Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,891 chars

21
prohibited from interfering with the new provisions or decisions
of the commission, absent voter approval. (Id. at pp. 348-349.)
Unlike the provisions granting exclusive authority to the pension
commission in McFadden, Measure H’s provisions may be
superseded by any initiative amendment to the Charter that
receives a greater number of affirmative votes than Measure H.
(§ 1820(b)(3).) In further contrast, Measure H authorizes
landlords and tenants to seek judicial review of the Rental
Board’s actions and decisions (§ 1815) and acknowledges that its
provisions may be declared or rendered invalid or unenforceable
by courts and state and federal legislatures (§ 1811(o)).
       Petitioners cite section 1811(m) of Measure H, which states
that the Rental Board “shall exercise its powers and duties under
this Article independent from the City Council, City Manager,
and City Attorney.” Petitioners also point out that Measure H
authorizes the Rental Board to establish its own budget, set fees
to support its budget and penalties for violations of its rules, hire
and fire its own staff and consultants, file or intervene in court
actions, and retain its own legal counsel. (§ 1811(e), (l), (n).) But
these provisions do not show a fundamental alteration of the
City’s government as the provisions in McFadden did. As
discussed, Measure H authorizes the Rental Board to promulgate
rules and regulations for the administration and enforcement of
Measure H’s provisions, and it grants the Rental Board specific
powers and duties in the discrete areas of rent control, just cause
evictions, and landlord-tenant relations. For all other matters,
the City Council, Mayor, and City Manager retain their vast
legislative, executive, and administrative authority.
       Since McFadden, the Supreme Court has deemed only two
challenged initiative measures to be impermissible constitutional

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text