Ventura Councilman Steve Bennett, a key supporter of Measure I, said the fact that Hunter dismissed the case without a trial only strengthens the city’s position in the event of an appeal.

“That just shows how far off base their case is,” Bennett said. “That’s like shutting your opponents out 15-0 in volleyball. They didn’t even score a point. So they’re dead in the water.”

An attorney representing a coalition of farmers and landowners who brought the lawsuit against the city said his clients plan to request a speedy hearing before the 2nd District Court of Appeal. If denied, an appeal will then be filed with the California Supreme Court, said attorney Ronald A. Zumbrun.

Had there been a trial, regardless of the outcome, the case would have ended up at an appellate court anyway, Zumbrun said. By dismissing the case, the judge simply saved his clients time and money, he said.

“He did us a favor,” Zumbrun said. “He saved us a year and a half. We have not lost anything.”

Bennett laughed at Zumbrun’s remarks.

“One of his jobs is to try and minimize the negative spin on this,” Bennett said. “All the land-use attorneys I’ve talked to said this is a bigger victory than could have been expected.”

Approved by 52% of the voters last November, Measure I was intended to halt urban expansion into thousands of acres of farmland in and around Ventura. Development in most cases could not occur in the city’s so-called greenbelt areas for at least 35 years without permission from a majority of voters.

Before the election, opponents issued fiery campaign mailers warning voters that the initiative would leave the city mired in legal bills.

Shortly after the measure passed, the coalition of farmers and landowners filed suit, contending that Measure I violates farmers’ property rights and reduces their land value by as much as one-third. The suit also pointed out that owners of land adjacent to the city are affected by the law but were unable to vote on it.

If an appeal is successful, the case could alter the way land-use decisions are made statewide, Zumbrun said. He said the fact that the city has hired a San Francisco law firm that specializes in land-use cases is evidence of their concern over the case.

“It indicates that our case is one of great substance,” he said.

Bennett said the farmland protection ordinance was modeled after a Napa County measure that has been upheld by the California Supreme Court.

In his ruling, Judge Hunter found that Measure I did not violate any voting laws, reduce the potential for new housing or exceed the city’s power over property owners just outside the city limits.

But Hunter’s ruling that the ordinance was not discriminatory against owners of farmland goes to the heart of the dispute.

“Basically, he’s giving the same argument that we’ve given all along, and that is that everybody lives with zoning laws,” Bennett said. “In my residential neighborhood I could make a fortune if I could have a McDonald’s in my front yard, because I would be the only one. But I am restricted.”

But Zumbrun argued that zoning laws are not established by elections, but rather by a planning process that involves lengthy studies and extensive public review.

“We believe the planning process must be deliberative,” he said, “not an arbitrary process at the ballot box.”