City Sued Over Denial of Wash Golf Course

A developer whose proposal for a golf course in the Big Tujunga Wash was rejected by the City Council in July has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging that the city illegally blocked the project.

The move by Foothills Golf Development Group and LA International Golf Club was not unexpected. The developers filed a $215-million claim against the city in August, contending that the council scuttled the proposal because of lobbying from an influential labor union, not because the project lacked merit.

Edward Casey, an attorney for the developers, said his clients were forced to file the suit because the city did not respond to their claim.

“This is clearly a case of city government wielding its zoning powers not to protect the welfare of its residents, but to appease powerful special interest groups,” Casey said.

Spanning nearly a decade, the dispute over the proposed golf course split the community of Sunland, pitting environmentalists concerned about the endangered slender-horned spineflower against those who said the development would serve as an economic shot in the arm for the area and help clean up the wash.

Ultimately, it may have been the involvement of the 7,500-member Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11, that led to the project’s defeat.

The group opposed the project because it is locked in a labor dispute with Kajima International, a Japanese-owned corporation that holds an $18-million lien on the golf course property and stands to profit from the development.

Most council members said they voted against the development because it would spoil an environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat, but many in City Hall believe the union strongly influenced several of those who opposed the project.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who represents the wash area, said he voted for the project because it struck a balance between environmental concerns and the property rights of the developers.

“What the council members are going to have to realize is that the law doesn’t allow you to deny someone an economically viable use of their property without compensation,” Wachs said. “It’s obvious that the city is going to have pay something. The question is, what is a fair amount?”