Davis v. City of Berkeley
51 Cal. 3d 227, 272 Cal. Rptr. 139, 794 P.2d 897 (1990)
Rule of Law:
Voter approval for low-rent housing projects under Article XXXIV of the California Constitution is satisfied by ballot measures specifying only the maximum number of units, without requiring detailed information on location, design, funding, or specific project timelines.
Facts:
- In 1977, the City of Berkeley submitted a ballot measure to its electorate asking for authorization to develop up to 200 units of low- or moderate-income public housing.
- In 1981, the City of Berkeley submitted another ballot measure, virtually identical to the 1977 measure, for an additional 300 units of low- or moderate-income public housing.
- Berkeley voters approved both the 1977 and 1981 measures by substantial margins.
- Between 1982 and 1983, the City developed a 14-unit scattered-site housing project and a 62-unit project using these authorizations.
- In June 1984, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the availability of federal funds for low-income housing projects and required that California applications include a certificate of Article XXXIV voter approval.
- The Berkeley Housing Authority, with City Council approval, submitted an application to HUD for a preliminary loan for up to 75 dwelling units, citing the 1977 and 1981 voter authorizations for 500 units, of which only 76 had been developed.
- In November 1984, HUD approved the application and reserved funds for the project, including preliminary funding.
- In July 1985, the Housing Authority submitted a detailed proposal to HUD specifying the locations and design for the 75-unit scattered-site project.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (five Berkeley residents and taxpayers) filed a proceeding seeking to stay further development of the 75-unit project.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Berkeley and interveners (two indigent residents).
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to consider plaintiffs’ contention regarding the sufficiency of the 1977 and 1981 ballot measures under Article XXXIV.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article XXXIV of the California Constitution require a ballot measure seeking voter approval for a low-rent housing project to provide specific information beyond the maximum number of units, such as location, design, or funding details?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No, Article XXXIV of the California Constitution does not require a ballot measure to provide specific information beyond the maximum number of low-rent housing units. The court found that the language of Article XXXIV does not expressly require specific project information, nor does the term 'project' inherently demand a highly detailed description. The court analyzed the historical context of Article XXXIV's enactment, noting it was intended to abrogate the decision in Housing Authority v. Superior Court (1950), which had denied voters a referendum on a preliminary loan for 500 units without specific site details. The court reasoned that the initiative was primarily concerned with requiring voter approval for fiscal commitments, not for the granular details of a project. Furthermore, the court emphasized the long-standing practice of local public agencies for nearly 40 years, which have consistently used nonspecific ballot measures (authorizing only a maximum number of units) to comply with Article XXXIV. This interpretation has been consistently affirmed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Attorney General, and the Legislature through its enactment of validation statutes, and implicitly upheld in various judicial decisions. The court concluded that this consistent, long-standing interpretation and administrative deference supported the validity of the City of Berkeley's nonspecific ballot measures, allowing for a 'unit banking' approach.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
Yes, the ballot measures were insufficient because the voters, in adopting Article XXXIV, did not intend to surrender to local government bodies all decisions regarding public housing except for the total number of units. Justice Mosk argued that the majority's holding permits local entities to build public housing of any type and size, at any place, and at any time in the future, as long as the total units do not exceed a number authorized decades earlier. This, he contended, is inconsistent with the primary purposes of Article XXXIV: to address the drain on a community's finances and protect its aesthetic environment. Without knowledge of the timing, location, or specific details of a project, voters cannot meaningfully assess the financial or aesthetic impact. Justice Mosk disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'project' as ambiguous, asserting that any definition implies a more concrete, isolable undertaking than a mere open-ended authorization. He also argued that the ballot arguments for Article XXXIV, particularly its analogy to revenue bonds which require 'sufficient certainty' of purpose, support the need for more specific information. Finally, he disputed the majority’s reliance on past practices, stating there was no clear evidence of 'unit banking' being a recognized practice under prior law when Article XXXIV was adopted, and that any reliance on incorrect interpretations could be remedied by making a new ruling prospective only.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of voter approval required for public housing projects under Article XXXIV of the California Constitution, affirming a 'unit banking' approach. By upholding the validity of nonspecific ballot measures, the ruling provides flexibility for local governments in planning and developing low-rent housing, allowing them to secure broad authorization for a number of units and then proceed with specific projects over time without repeated voter elections for each individual development. This interpretation emphasizes deference to long-standing administrative and legislative practices, which is a key principle in constitutional interpretation. However, it also sparked concern regarding the public's ability to exert granular control over the specific impacts (fiscal, environmental, aesthetic) of individual housing projects, shifting more power to local governing bodies once a general unit count is approved by voters. Future challenges may focus on the limits of 'general' authorization if a project becomes too far removed in time or character from the initial voter intent, or if local voters use initiatives to rescind unused authorizations or demand more specific future measures, as suggested by the majority.
