Contents
Is Measure V Constitutionally Valid?
Supporters of Measure W told us the reason why W is so ‘inclusive” is because their attorney told them it is illegal to target one property and one property owner. According to them, this is why Measure W had to include so many non-Cargill properties using the zoning and general plan designation.
Using the same logic, Save the Bay and ardent supporters of Measure W asserted that Measure V is "subject to legal challenge" and "illegal due to spot zoning" in a number of City Council meetings. An opinion offered by their esteemed attorneys.
Take a look at the Submitted Primary Arguments For and Against Measures V and W. If Measure V is indeed legal, then these groups have opposed a measure that gives them exactly what they wanted in the first place, a vote on open space for Cargill saltflats.
So let us examine this iron clad case. There are three assertions we have heard from these groups: (1) we have really smart lawyers; (2) this measure is subject to legal challenge; (3) the measure is illegal due to spot zoning.
Lawyer as Advocate
A quick look into any thesaurus and you will find another name for a lawyer is called an Advocate. Simply, an excellent lawyer means that you have an excellent advocate for your position. This is their job. Great lawyer, great advocate. It does not mean the argument that advocate states is necessarily defensible in court. And remember, this is an election, not a court.
Strike One
Subject to Legal Challenge
The phrase "subject to legal challenge" is a wonderful set of words, especially when spoken with supreme confidence. However, these words suffer from one small flaw. They mean nothing. All ballot measures are subject to legal challenge. The word vacuous comes to mind.
Measure V does not change the existing zoning on Cargill saltflats. So we ask… if the zoning does not change, how can it be illegal?
Strike Two
Not Rezoned and Not Spot Zoning – Last Chance at Bat
They must have been absolutely certain on this one.
Measure V does not re-zone the Cargill lands.
Cargill can continue the existing land use for agriculture/natural resources extraction. Measure V simply provides for voter approval prior to authorization of changes in land use (only legislative actions).
- A small parcel of land is singled out for special and privileged treatment;
- The singling out is not in the public interest, but only for the benefit of the landowner; and,
- The action is not in accord with a comprehensive plan.
Measure V is not spot zoning because it fails to meet even one of the criteria for illegal spot zoning:
- The size of the Cargill site is not small; rather it is 1,433 acres (2.2 sq. miles). The Cargill site is composed of multiple parcels.
- The singling out of the Cargill site is for the public interests. Its location and size make it central to the overall welfare of the community. Public interests include: concerns about traffic, demand for water, city services such as school, sanitation etc.
- Such singling out is not for the benefit of Cargill Saltworks since Measure V “would require that a majority of Redwood City voters, at a general municipal or statewide election, approve any legislative action by the City Council which permits or approves development of the Cargill Lands.”
- This act is consistent with a comprehensive plan as this site has been included within prior General Plans for Land Use.
Case Citation that supports the constitutional validity of Measure V
Arnel Development Company et al v. City of Costa Mesa, Supreme Court of California 28 Cal. 3d. 511 (1980)
Strike Three – You're Out
Not Lawyers
No, we are not lawyers. However, you can see pretty much the same arguments made by the City Attorney office when they addressed these questions in detail during the July 28th City Council Meeting and stated that limiting Measure V to only focus on Cargill lands is both defensible in court and valid. To hear the full text, watch July 28th meeting proceeding under staff report item 8. Please, feel free to watch the proceedings and draw your own conclusions.
As we have said before, we are not giving any legal advice on this website. This means you should look up these issues yourself or ask a lawyer, just as long as that lawyer is not someone else’s “advocate,” but someone who is looking after your interests.
