HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Manager Report - Proposition 90CITY OF PALM DESERT
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
REQUEST: Opposition To Proposition 90
DATE: September 14, 2006
SUBMITTED BY: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
Recommendation:
By Minute Motion, oppose Proposition 90 and direct staff to notify the State
elected officials representing the City and the League of California Cities.
Background/Discussion:
Palm Desert's success in becoming a high quality, upscale community has been
achieved with diligent planning over the years. The City Council has been
consistent throughout our history in setting criteria for development that has
enhanced the quality of life, culture, and community. Therefore, staff sees
Proposition 90 as a real threat to our common good because it will, in essence,
eliminate local control of development in our city.
Disguised as legislation that will protect landowners from "Big Brother"
government, it is, in fact, just a disguise. It was brought into the State by well -
funded developers from New York who really have a national agenda. They are
also proposing similar measures in the States of Montana, Idaho, Nevada,
Washington, Colorado, Arizona, and Alaska. Similar legislation has already been
approved in Oregon, and it has resulted in 2,000 pending lawsuits.
As an example, the Palm Desert City Council has approved development in our
North Sphere with a high degree of attention to how it will blend with and/or
enhance our community. If passed, Proposition 90 would in essence eliminate
Closed Session Item
Opposiiton to Proposition 90
September 14, 2006
this local control. Cities and counties would be in the position of having to
approve applications for the highest degree of use for a piece of property or face
a probable lawsuit which would reimburse the developer for anything less than
that which he applied for.
A second example is a ten -story condominium project that was proposed and
turned down by a city in Oregon because of its intensity and the impact of that
intensity on the community and its quality of life. The property owner sued the
city for the tens of millions of dollars he claimed he lost in the approval of a lesser
density. The financial liability to the city was overwhelming, and the community
had no alternative but to approve the original application. The ten -story condo
project was built.
California has eminent domain law that guarantees a property owner will receive
a fair market value price for his private property if or when a government finds a
need to take the land for the good of the public. This legislation, if passed,
almost guarantees that taxpayers will foot the extra bill for a tremendous increase
in property costs.
Staff and the Legislative Review Committee are confused and disturbed by the
support our State representatives are giving Proposition 90. To that end, we will
meet with both Senator Baffin and Assemblyman Bennoit. In the meantime, we
believe that the City Council should take a position of strong opposition to this
proposition.
CARLDS L. QRTEGA CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED ✓ DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETIN DATE (f-/C/.- (J(7
AYES : 60E60 ,KPni� i`, .�-p�� Clni Fe. LIsOi
NOES: A\/ C7
ABSENT: l o)Q
ABSTAIN: AAW ,
�
VERIFIED BY: 4/K/�
Original on File with/City Clerk's OfficE:
CITY MANAGER