Inglewood housing lawsuit centers around surplus land statute

The city of Inglewood is accused in a lawsuit of prioritizing private development over affordable housing under a portion of the law that has received little clarity so far from the courts.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Public Counsel and Cozen O'Connor PC, claims Inglewood flouted the California Surplus Land Act by not attempting to set aside a portion of city-owned land for affordable housing.

At issue is 59 acres now in the hands of Murphy's Bowl LLC, the entity planning to build an arena for the Los Angeles Clippers.

According to the act, cities are required to prioritize affordable housing, parks and open space when there is a "surplus" of land.

"The Legislature further declares that there is a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and families of low and moderate income and that surplus government land, prior to disposition, should be made available for that purpose," according to the act.

Litigation over the law is somewhat novel, with at least two lawsuits having cited the act. In West Covina, a citizen's group halted a civic center after a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled the city failed to conduct an environmental impact report and follow the Surplus Land Act. West Covina Improvement Association v. City of West Covina, BS135923 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 21, 2012).

The new lawsuit states Inglewood violated the law by failing to send a written offer to sell or lease the land to other public local agencies and affordable housing developers prior to disposing of the land.

"The Surplus Land Act was created to prioritize the affordability of housing on public land the government no longer needs. The city of Inglewood did not follow the procedures, and that is why we are asking the court to invalidate the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement," said Antonio Hicks, a senior staff attorney at Public Counsel.

The lawsuit alleges Inglewood's development boom is making living unaffordable for many of its residents. The law said a city isn't mandated to have the low-income units, rather it must at least attempt to have them.

Thomas Casparian, whose firm Cozen O'Connor is taking the case pro bono, said formal demand letters were sent asking Inglewood to comply with the law. "But the city chose to ignore them," he said.

Phone calls to Kenneth R. Campos, Inglewood's city attorney, were not returned.

In a case currently on appeal, a Northern California legal aid group is hoping a judge will say the law applies to charter cities. Anderson v. City of San Jose, 16-CV297950 (S.C. Super. Ct., filed July 21, 2016).

Bay Area Legal Aid filed suit against the city of San Jose, seeking an injunction to stop the city from exempting affordable housing with regard to commercial development.

San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle, whose office defended the suit, said the city has the authority to dispose of city-owned property.

"The attempt by the Legislature to say the state rules apply to charter cities with respect to city-owned property is not binding; the courts make that determination," said Doyle.

The judge, Theodore Zayner, agreed and ruled on a demurrer in favor of the city. "The court finds the sale of surplus land concerns a municipal affair/interest," he wrote.

"Accordingly, the court finds the issue here is not an abstract concern regarding the shortage of affordable housing for low-income individuals, but rather if the state can require a charter city to sell its own land in a particular way that supports providing affordable housing for low-income families," the judge wrote.

Hicks said he expects a similar argument from the city of Inglewood, but he said his case is a bit different.

"In Inglewood, all our efforts have been met with silence," Hicks said. "They city didn't even acknowledge there was any surplus land."

The San Jose case is also different because the city carved out instances where it would and wouldn't follow the act.

Hicks acknowledged that the statute is vague with regard to what is considered a "surplus." He said it's any city-owned land the city is attempting to get rid of. "The statute does not do a good job of defining what it is," said Hicks.