Wilson v. City of Columbia, 2:14-cv-04220-NKL
| Decision Date | 21 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:14-cv-04220-NKL,2:14-cv-04220-NKL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Parties | BETTY WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiffs Betty Wilson and Michael MacMann participated in a referendum petition process to repeal ordinances passed by the Columbia City Council. The ordinances were eventually repealed by the Council. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants, City of Columbia and City Manager Mike Matthes, interfered with the referendum process and thereby violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the City Charter, the Missouri Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Defendants move for summary judgment. [Doc.42.] Summary judgement is granted in their favor.
On March 19, 2014, Ordinance 022010 (Ordinance A) was approved by the City Council. It authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Opus Development Company, LLC. The agreement stated that there were inadequate water, fire protection, electric, storm water, and sanitary sewer facilities to serve the student housing project that Opus wanted to build downtown. To ensure adequate infrastructure for the increased demand of the new project, Opusagreed to contribute $450,000 for infrastructure improvements in the area. The City agreed to permit construction of the project pursuant to the terms of the agreement and applicable law, "provided all requisite permits have been issued by the City[.]" [Doc. 51-1, Exhibit E.]
A referendum petition for repeal of Ordinance A, began circulating within a week. On May 29, 2014, the proponents of this first referendum petition (Referendum A), received certification of the requisite number of signatures needed to submit the matter to a vote of the people.
Before that certification, Defendant Matthes signed the Opus Development Agreement authorized by Ordinance A, knowing that Referendum Petition A was circulating. Mayor McDavid also publicly criticized the repeal effort as "reckless and irresponsible." [Doc. 51-18, p. 46.] In addition, on May 19, 2014, Ordinance 022071 (Ordinance B) was approved by the City Council. Ordinance B was in all material ways the same as Ordinance A, the subject of the ongoing referendum process. Ordinance B also contained a contingency. It provided that if no referendum was filed to repeal Ordinance B, then Ordinance A was automatically repealed. [Doc. 51-2, p. 1.]
At the time Ordinance B passed, Ordinance A was still in effect. Plaintiffs began gathering signatures to repeal Ordinance B and this second referendum petition (Referendum B) was certified July 31, 2014.
Prior to Referendum B being certified, the City Council repealed Ordinance A pursuant to Section 133 of the City Charter. Thereafter, on July 7, 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution that authorized the temporary closure of certain sidewalks and parking lanes around the construction site. At some point, Opus also applied for and received necessary permits pursuant to administrative procedures. These permits included a land disturbance permit, demolition permit, footings and foundation permit, and building permit.
The City Council voted to repeal Ordinance B on August 18, 2014, pursuant to Section 133 of the City Charter. The development agreement authorized by Ordinance B was never executed by the City.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants interfered with their rights to participate in the referendum process and thereby violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as rights under the Missouri Constitution and the City Charter. They contend that once citizens exercise their referendum rights, the City could not constitutionally interfere with the process by making comments about the referendum or by introducing a second ordinance that was materially the same as the ordinance the petitioners were seeking to repeal. They also contend that Ordinance B was an effort to coerce the Plaintiffs to give up their right to participate in the referendum process by conditioning repeal of Ordinance A on no referendum petitions being filed to repeal Ordinance B. Finally they claim that Mayor McDavid intentionally interfered with the referendum process when he criticized the petitioners as reckless and the Defendants did likewise when they authorized permits to Opus during the referendum process.
As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to identify what referendum rights the Plaintiffs have under the City Charter and state law.
The Missouri Constitution, Article VI, § 19, provides that a city with a charter form of government shall "have all powers which the general assembly of the state of Missouri has authority to confer..., provided such powers are consistent with the constitution of the state and are not limited or denied either by the charter ... or by statute." Id. See also, City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 S.W.2d 786, 789 (Mo. 1996) (en banc). Neither the Missouri Constitution, nor any state statute, nor the Columbia City Charter gives the citizens of Columbia an unlimited right toseek a vote of the people concerning actions by the City administration or the City Council. Opportunities for direct democracy only exist if granted by the City Charter in a manner consistent with state law. State ex rel. Powers v. Donohue, 368 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Mo. 1963) (en banc); State ex rel. Chastain, v. City of Kansas City, 289 S.W. 3d 759 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009); State ex rel. Petti v. Goodwin-Rafferty, 190 S.W.3d 501, 504-05 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006);
The Columbia City Charter authorizes the voters to approve or reject most ordinances by referendum according to the following relevant provisions:
[Doc. 45, pp. 1-3.] There is nothing in the City Charter that permits a referendum to repeal a building permit granted by the City.2
In State ex rel. Petti v. Goodwin-Rafferty, 190 S.W.3d 501, 504-05 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006), the Missouri Court of Appeals further amplified how a city charter defines the right of its citizens to engage in direct democracy. In that case, the Florissant city council approved an ordinance that changed the zoning of certain property from single family to commercial, to allow a shopping center development project. Objecting to the development project, Florissant residents gathered signatures for a referendum petition seeking to have the new zoning ordinance set aside. The city clerk rejected the petition on the basis that the city charter explicitly excluded zoning ordinance amendments from the referendum process. The Court of Appeals held that because Florissant's charter explicitly excluded zoning ordinances from the referendum process, and the exclusion was not unlawful, the city clerk could not be compelled to accept and process the plaintiffs' referendum petition.
Similarly, in State ex el. Powers v. Donohue, 368 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Mo. 1963) (en banc), the Missouri Supreme Court held that St. Louis County citizens did not have a right to amend a county zoning ordinance by initiative petition to prevent rezoning a specific piece of property. The initiative proponents had argued that "[t]o deny of the citizens of this state the right tocorrect zoning injustices through the initiative procedure would be to deny to them any measure of control over this vital aspect of their lives and property and to deprive them of any political-action remedy against outright confiscation and the most grievous wrongs." Id. at 437. The Missouri Supreme Court held the charter contained a comprehensive procedure for county zoning, and the initiative process was not available as a method of amending the county zoning ordinance.
Thus, the Court confines its analysis to the rights actually granted by state law and the Columbia City Charter.
The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants violated the Columbia City Charter and the Missouri Constitution by interfering with their referendum rights. Specifically, the Plaintiffs object to the City Council passing Ordinance B while Referendum Petition A was being circulated. They also object...
To continue reading
Request your trial