|
|
|
|
|
LandWatch Urges Marina To Dismiss Its Lawsuit |
|
|
February 1, 2001 Mayor Jim Perrine and Council Members [Sent
By Fax and Regular Mail] RE: Implementation of Measure E Dear Mayor Perrine and Council Members: I learned today from your City Attorney that you have voted, in secret, to initiate a legal challenge to the validity of Measure E, the urban growth boundary initiative adopted by the voters of Marina at the election held on November 7, 2000. I understand that the vote to initiate this lawsuit was 4-1, with only Council Member Delgado voting "no." Shame on those of you who have voted to defy the majority of the voters you are supposed to represent. Your secret vote against Measure E represents a fundamental breach of your responsibility to the citizens of Marina. This is more than a case of "sore losers" venting their spleen at the fact that they were out of touch with what the majority of the voters in their city wanted. Your decision to initiate a lawsuit against a measure enacted by a majority of the voters in Marina indicates your profound confusion about your proper role as elected officials. In our democracy, the majority of the voters have the right to make their own decisions--even if their elected officials don't like them. That's what the initiative process is for. It was quite clear, during the campaign season, that the four Council Members who have now voted for the lawsuit against Measure E did not believe that Measure E should be enacted. You all campaigned against it. The people of the City of Marina disagreed with you. There are certainly arguments to be made on both sides, but the time for making those arguments has come and gone. An election was held on November 7th, and the voters used their constitutionally protected right of initiative to make a fundamental decision about the future of Marina. Even if you don't agree with them, the majority of Marina voters did decide that they do not want Marina to facilitate the development of the Armstrong Ranch at this time. As you know, the same San Jose developer who is promoting the massive Cisco project has promoted the Armstrong Ranch development. The developer's dream was to build a San Jose style subdivision right in Marina. The developer wanted to build the houses here that he is unwilling to build in San Jose, where the Cisco jobs are going. LandWatch thinks that the voters of Marina were very wise to reject this massive development proposal, and to demand that new job and housing growth be focused within the existing city limits, and particularly on the lands of the former Fort Ord. Whether you think the voters were "right," or not, in the choice they made, they are the ultimate authority--that is, they are if you believe in democracy. State law requires you to "defend," not attack, the laws adopted by the voters of your city. Instead of carrying out this responsibility, you voted in secret to use the taxpayers' money to initiate a major lawsuit that is against the interests of the people you are supposed to represent. Spending the taxpayers' money to fight against what they have told you that you're supposed to do is the antithesis of how government is supposed to work. If there are any "legal uncertainties" about Measure E, the role of the City of Marina--and the role of its elected officials--is to defend Measure E against any legal attack that might be made on the initiative. Let the San Jose developers sue, if they think Measure E isn't valid, or legal, or in some other way is subject to challenge. Your duty, and the duty of the City, is to fight for what the voters said they want, and to protect and implement the measure that the voters enacted. By your secret vote you have betrayed that duty. Even if Measure E were later overturned as not legally valid, you have done the wrong thing, because it is your duty, now that the voters have spoken, to try to accomplish what they have made clear they want you to do. It is particularly unconscionable that you would take an action like this in secret. The Brown Act does allow you to confer with your attorney about "threatened litigation"--but that means when someone outside the city is threatening to sue you. Here, the city itself has initiated the litigation, doing the work of the developers for them, and using the taxpayers' money to boot. LandWatch believes that the Council breached its duties not only by initiating the litigation questioning the validity of Measure E, but by taking that action in a special, secret session--without giving any member of the public the right to be heard. LandWatch would have been happy to discuss any potential "legal uncertainties" or "legal problems" that the Council might have identified with Measure E--so the Council could get a full discussion of any such issues before deciding that it was appropriate to spend the taxpayers' money to mount a legal challenge to a law that the voters had just adopted by a democratic vote. If LandWatch and others have to come into court to defend the law that the City is actually required to defend itself, we believe that the City will be required to pay our legal fees and expenses to do so. By breaching your duty to the citizens, you make it necessary for others to assume the obligations that are actually yours. You have initiated a legal action with potentially massive public costs to the citizens of Marina. Please rethink your action immediately. There is still time to dismiss your lawsuit. If there are any legal problems with Measure E, let those who object to the measure sue. Let them, not the city's elected officials, put Measure E to a trial. The City Council should defend and implement the action of its voters. To do anything else is to betray your public trust. cc: City Attorney |
Home | About LandWatch | Issues & Actions | LandWatch News
Citzen Resources | Membership | Publications | Calendar |
Archives | Search | Links | Contact Us
Site Design and Management by Jeffrey Reynolds
all materials ©1999 Landwatch