Measure E, an initiative measure sponsored by the citizens‚ group Marina 2020 Vision, was enacted by the voters of the City of Marina on November 7, 2000. Measure E established an Urban Growth Boundary for Marina, and directed growth during the next twenty years into the existing city limits, and on to the lands of the former Fort Ord. The open space and agricultural lands of the Armstrong Ranch, outside the city limits, were placed "outside" the Urban Growth Boundary, and thus protected. Coastal areas proposed for resort hotel development were also protected by Measure E. LandWatch Monterey County strongly supported Measure E, which was opposedby all members of the Marina City Council. The voters of Marina adopted the measure by a 52.4% majority.

After Measure E was enacted by the voters of Marina, the Marina City Council sued LandWatch (and various landowners and developers opposed to Measure E), asking the Court to "declare" whether Measure E was valid or not. In essence, the Marina City Council has attempted to make LandWatch bear the legal costs of defending the measure adopted by city's voters. While LandWatch did and does support Measure E, it believes that the city itself should defend it, since the city‚s voters adopted Measure E, and Measure E is now an official law of the City of Marina.

In his brief filed on Friday April 27, 2001, Attorney General Bill Lockyer completely sides with LandWatch, and is urging the Monterey County Superior Court to take all of the following actions:

1. To dismiss the "declaratory relief" lawsuit filed against LandWatch as a "SLAPP suit," a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Attorney General Bill Lockyer authored the Anti-SLAPP law while he was a member of the State Legislature. In his brief in the Marina case, the Attorney General says, "
   
   Because the action against LandWatch unquestionably arises from the type of political activity protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and because there is no probability that the City will prevail in its claim, LandWatch‚s motion is well-founded. Indeed, the City‚s lawsuit represents precisely the sort of problem the Anti-SLAPP statute seeks to ameliorate: improper lawsuits, which threaten to chill citizens‚ rights to speak out and petition their government."
   
   
2. To dismiss its second lawsuit against LandWatch, the "cross-complaint"
   
   that the City Council filed against LandWatch when the City was itself sued by the developers, who claim that Measure E is invalid.
   
   
3. To direct the City to undertake the defense of Measure E in the cross-complaint and cross-petition brought by certain opponents of the measure. Specifically, the Attorney General notes, "The obligation to defend an initiative is all the more incumbent upon the City of Marina in this instance, since it appears that if there is in fact some inconsistency between Measure E and the General Plan for the City of Marina, the City itself generated that inconsistency by its last-minute amendment to the General Plan on the eve of the election. Given that the City‚s own actions appear to have generated whatever consistency issue may exist, it is all the more unacceptable for the City to refuse its legal obligation to defend the will of its citizens by defending Measure E."

If the court agrees with LandWatch and the Attorney General, the Marina City Council will have ended up spending $100,000 or more of the taxpayers‚ money on an inappropriate and irresponsible lawsuit against LandWatch˜rather than on implementing Measure E, and defending Measure E from the landowners and developers who are attacking it.

The full text of the breif is available here.