Evans

Evans v. City of San Jose

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 156·3 Cal. App. 4th 728·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601·92 Daily Journal DAR 2145·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1333
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1992H008169California4,393 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cottle, J.

Appellant Elaine Evans challenges here, as she did in the trial court, the facial constitutionality of those provisions of Streets and Highways Code section 36500 et seq. and San Jose Ordinance No. 22960 which authorize imposition of assessments on businesses for the purposes of general downtown promotion, the furnishing of music, and other expenditures unrelated to capital improvements. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jose (city), ostensibly on the ground that Evans failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. For reasons we shall explain, we affirm the judgment.

Facts

On October 6, 1988, at a public hearing, the City Council of San Jose adopted a resolution of intention to establish a business improvement district (BID), pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36500 et seq. (the Act), to promote the downtown area. After the hearing, each of the businesses in the proposed district was notified that a hearing would be held on October 20, 1988, to consider establishing the BID. The businesses were told, “If you wish to support or oppose the establishment of the BID you may do so in person at the hearing or by writing the City…

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.