AgdaPkt 2004-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.A�� 5 U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR PROpOSITIONS from page 1••••••••• IMPORTANT RENT CONTROL CASE Proposition 1A is the ballot measure jointly The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in sponsored by the League, the Calffomia State Lingle v. Chevron, which will decide whether the Association of Counties and the Califomia Special State of Hawaii went "too fa�' to keep gasoline Districts Association. The measure would affordable and promote competition with indepen- strengthen constitutional protections for local dent stations when it imposed rent control on revenues, by allowing the Legislature to borrow, dealer-run stations. The Legislature adopted the but no longer to permanently take local revenues control as a means to keep gasoline prices low. on a permanent basis. (For details, visit Hawaii pays some of the highest gasoline rates in www.YesonProalA.com.) the Nation. Propositions 68 and 70 make changes to Chevron challenged the legislation as a taking current tribal gaming compacts. Governor on the ground that it failed to advance a legitimate Schwa2enegger has led the state in developing state purpose. Ultimately, the lower courts deter- and securing agreements on tribal gaming com- mined that Chevron's economic theory was more pacts that give unprecedented revenue and sound than the state's theory. Hawaii challenged protection to state and local govemments, the the ruling on two grounds. First, Hawaii asks environment, and the overall public interest. The whether the Takings Clause — originally inter- 9overnor opposes both measures because he preted to require compensation for a physical believes they would be giant steps backwards for taking of property — is the right vehicle to chal- California and its local governments. lenge the effectiveness of economic regulation. Second, the state asserts that to the extent that the policy may be reviewable under the Takings Numerous League policy committees and the Clause, courts should generally defer to the legis- League board of directors are in strong agreement lative branch rather than second-guess economic W�th the governor, and the League has joined him policies. in supporting Proposition 1A and in opposing these destructive initiatives. The League supported the state's request for Supreme Court review in a friend of the court brief. Copies of the govemor's letter and a sample resolution that cities can pass have been distrib- This is the second "takings" case that the court uted to all cities by the League. They are also has agreed to review in the next term (No 04-163). available on the Advocacy Section of the League's The first was Kelo v. New London, which concerns website. the authority of public agencies to condemn land for purposes of economic development. (See Priority Focus, date). The Court also agreed to hear another (third!) takings case by granting review in Mott/ v. Missouri Lawyer TrustAccount Our Mission Foundation, which involves the extent to which interest charged on lawyer trust accounts may be used to fund legal services (No. 04-257). Restore and protect loca) control for cities through education and advocacy to See the upcoming Legal Notes column in Western Ciry magazine for more infoRnation about enhance the quality of life Lingle v. Chevron and the entire line of Ninth Circuit forall Californians. rent control cases. The case is Lingle v. Chevron USA, 04-163 and is available at www.suoremecourtus.aov. Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 ... . _ .