Ruling Aids Push to Save Farmland, Backers Say

A countywide campaign for voters’ support of a strong farmland protection measure will gain momentum because of a state Supreme Court decision that essentially upholds a similar law in Ventura, leaders of the campaign said Thursday.

“I think the decision makes a very strong case for us that [the ordinance] is legal--that it is not a taking of property rights,” said Ventura Councilman Steve Bennett, one of the chief proponents of the city’s voter-approved farmland preservation initiative. “That will help us a great deal in the countywide campaign.”

Bennett and former Ventura Councilman Richard Francis, who wrote the Ventura initiative, launched a campaign in March to take their greenbelt protection law countywide.

Bennett said they hope to raise the funds and gather the signatures to put the initiative on the ballot by 1998. So far, two fund-raisers have been held and another is planned for September.

The Ventura law, which was approved by 52% of voters in 1995, forbids the City Council to allow development on thousands of acres of farmland until 2030----unless voters sanction the development via a citywide initiative.

Bennett said the state Supreme Court decision last week not to hear the matter should help persuade undecided county voters to support a farmland protection ordinance.

Shortly after voters approved the Ventura initiative, furious farmers and landowners filed suit in Superior Court, contending their constitutional property rights had been violated and their property values reduced by as much as one-third.

The lawsuit pointed out that landowners just outside city limits are affected by the law but cannot take part in votes concerning their property because they are not city residents.

That raises constitutional questions about voting rights and equal protection under the law, opponents argued.

The Superior Court dismissed such claims, ruling that nothing has prevented property owners outside the city limits from asking the Board of Supervisors to allow them to develop their land.

The lower court ruling was later upheld by the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Immediately after that decision, the coalition of farmers and landowners who opposed the farmland preservation initiative petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision.

An attorney who represents the group said Thursday he would urge its members to take their case to the nation’s highest court.

“We are now poised to go to the United States Supreme Court,” attorney Ronald A. Zumbrun said.

Although the high court hears only a select number of cases a year, Zumbrun said he believes his clients have a good shot at being heard.

“The court has never had these issues before. We think that the issue of tyranny of the majority may very well catch their interest.”

Bob Tobias, a Ventura lemon and avocado farmer who was active in efforts to strike down the preservation ordinance, said he cannot speak for the group but supports pursuing an appeal.

“We believed all along that our best chance was probably the U.S. Supreme Court,” Tobias said. “We don’t know if they will hear it, but they take more of an interest in property rights than the state Supreme Court.”

Bennett welcomed the challenge.

“It just means that there will be more publicity for SOAR [Save Our Agricultural Resources] when that [appeal] gets rejected too,” he said.