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

1,602 chars

34
Certainly that right should not be dependent upon the amount of
property he owns.”].)
       The framers’ focus on real property ownership for purposes
of the property qualification provision is also evidenced by a
subsequent convention debate regarding a proposed amendment
to a separate provision permitting the adoption of a city charter
prepared by an elected “Board of fifteen freeholders.” (3 Willis &
Stockton, supra, at p. 1406.) 8 An opponent of this “freeholder
requirement” asked whether it was invalid under the newly
adopted property qualification provision and proposed that board
membership should instead be qualified on “five years residence
in the city.” (Id. at p. 1406 [remarks of delegate C.J.
Beerstecher].) The delegate added, “If the electors choose to send
a man to perform this work who does not own real estate, I think
they should have a right to do it.” (Ibid.) A proponent of the
freeholder requirement responded that it was “not in conflict with
other portions of the Constitution, because it is all one
instrument and must be taken together. That is, no property
qualification shall ever be allowed except as provided in the
instrument itself.” (Id. at p. 1406 [remarks of delegate Jno. S.
Hager].) The delegates ultimately voted to keep the word
“freeholders” in the provision. (Id. at p. 1406; see also Cal.
Const., art. XI, former § 8 [freeholder requirement in adopted
provision of 1879 Constitution].) Collectively, this historical
evidence demonstrates the framers understood and intended for
the property qualification provision to serve as protection for the

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text