Prop 218 Decision Affirms Legality of Open Space Assessment Districts

Joe, this month a state appellate court rendered a long awaited decision in a challenge under Prop. 218 to the establishment of the to Santa Clara Open Space Authority benefit assessment district. Why was this an important decision for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to watch?

This was really the first time that the court explicitly said that it is a fundamentally legitimate purpose for an assessment to be used for open space conservation. While open space was an implied part of the assessment procedure, and parks were part of the Landscape and Lighting Act, this was an explicit statement in favor of open space on a countywide basis. I think that it was a pioneering case, and that is why it is so important.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy's open space district was upheld by the superior court already, and the challenge to it dismissed. What is the scope of the Conservancy's district?

That benefit assessment district involves the Santa Monica Mountains within the City of Los Angeles. Basically, we are talking about the area north of Sunset Boulevard going out to the ocean, and south of Ventura Boulevard including Griffith Park to the city boundary, essentially Topanga Canyon. That is about 60,000 parcels, and we are about half way through the $25 million total for both areas, one east of the 405 freeway and one west of the 405. We have acquired some gorgeous property, and that will benefit the property owners in the Santa Monica Mountains.

So, from the resources generated from the parcel tax, you have been purchasing these properties?

That's right.

How much revenue is generated by the assessment every year?

This is a limited assessment, as opposed to the Santa Clara district, which is a permanent assessment. This assessment goes on for 30 years, but was bonded, so we have money up front. We have three years to spend it, and we are about half way through that.

Let's turn back to the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority decision. The court held that Prop. 218 did not alter the fundamental rule that the courts shall not interfere with legislative acts, except for those acts that clearly depart from constitutional requirements. What is the significance of the ruling?

There are two significant components to the decision. Number one, the court said that it is not going to be a judicial legislator. That is, the role of a judge is to impartially apply the law, not to act on one's own personal feelings.

Number two is that, despite the emotion infused in the Howard Jarvis Tax Payers' Association's various campaigns, when you look at the actual text of the law, it didn't change much. The properties that are assessed have to have some particular benefit that goes over and above the general public benefit. That was true before Prop. 218, and it is true after Prop. 218. The court made a very clear analysis and concluded that Prop. 218 has procedural changes, but substantively things are pretty much the same. I think that the court holding cleared away a lot of the anti tax propaganda surrounding Prop. 218.

As you suggested earlier, the court found that the acquisition and maintenance of open space would provide special benefit to the assessed properties. What was the significance of that holding?

In the Santa Clara case, the Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers' Association, and business interests that filed a friends of the court brief pointed out that you have to have a good environment in order to attract qualified employees and that this can have far reaching benefit. The court held that open space is beneficial to the economy, and therefore beneficial to each of the properties in Santa Clara County. That was a substantive holding because it was the first time that a court has taken a look at open space as being economically beneficial to individual properties. Other court decisions have upheld the use of assessments for parks, because, obviously, people benefit from use of the park. However, this is the first time that the courts have upheld the use of assessments for open space.

Talk a little bit about the dissent that was rendered in that case, and the arguments of people like Doug McIntyre, who is well known in the Los Angeles Basin, and who argued against this final result.

The dissent was well written, but it did not challenge the idea of using benefit assessments for open space. Instead, the minority opinion stated that the characteristics of the assessment in Santa Clara did not meet the Prop. 218 muster because specific properties were not identified. The Santa Clara assessment district was very large; it was the entire county. For this reason, there was a question as to how a property would benefit if open space were being purchased at the opposite end of the county. Essentially, the dissenting opinion stated that open space was a good purpose, but the procedures needed to be tightened up.

In contrast, in establishing the Santa Monica Mountains benefit assessment district, we had engineers create a report that listed the specific properties. In addition, the assessment was established for a limited period of time, and the period in which the money could be spent was limited. In the future, proposed assessment districts will probably have to be very careful about adhering to procedures.

How will this decision affect Santa Monica Mountain's Conservancy and similar organizations elsewhere in the state?

I think we were the precursor to this case. When our benefit assessment district was challenged, the appeal was dismissed. So, from our standpoint, the Santa Clara case merely reaffirmed that the assessment was for a valid purpose. Now, other communities will see that open space is a valid use for an assessment district. I think that statewide the decision will lead to more assessments to purchase open space, because open space preservation is very popular.

Why do entities like the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and others turn to this method of funding open space for their communities. Why is it so attractive?

It is attractive because it offers a way for local communities to provide open space that really is not of regional or statewide significance. Large pieces of property like the Ahmanson Ranch, or the Soka University property that we just acquired, are clearly of regional and statewide significance. Many of the properties that are interspersed with residential areas, while very beneficial for the residents, are not of state or regional significance. The assessment districts allow us to have a tiered approach to land conservation. The assessments are generally used for smaller parcels. Regional parks in the hundreds of acres, and state parks can be thousands of acres.

In previous interviews in The Planning Report we discussed the role that the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy has had in preserving open space and the difficulties of reclaiming open space in our dense urban metropolis. How will this court decision affect efforts to reclaim open space in the core urban areas of Los Angeles? Are such efforts out of the question?

They are not out of the question, but it will be interesting to see if benefit assessment districts can be used in that way. Many times, the areas of the city most in need of open space are near industrial uses or consist of multi-family housing, sometimes with absentee landlords. There may be few incentives for owners in these areas to vote to assess themselves in order to provide open space. As a result, I do not think it is a measure that is well adapted to providing open space in the city core.