HUNTINGTON BEACH — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal this week rejected Huntington Beach’s appeal that it lacked standing to challenge the state’s enforcement of affordable housing laws.
City Attorney Michael Gates told City News Service he would seek an en banc ruling of all the circuit’s judges, which could overturn the three-judge panel’s opinion. Failing that, the city could try to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take an appeal.
Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized the city’s appeals.
“Today, yet another court has slapped down Huntington Beach’s cynical attempt to prevent the state from enforcing our housing laws,” Newsom said in a statement. “Huntington Beach officials continued efforts to advance plainly unlawful NIMBY policies are failing their own citizens — by wasting time and taxpayer dollars that could be used to create much-needed housing.
“No more excuses — every city must follow state law and do its part to build more housing.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement he was “pleased that yet another court has emphatically rejected Huntington Beach’s attempt to exempt itself from state housing laws.”
“While the city has been wasting the public’s time and money pursuing this meritless lawsuit, its neighboring communities — along with every Californian struggling to keep a roof over their heads or wondering where they’re going to sleep tonight — need Huntington Beach to step up and adopt a housing plan without further delay.”
The opinion, handed down quickly after oral arguments on Oct. 21, rejects the city’s argument that as a charter city, it has more authority than a general law municipality to act apart from state law.
The appellate judges affirmed a ruling last November from U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter.
“The city argues that our standing bar does not apply because Huntington Beach is a charter city, which it claims is not a `political subdivision’ ” of the state, according to the opinion. “No matter how California categorizes charter cities, they remain subordinate political bodies, not sovereign entities.”
The appellate judges also found the city lacked legal standing to challenge the state in federal court.
The judges also rejected a constitutional claim from City Council member Tony Strickland and Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark.
The council members “do not explain how they suffered a constitutional injury absent their roles as local officials,” according to the opinion. “So while the city officials retain personal free speech rights, they cannot invoke those rights to avoid executing `laws within their charge.'”
Gates vowed to keep appealing.
“I’m not particularly surprised at the decision based on how the hearing went last week, but I am surprised at two things — one is the brevity of the decision — just two pages — and that the decision completely ignores a whole line of opinions… that makes it very clear that charter cities are not political subdivisions of the state,” Gates said.
Gates said City Council members in the past have pledged to “go all the way to the Supreme Court” if necessary.
“We’re not discourages or dissuaded,” Gates said. “We’re going to keep fighting this fight because it’s very fundamental to a charter city’s decision-making.”
In its lawsuit, the city claimed that the state’s mandate for affordable housing would result in about 40,000 new units of high-density housing in the city over the next few years.
“I don’t see the Supreme Court taking up this case because it does not have national importance,” Councilman Dan Kalmick told City News Service.
Kalmick said the opinion came “very fast, which should tell you something.”
Kalmick said the continued appeals are a ” fool’s errand when there are political solutions, not legal solutions, to the issues being brought.”
