Land Use in Limbo
Judge Decides Fate of Citizens' Slow-Growth County Plan

Monterey County Weekly
Posted on March 16, 2006

By JESSICA LYONS

At press time, early Wednesday, March 22, no decision had been issued as to whether the general plan initiative will be on the June ballot. LandWatch Executive Director Chris Fitz, who was in the San Jose Courthouse on March 21, said US District Court Judge James Ware was expected to decide the fate of the anti-sprawl plan “soon.”

LandWatch and others filed a lawsuit against the County after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 not to put the initiative on the June ballot. Supporters of the slow-growth measure collected some 16,000 signatures to let the public decide future land-use decisions in Monterey County. But in late February, Supervisors Fernando Armenta, Butch Lindley and Jerry Smith said that the initiative was legally flawed, and voted against placing it on the ballot.

Also in February, three Latino voters filed a federal lawsuit to keep the initiative off of the ballot because the petition wasn’t translated into Spanish. Using an earlier Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Padilla v. Lever, the three argued that initiative supporters violated the Voting Rights Act.

In Padilla, the court decided that in certain jurisdictions, recall petitions must be printed in English and Spanish.

Judge Ware said he would consider the two suits at the same time. Following the attorneys arguments on March 21, Fitz said, “it’s clear that he thinks that if the Padilla case does apply to initiatives, it’s quite clear that it is the County’s responsibility to translate the material,” and not the initiative supporters’ responsibility.

While the judge was listening to attorneys’ arguments on March 21, Supervisors were getting the first look at the latest version of the County-written blueprint for future growth. It’s the fourth rewrite in six years. The Environmental Impact Report on the new General Plan draft won’t be released until May.