On a previous post Sam Sloan referred to "New York City Board of Estimates v. Morris" and the lawsuit's success in disbanding the Board of Estimates under the "one man one vote rule." The Board comprised of a handful of elected officials who decided on lots of things, among which land use.
What struck me is that, even though the folks on the Board were elected, the Supreme Court still agreed with the fact that they violated the one man one vote rule; while in the case of Plan Bay Area, the people deciding land use are not even elected at all.
At this point, it appears that the lawsuits filed against Plan Bay Area have been largely unsuccessful. There were 4 suits.
Bay Area Lawsuits
It appears that one lawsuit is still standing, or to be considered, the Post Sustainability Institute's suit, claiming Plan Pay Area is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment (taking of property without just compensation). Bay Area Citizens v. Plan Bay Area's writ of mandate (claiming not enough alternatives were considered) was denied. The Builders Association's suit (claiming there was not enough stack and pack) was settled. The Environmentalists' suit (claiming there was not enough mandates to reduce greenhouse gases) was also settled.
No lawsuit based on the one man one vote rule.
So, now we have, moving full steam ahead, a bunch of unelected folks making land use decisions for all of us. No challenge in the horizon. LPSF has an article on the website about the serious detrimental repercussions of this Regionalism implemented by the unelected.
and Present Danger
The Sierra Club is delighted that MTC and ABAG, master
planners of Plan Bay Area, are moving forward with great success: http://theyodeler.org/?p=10112
"MTC and ABAG have now begun work on developing the
successor to Plan Bay Area."
Well, one good thing, maybe. If you live outside the Priority Development Areas, the government might forget you entirely. Marcy