Solvang Municipal Imp. Dist. v. Jensen
| Decision Date | 20 May 1952 |
| Parties | SOLVANG MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DIST. v. JENSEN. Civ. 19069. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Kirkbride, Wilson, Harzfeld & Wallace, San Mateo, for petitioner.
Arden T. Jensen, in propria persona.
The present proceeding is an application for a writ of mandate. The facts are set forth in an agreed statement. The application was filed with the Supreme Court and transferred to this court.
Solvang Municipal Improvement District, a public corporation, was created by special act of the legislature, Stats. 1951, ch. 1635, p. 3676, and was duly organized. Proceedings were had for the issuance of district bonds. The district seeks a writ of mandate commanding respondent Jensen, as secretary of the district, to publish notice of sale of certain bonds of the district in the manner directed by its board of directors. The application is resisted upon the ground that the district was created by special act of the legislature in contravention of constitutional limitations, and is an illegal entity. We shall refer to the act as the Solvang Act.
Mandate is a proper remedy. In re City and County of San Francisco v. Boyle, 195 Cal. 426, 429, 233 P. 965; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581, 213 P. 949; Hartsock v. Merritt, 93 Cal.App. 365, 265 P. 757. Original jurisdiction has frequently been exercised by the upper courts in proper cases of this nature. City of Grass Valley v. Walkinshaw, 34 Cal.2d 595, 212 P.2d 894; Ventura County Harbor Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 211 Cal. 271, 295 P. 6; In re City and County of San Francisco v. Boyle, supra; Los Angeles Co. F. C. Dist. v. Hamilton, 177 Cal. 119, 169 P. 1028.
The obvious purpose of the proceeding is to obtain a judgment establishing the validity of the district and its right to issue bonds. Section 97 of the act authorizes the district to bring an action in the superior court to obtain such a judgment. The present proceeding was instituted in the hope that some time would be saved in bringing the proceeding to final judgment.
Article IV, section 25, subdivision 33, of the Constitution provides: 'The Legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * [33rd] In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable.' The act which created petitioner, being a special law, is a valid enactment if there was no general law which could be made applicable to accomplish the purposes of the special law. This is the sole question for decision.
There are existing in the area a sanitary district, a fire district and a lighting district, all of which under the Solvang Act are consolidated and merged with the new district. Sec. 40. The powers of the district are enumerated as follows: 'The district may acquire, construct, reconstruct, alter, enlarge, lay, renew, replace, maintain, and operate street and highway lighting facilities and facilities for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm waters, garbage and refuse; the production, storage, treatment and distribution of water for public and private purposes; and fire departments and facilities.' Sec. 43. Sections 210 and 211 of the act read as stated in margin. 1
The recitals of section 210 are determinations of fact as to the conditions which required the organization of an improvement district. Such recitals, if not contrary to facts that are of common knowledge, will be deemed conclusive by the courts. People v. Sacramento Drainage Dist., 155 Cal. 373, 103 P. 207; Ventura County Harbor Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 211 Cal. 271, 295 P. 6. It is a judicial question whether existing general laws could have been made applicable to accomplish the purposes of the special law, but the declaration that creation of the district by special law was the only alternative to incorporation as a city should not be ignored. It is evidence of the fact that the legislature was influenced by considerations which, as we shall see, fully justified the special legislation.
Historically, the legislature has exercised the power to create improvement and protection districts by special laws when it was deemed necessary in order to accomplish purposes that could not be accomplished through the use of existing general laws. An urgent need for furnishing necessary facilities in a particular situation has been held to be a sufficient reason for the creation of a district by special law, even though in other respects the facilities could be provided by proceedings under general laws. American Riv. Flood Control Dist. v. Sweet, 214 Cal. 778, 7 P.2d 1030; Monterey Peninsula Airport Dist. v. Mason, 19 Cal.2d 446, 121 P.2d 727.
At the time the Solvang Act was passed there were two general laws under which a district could have been organized: one was the Public Utility District Act of 1921, Stats. 1921, p. 906, as amended, Deering's General Laws, Act 6391; the other was the Municipal Corporation Act of 1883, Stats.1883, page 93, as amended, now sections 34300 et seq., Government Code. A district organized under the former act would have had not only the powers granted to the Solvang District, but also power to acquire, construct, own, operate and use works for supplying light, power, heat, transportation, telephone service and other means of communication, public parks, public playgrounds, public swimming pools and public recreation buildings and buildings to be used for public purposes and the use of the district. Sec. 30. The powers of a city would be even more extensive.
The sole contention of the respondent is that the Solvang district should have been organized under one or the other of these general laws. The contention is without support in authority or reason.
It clearly appears from the face of the act that there is pressing need for the public improvements which the district proposes to provide. The people of the area wished to organize a district with limited powers. If they had desired to incorporate as a city, or as a utility district, they would have done so. Proceedings under either of the general laws are permissive. They require petitions signed by percentages of the voters or land owners, and elections at which a majority vote is required to carry the propositions. In considering the propriety of creating the Solvang district by special act the legislature no doubt was influenced by the fact that the land owners and voters of the area were evidently adverse to both the utility district and city forms of government, and might not adopt either. This has been recognized as a good reason for the creation of an improvement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Saratoga v. Huff
...303 P.2d 46; Fairfield-Suisun Sewer Dist. v. Hutcheon, 1956, 139 Cal.App.2d 502, 505, 294 P.2d 102; Solvang Municipal Imp. Dist. v. Jensen, 1952, 111 Cal.App.2d 237, 238, 244 P.2d 492; and note City of Santa Clara v. Von Raesfeld, 1970, 3 Cal.3d 239, 243, 90 Cal.Rptr. 8, 474 P.2d 976; and E......
-
City of Los Angeles v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.
...law, the declaration in the special law as to the reasons for its enactment should not be ignored. (Solvang Municipal Improvement District v. Jensen, 111 Cal.App.2d 237, 240, 244 P.2d 492.) The widespread havoc caused by the collapse of the Baldwin Hills dam was reason enough to justify the......
-
Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dist. v. Hughes
...and water conservation districts. Of these 20 are county districts.' [Italics added.] In Solvang Municipal Improvement Dist. v. Jensen, 111 Cal.App.2d 237, at page 240, 244 P.2d 492, at page 493, the following 'The recitals of [the statute] are determinations of fact as to the conditions wh......
-
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer Dist. v. Hutcheon
... ... 1. The Municipal Sewer Districts Act of 1911, H. & S.C.A., sec. 4600 et seq., which ... The following language of the court in Solvang Municipal Improvement District v. Jensen, 111 Cal.App.2d 237, at page 241, ... ...