Lea este artículo en español aquí.
On the day of the deadline to respond, San Benito County filed a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in November by two Hwy 101 node owners seeking to develop their properties.
While the plaintiffs San Benito Holdings and Ben Bingaman III allege unconstitutional taking of their properties located near the San Benito and Monterey county line and at the Hwy 101/129 interchange as a result of Measure A, the filing dated Feb. 12 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose states the removal of the property’s general plan designation was a result of a voter-approved initiative.
The lawsuit seeks to reverse land use designations for the two properties or be awarded compensation for the properties’ fair market value set at more than $25 million.
“Measure A did not authorize a physical occupation, did not deprive Plaintiffs of all economically viable use of their property, and did not target Plaintiffs through an adjudicatory decision,” the county states. “Instead, it represents a classic legislative exercise of the police power, adopted
by the voters and applied across the County.”
The Measure A initiative removed commercial land use designations for four properties, known as nodes, along Hwy 101 in the 2035 San Benito County General Plan. 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.
The county states the property owners’ argument of property taking fails because they contradict themselves in saying Measure A rendered their properties “economically idle” while acknowledging other uses such as residential, hotel and agricultural uses remain permissible.
“The complaint concedes that the subject properties retain legally permissible and conditionally permitted uses under the post-Measure A regulatory framework, but alleges that such uses would be costly or insufficiently profitable,” the county states. “Allegations of increased cost, reduced profitability, and diminished development potential, or dissatisfaction with market options do not establish total deprivation as a matter of law.”
The county also alleges the property owners do not possess reasonable, investment-backed expectations because they never obtained any permits or agreements for their properties.
“Expenditures incurred in pursuit of discretionary approvals do not transform speculative hope into a constitutionally protected property interest,” the county states.
It also states the relief sought by the property owners “compelling legislative action, rezoning, or invalidation of Measure A,” is beyond the court’s authority.
The county requests the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the property owners could not sue the county again for the issue.
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.