Court Opinion

ID: 9787281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:14:11.477745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:54.223068
License: Public Domain

Maupin, C. J.,
concurring:
I would reverse, but only on the following grounds.
The initiative petition proposes enactment of an ordinance to preserve Fuji Park and Carson City Fairgrounds in perpetuity. Such ordinance clearly usurps the Carson City Board of Supervisor’s power to alienate Carson City’s real property. This power is vested in the board through the Carson City Charter, providing that the board has the power to control, sell, lease, and dispose of its real property.1 The legislature expressly established the charter for the government of Carson City,2 and the Nevada Constitution grants Carson City all powers conferred by its charter.3 Thus, any restriction on the board’s discretionary authority to sell or lease property under the charter must be accomplished by charter amendment, not by an initiative ordinance.4
*500Moreover, this type of perpetual restriction will necessarily bind future boards, and neither the electorate nor the board itself can bind any future boards in this manner, except by amending the charter.5 Consequently, the electorate has no power to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance. If Concerned Citizens seek to change the board’s prerogative as to its property, they must address such a proposed change through a proper charter amendment.

 Carson City Charter § 2.140.

 Id. § 1.010(1).

 Nev. Const, art. 4, § 37[A].

 City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 248 Cal. Rptr. 290, 294 (Ct. App. 1988).

 Id. at 296.