SOAR (and supporters), 2
Messenger, 0

Writing ballot initiatives is complicated business. But where, as in Moorpark, a city and developer conspire to throw all of their respective resources behind a project in an attempt to defeat the ballot initiative process, the political and legal strategies can be truly daunting. SOAR has met the challenge!

Three major litigations have erupted from the exaggerated efforts of Messenger Development Company to develop over 4,000 acres of open space/ag properties with 3,322 houses, and commensurate commercial construction just north-east of the City of Moorpark. In that process, Messenger engaged professional goons to interfere with the petition-gathering process, and no less than 4 law firms, to wage their legal war. Even where Moorpark’s Los Angeles attorneys, and Ventura County Counsel was added to the mix on behalf of the developer, it still was not enough for them to overcome the persistent and patient legal representation of SOAR’s interests by Richard Francis.

First, upon the adoption of the Development Agreement by the then pro-development City Council, the resilient residents forced an election through the referendum process. Of course, the developer sued, trying to keep the measure off of the ballot. It lost. And, the residents rejected the Development Agreement by almost 70% in January, 1999. But it required a trip to the California Supreme Court to finalize the loss, consuming more than 2 years of litigation.

In the meantime, the then pro-development City Council was pushing the matter through the process as fast as it could. Running to the Local Agency Formation Commission, the governmental body charged with evaluating annexations, Moorpark obtained annexation of the 4,000+ acre parcel. The Environmental Coalition sued to annul the annexation. Although the EC won the case in 1999, it took until July 11, 2001, to become final, when the California Supreme Court refused to review the ruling. It is a monumental win, not only because of its merits, but severely undercutting the third and final effort by Messenger Development Company to bully its gargantuan project through the process.

At the time of the referendum drive, winter of 1998/1999, the indefatigable citizens of Moorpark also qualified a SOAR measure, drawing a "City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB)" line at the northerly city limit, excluding the Messenger properties. CURB lines are essentially rings around a city allowing a city council to make development decisions inside the CURB, but requiring voter approval of developments outside the CURB. The SOAR measure passed by over 70% on January 11, 1999. Of course, the developer sued, alleging $150,000,000 liability against the City of Moorpark, primarily claiming that its inability to develop without voter approval is a "taking" proscribed by the 5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The SOAR organization intervened in the action to prevent the City, then still dominated by development interests, from "settling" the case by capitulating to a invalidation of the SOAR measure. Because the other two lawsuits were well underway when the developer decided to sue, this last lawsuit was put on hold pending the outcome of the other two. It is now ripe for full scale litigation.

But the developer has a big problem. His property is not within the City. The City has no authority to grant any development. The City can hardly be liable for not allowing what it is powerless to allow!

The ground troops in Moorpark have been incredible, led by now City Councilmember Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. Her City Council colleague, Dr. Clint Harper, together with the Mayor, Patrick Hunter – the only member of the 1998 City Council to express severe reservations about the project – round out a new majority dedicated to a rational approach to development.

But the story would not be complete without acknowledging the efforts of our own SOAR board member and attorney Richard Francis. With the help of well timed assistants Amrit Kulkarni and later Steven Velyvis, Richard designed and wrote both the SOAR measure and the Development Agreement Referendum, then defended the citizens individually sued for daring to place the referendum on the ballot. Then, Richard represented the Environmental Coalition ensuring that LAFCO’s "lick and promise" approach to planning was rebuffed by the Courts. Now he is prepared to defend SOAR in the end game of the developer’s ridiculous parody of planning, taking the lead role in destroying the developer’s $150,000,000 lawsuit against the very City that it professes to want to help. Most astounding, of course, is that Richard has yet to be paid a nickle for these efforts, waiting patiently for the time when the developer will be forced to pay his fees for its failed frivolity. Public service takes many forms.

Thank you, Richard Francis!