Date: 2000-03-16
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the argument made by my distinguished colleague was eloquent. However. it has nothing to do with what is before us today. Great words were used. Decisions are results that we do not agree with. as if we are challenging what local government says. States rights. local control. corporate constituents. as if we are up here just trying to benefit large corporations who own property. When a dispute is ripe. before it can go to Federal court. property rights challenges belong at the State and local level. We are going to elevate property rights above all other rights. My distinguished colleague needs to realize that 90 percent of all of the development programs that are presented to government are not from large corporations. not the Irvine Company. Ted Turner. or Kaufman & Broad. they are from small property owners who have a few investors. The problem is. most of the lawsuits are not against municipalities by the property owners. the lawsuits are against municipalities by nogrowth groups trying to overturn local decisions. and that is what we are trying to deal with. A property owner goes before a city council. a board of supervisors. whatever the local agency might be. and they ask for a reasonable decision on their property rights and what they can do with their property. and they are given that by local government. In essence. they have said. you can move forward with your project because we have given it due consideration. Then a lawsuit is imposed against the city or municipality to stop that by a nogrowth group. The city at that point says to the property owner. it is up to you to defend the lawsuit. And then they have to go to superior court to do that. A decision is rendered. and then it goes to the appellate court to make a decision. That decision is rendered. and then it has to go to Federal court. Understand that these people are not the large corporations defending this lawsuit. these are small property owners who are trying to benefit from that property. Many of these individuals have received their property through inheritance. it has been in the family for years. or they buy a small piece of property with a few investors and they try to earn a profit on that property. What happens is. by the time they get through the approval process. it is likely they are going to be in a recession to begin with. but undoubtedly. by the time they get through the legal process. they will be in a recession and. at that point. they will have already lost their investors. What we are saying is. private property owners should have their day in court. They should not spend thousands and thousands of dollars going through a local process. only to have to go to court to be told by their attorney. understand. this is a process you are going to have to go to. If we win in superior court. it is going to be a challenge in the appellate court. When we win in the appellate court. we are going to go to Federal court. Individual property owners. as a rule. do not have the money to go through this process. What we are doing is placing the burden on people who do not have the resources to defend themselves. Yet. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continually try to placate us with the comment that we need to provide housing for people of low income. when the system is designed to go against those people. We are not saying that we want to overturn local control. We are not saying we want to overturn State control. We are saying that when local agencies have made a decision. whether it be a good decision or a bad decision. if the property owners feel they have been unfairly treated and their property rights have been taken from them. they should not have to spend years in State court. years in appellate court. only to be forced to go to Federal court. If we look at the majority of the lawsuits. it is not from the property owner against the municipality or city. it is from some outside nogrowth group against the city for the decision they made. In California specifically. they are continually being sued for some sequel violation that might not be real at all. yet they are forced into court to prove that the lawsuit against them was not factually based. They are either then taken on a writ of mandamus in other States or in California. and they are saying you violated some zoning. some building or some procedural act on the level of the city and they are forced to go to court to defend it. That is ridiculous. The gentlemans argument is offensive to small property owners that this is just rich corporations or the argument that it is going to take control away from local government. That is not where the lawsuits are occurring. and the gentleman needs to check that out. Friend to friend. the gentleman is wrong. The lawsuits are from outside agencies against cities. based on the decision they made entitling a property owner to use their property. We are saying. that should not be allowed. That is wrong. The assumption that all of these property owners are huge corporations. check it out. Ninety percent are small people who have small pieces of property or farms and they want to use those farms. Now. some people in the Midwest will say. well. we are watching people use their farms today for development. and that is true. The problem is every time a farm is developed. people moved in who opposed the other farmers from using their property.