California Property Rights Journal

Bill Dahlin reports on the Supreme Court decision invalidating a collective bargaining agreement which gives preference to state employees over private engineers as a violation of Proposition 35, which the voters passed as a measure to protect the right of the state to contract with private entities for architectural and engineering services:

On November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. the Professional Engineers in California Government decision. The issue in the case was whether a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the State of California and the Professional Engineers in California Government was lawful, in its entirety, under Proposition 35.

Proposition 35, for the millions of you who do not recall, added a provision to the California Constitution specifically allowing the State of California to have contracts with private firms to provide architectural and engineering services for public works projects. Employees of the State of California lobbied vociferously against the ballot initiative.

| Posted By Mark Alpert In Current Decisions | 0 Comments | Permalink

The City of Capitola is a text book example of how rent control ordinances have been used to confiscate private property by "the tyranny of the majority." Castle Mobilehome Park, in Capitola, is walking distance from the Santa Cruz boardwalk. It is located upon some of the most valuable real estate in America. Castle has space rents of $210.00 a month, about one-tenth of market rent. Thus, the City has confiscated 90 percent of the property value through rent control. The recent decision in Los Altos El Granada Investors v. City of Capitola holds that the City may face liability for that taking.

| Posted By Mark Alpert/HKC In Current Decisions , Rent Control | 0 Comments | Permalink

Allegretti owns a 2400 acre farm in Imperial County that relies on well water for irrigation. Allegretti needed a conditional use permit to re-drill an inoperable well. The County refused to grant it unless he agreed to severe limits on the use of the water under his property, water he had a legally recognized right to use. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Allegretti & Co. v. Cty. of Imperial found Allegretti had no protected property right that was taken.

| Posted By Mark Alpert/HKC In Current Decisions | 1 Comments | Permalink

Politics Trump Property Rights In Turlock

A week after California's Fifth District Court of Appeals decided that it was not acceptable to discriminate against small stores, in Hernandez v. City of Hanford (Mar. 28, 2006, F047536) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2006 Cal.App.LEXIS 422] , the Fifth District held local governments had the right to discriminate against large stores, particularly Wal-Mart, in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. City of Turlock(April 5, 2006, F047372)

| Posted By Mark Alpert/HKC In Current Decisions | 0 Comments | Permalink

The Supreme Court Places Yet Another Hurdle on the Road to Federal Jurisdiction Over Takings Claims

The recent Supreme Court decision in San Remo v. City and County of San Francisco(2005) 125 S. Ct. 2491 involves technical aspects of legal procedure, which are important because they will, in practice, impact property rights. This case raised the question of whether many property owners will have the right to litigate property rights cases in federal court. In basic terms, the Court decided a property owner who has litigated issues in a state court cannot raise those same issues in a subsequent federal lawsuit.

| Posted By Mark Alpert In Current Decisions | 0 Comments | Permalink

The much anticipated decision in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (U.S., 2005) 125 S. Ct. 2074 resulted in a unanimous Supreme Court decision, which held that the "failure to substantially advance" theory which formed the basis for the Ninth Circuit's decision was not a valid "takings" analysis. The decision was a blow to property rights supporters who previously could challenge land use enactments by showing that they did not "substantially advance" their intended purposes.

| Posted By Mark Alpert/HKC In Current Decisions , Rent Control | 0 Comments | Permalink