Hwy 101 node owners pull out of federal lawsuit against county, Measure A

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

Without giving a reason, San Benito Holdings on May 26 dropped its lawsuit against San Benito County related to 2024’s Measure A. Presiding Judge Beth Labson Freeman approved the filing the same day. 

San Benito Holdings and Ben Bingaman III sued the county in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose alleging unconstitutional taking of their properties located near the San Benito-Monterey county line and at the Hwy 101-129 interchange as a result of Measure A. They argued the removal of the property’s General Plan designation was a consequence of the voter-approved initiative. 

The lawsuit sought to reverse land use designations from rural, rangeland or agriculture to commercial regional for the two properties, or be awarded compensation for what it called the the properties’ fair market value, which the property owners set at more than $25 million.

Ben Bingaman III voluntarily dismissed his part of the lawsuit on April 23, according to court documents. That document also stated the proponents of Measure A, the Campaign to Protect San Benito, intended to intervene in the case. 

Bingaman said he abandoned the lawsuit because he didn’t see the point of pushing for something the county does not support.

“If it’s not something they want to pursue, I won’t beat them over the head with it,” he said. 

Measure A removed commercial land use designations for four properties, known as nodes, along Hwy 101 in the 2035 San Benito County General Plan, which serves as the county’s blueprint for growth. 

Approved by voters in November 2024, Measure A now requires voters to approve any proposed land use designation changes from rural, rangeland or agriculture to other uses.

San Benito Holdings’ request came three months after the county petitioned the court to dismiss the federal lawsuit. The county argued that the measure did not authorize the physical occupation, deprive the property owners of all economically viable use of their property, and did not target the plaintiffs as it “applied across the county.”

Bingaman said he met with county supervisors before dropping the lawsuit and had “good and honest discussions” about the county’s focus on agriculture tourism rather than commercial development on the highway corridor.

“People retire, new people come in with different visions and I guess [that’s now] ag tourism,” he said. “And hopefully they’re wildly successful.”

He said he no longer plans to pursue development on about 120 acres of Rocks Ranch, which will continue to be used for cattle grazing. However, he did not dismiss pursuing a revised project in the future if the county changes its stance, noting it was the county that approached him about developing the property when it was working on the 2035 General Plan.

“I don’t get upset about changes because someday in the future it may change back,” he said. “It’s just the direction the county wants to go now.”

A total of 2,613 acres of Rocks Ranch has been purchased by the Land Trust of Santa Cruz as part of its efforts to protect wildlife and improve habitat conservation, connectivity, restoration and management. 

Neither the SSL Law Firm representing both property owners nor San Benito County Board of Supervisors chair Dom Zanger immediately responded to requests for comment.

We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.