McKee

County of Humboldt v. McKee

Bad Law
165 Cal. App. 4th 1476·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1248·82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 38
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 2008A117325California9,740 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

In 1965, the Legislature confronted two troubling trends in California: the loss of agricultural land to development and the haphazard growth of suburbia, requiring the “extension of municipal services to remote residential enclaves, and interfering] with agricultural activities.” (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 850 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 619 , 623 P.2d 180 ] (Sierra Club), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Friends of East Willits Valley v. County of Mendocino (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 191, 204-205 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 708 ].) “The Legislature perceived as one cause of these problems the self-fulfilling prophecy of the property tax system: taxing land on the basis of its market value compels the owner to put the land to the use for which it is valued by the market.” (Sierra Club, at p. 850.) In response, it enacted the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), which employs a two-step strategy to conserve agricultural lands. The local government first establishes and regulates agricultural preserves, and then executes land conservation contracts with landowners. (§§ 51230-51239, 51240-51257.) These contracts limit the land to agricultural and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.