Laserfiche WebLink
9�' �' <br /> Eminent domain is still an issue in Congress, and the National League of Cities urges cities to talk <br /> to their representatives and senators about reform eminent domain proposals. (See "Congress <br /> is Back! Your Voice Needed on Franchising, Eminent Domain.") <br /> Telecommunications Reform. The need for an extensive review and overhaul of the current <br /> system for telecommunications regulation loomed large this year, driven by increasing <br /> competition among providers of telecommunications services (telephone, video, internet). As we <br /> have reported earlier (see telecom stories on the �eague's website), reforms in this area have the <br /> potential to dramatically alter cities' franchising authority and their ability to ensure access to <br /> telecommunications services for all their residents. <br /> After much discussion, the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, chaired by <br /> Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, postponed discussions on telecommunications legislation until <br /> September 21- after the cuRent legislative session has ended. Senator Escutia, Chairman of the <br /> Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications committee, has indicated her desire to have interim <br /> hearings on this issue as well. <br /> The issue is far from over and will certainly come back again next year. It promises to be a very <br /> busy interim for telecommunications. It should be noted that the issue is still being debated in <br /> Congress, and the National League of Cities (NLC) is urging cities to contact their representatives <br /> and Senators Boxer and Feinstein about the reform proposals under consideration. (See <br /> "Congress is Backl Your Voice Needed on Franchising and Eminent Domain.") <br /> Two Housing Attomey Fee Bflls Continued from Page 1... <br /> The League urges cities to join us in asking the governor to veto these bills. The League will post <br /> a sample letter next week on the Advocacy Center, located online at <br /> www. cacities.org/advocacycenter. <br /> AB 712 (Canciamilla). While this legislation provides a number of clarifying changes to existing <br /> law affecting the down zoning of residential property, the League's opposition is based upon <br /> language added in the Senate, that extends a sunset date of a controversial attomey's fees <br /> provision of the statute from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2009. <br /> The League originally opposed this language when it was added by AB 2292 (Dutra), Chapter <br /> 706, of 2002. The attomey fee language of AB 712 is much broader than the standard attomey <br /> fee provision established by Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and tilts the balance <br /> too far in the direction of plaintiffs at the expense of local taxpayers. In short, it offers attorney's <br /> fees to whoever can successfully sue a local jurisdiction over the down zoning of residential <br /> property. <br /> Although some may believe that local community interests should always bend to the agenda for <br /> higher densities, there are many legitimate instances when reducing the zoning of residential <br /> property is necessary for infrastructure, environmental or other reasons. Moreover, the request <br /> for zoning changes often comes from the property owner. <br /> AB 1227 (Torricol. This measure authorizes broad attorneys fees against local govemments <br /> who are litigated against under a housing discrimination provision. While the bill was narrowed <br /> during the last week of the legislative session, the attomey fee language remains overbroad, and <br /> is virtually identical to the language contained in AB 712. <br /> This language has become an unstudied precedent that is being app�ied to land use. The <br /> League offered several amendments to the author, in an effort to clarify circumstances when it <br /> would not be appropriate for local agencies to pay attomey fees, such as: <br /> 5 <br />