[New post] VA Supreme Court Holds City Charter’s Petition Provision Did Not Confer Standing to Challenge Council Action

WordPress.com
  
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/ CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdfCommercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
 
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] VA Supreme Court Holds City Charter’s Petition Provision Did Not Confer Standing to Challenge Council Action

 

 New post on LAW OF THE LAND VA Supreme Court Holds City Charter’s Petition Provision Did Not Confer Standing to Challenge Council Actionby Patricia Salkin
A developer approached the Hampton City Council about creating a residential subdivision at Buckroe Beach, Virginia, an area not zoned for that type of development. The Council passed an ordinance rezoning the property to permit the proposed development. In response, relying on authority granted by the Hampton City Charter, appellants created a Committee of Petitioners to circulate a petition opposing the Buckroe Beach project.The Committee collected sufficient signatures on the petition, which was timely filed with the City, calling on the Council to either repeal or hold a referendum on the rezoning ordinance. Upon receipt of the petition, the Council repealed the ordinance and restored the property to its original zoning designation. However, the Council allegedly continued to work with the developer to proceed with the project, in violation of the City’s actual zoning ordinances and in spite of the Committee’s petition. The Committee filed suit, requesting injunctive relief as well as a determination that the development was illegal and in violation of City zoning.In the lower court, the City and the developer challenged the Committee’s standing, arguing that the group had failed to show they had a right which had been implicated by the City’s actions. During the litigation, the City’s zoning administrator also issued a vested rights Determination, stating that the developer had a vested right to move forward with the housing development in spite of the City’s repeal of the zoning ordinance. The lower court held that the Committee did have standing, but that it had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it had not appealed the City’s vested rights determination. On that basis, the Committee’s claim was dismissed.Both parties here appeal. The City appealed the lower court’s determination that the Committee had standing to bring the claim at all, and challenged that the issue was moot because the City had already repealed the zoning revision ordinance. The Committee appealed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies grounds. The Supreme Court of Virginia chose not to address any questions beyond the threshold standing issue, as the Court found there was no standing.In order to show legal standing to proceed with the case, the Court said that the Committee had to show it had a substantial legal right at play. The Committee argued that the City Charter provision which empowered them to circulate a petition for a referendum also created a cognizable right sufficient to establish standing. Rejecting this argument as stretching the language of the City Charter far beyond any reasonable construction, the Court held that no such right was created by the provision, which simply “established a specific mechanism limited to petition for referendum on a City ordinance by the City’s qualified voters.” Thus, once the petition process had been completed, there was no continuing role contemplated by the provision, and thus no continuing right on the part of the Committee sufficient to establish standing. What’s more, the City had repealed the ordinance based on the petition, removing from play any possible justiciable issue, according to the court. For those reasons, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case on other grounds, applying the right result, wrong reason doctrine.Deerfield v. City of Hampton, 2012 WL 1377341 (Va. 4/20/12)The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1111144.pdf
Patricia Salkin | June 29, 2012 at 1:00 am | Categories: Current Caselaw, Referenda, Standing | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1Gl
Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/va-supreme-court-holds-city-charters-petition-provision-did-not-confer-standing-to-challenge-council-action-2/  

 
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com