City politics part of scholar's research
Some of the most highly charged political events in Yorba Linda history—actions associated with the 2005-06 failed Town Center redevelopment process—are now fodder for a scholarly study by a professor at Chapman University’s School of Law.
The 52-page paper, with 24,968 words and 270 footnotes, is titled “The Artifice of Local Growth Politics: At-Large Elections, Ballot Box Zoning and Judicial Review,” published Feb. 25 by Kenneth A. Stahl, who holds a juris doctorate from Yale University.
Yorba Linda issues Stahl uses to support his conclusions include the citizens’ initiative requiring a public vote on rezoning for major projects, petitions leading to the repeal of higher density Old Town zoning and outlawing eminent domain for economic purposes.
Stahl claims this city is “a classic example of a situation in which affluent homeowners and mega-developers fought over questions of growth and neighborhood quality, while those most interested in high-density housing stood on the sidelines.”
Stahl explains: “bridging the divide between development interests, who fill municipal coffers with much-needed revenue, and neighborhood groups, who are skeptical of the costs development may visit on their quality of life” is “an intractable problem.”
And he contends, “Each group eyes the other an implacably hostile adversary with whom compromise is impossible, a view that emboldens both camps to harden their positions in anticipation of bitter conflict.”
Stahl continues, “Making matters worse, each group is firmly convinced that it cannot receive a fair shake in dealing with local officials because those officials are captive to the demands of the opposing group.”
The result, says Stahl, “is a local political process that both groups perceive as illegitimate, and a highly polarized political culture in which an honest debate about the merits of growth is submerged beneath a deluge of pro-growth and anti-growth slogans.”
Stahl also notes courts uphold the people’s right to “enact land use laws by initiative or referendum” and reject arguments that ballot-box zoning is “an excess of politics with-out necessary apolitical counterweights.”
Stahl maintains “the judiciary should instead focus on correcting defects in the political process so that the balancing of competing interests can occur…in the legislative arena.”
Among reforms suggested by Stahl are replacing at-large voting with districts to give “more weight” to “neighborhood interests,” considering a “strong mayor” system and eliminating ballot-box zoning by abolishing the local initiative.
Finally, one Stahl nugget seems to summarize this city’s history: “even where slow-growth advocates have succeeded in electing sympathetic candidates to office, they have frequently seen those very officials experience a pro-growth conversion once they hear the siren call of development money.”
The 52-page paper, with 24,968 words and 270 footnotes, is titled “The Artifice of Local Growth Politics: At-Large Elections, Ballot Box Zoning and Judicial Review,” published Feb. 25 by Kenneth A. Stahl, who holds a juris doctorate from Yale University.
Yorba Linda issues Stahl uses to support his conclusions include the citizens’ initiative requiring a public vote on rezoning for major projects, petitions leading to the repeal of higher density Old Town zoning and outlawing eminent domain for economic purposes.
Stahl claims this city is “a classic example of a situation in which affluent homeowners and mega-developers fought over questions of growth and neighborhood quality, while those most interested in high-density housing stood on the sidelines.”
Stahl explains: “bridging the divide between development interests, who fill municipal coffers with much-needed revenue, and neighborhood groups, who are skeptical of the costs development may visit on their quality of life” is “an intractable problem.”
And he contends, “Each group eyes the other an implacably hostile adversary with whom compromise is impossible, a view that emboldens both camps to harden their positions in anticipation of bitter conflict.”
Stahl continues, “Making matters worse, each group is firmly convinced that it cannot receive a fair shake in dealing with local officials because those officials are captive to the demands of the opposing group.”
The result, says Stahl, “is a local political process that both groups perceive as illegitimate, and a highly polarized political culture in which an honest debate about the merits of growth is submerged beneath a deluge of pro-growth and anti-growth slogans.”
Stahl also notes courts uphold the people’s right to “enact land use laws by initiative or referendum” and reject arguments that ballot-box zoning is “an excess of politics with-out necessary apolitical counterweights.”
Stahl maintains “the judiciary should instead focus on correcting defects in the political process so that the balancing of competing interests can occur…in the legislative arena.”
Among reforms suggested by Stahl are replacing at-large voting with districts to give “more weight” to “neighborhood interests,” considering a “strong mayor” system and eliminating ballot-box zoning by abolishing the local initiative.
Finally, one Stahl nugget seems to summarize this city’s history: “even where slow-growth advocates have succeeded in electing sympathetic candidates to office, they have frequently seen those very officials experience a pro-growth conversion once they hear the siren call of development money.”
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home