You have to wait until the government enacts a lousy law before you can run to court to challenge it.
That’s the lesson from Stonehouse Homes v. City of Sierra Madre, No. B195552 (Oct. 9, 2008), in which California’s Second District Court of Appeals held that a lawsuit challenging the city’s “moratorium resolution” was not ripe for judicial review. In the moratorium resolution, the city stated it was considering amending an existing zoning ordinance regarding minimum lot sizes in the city’s “Hillside Management Zone.” The city is “located in the steep hillsides of the San Gabriel Mountains northeast of Pasadena.” Slip op. at 2.
The complaint alleged the moratorium resolution violated the plaintiff’s due process rights, among other issues. The city demurred because the resolution was not a law, but rather was a notice of a potential change in the city’s zoning code. Slip op. at 5. The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer (dismissed the case).
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the complaint did not present a justiciable controversy (in other words, sought an advisory opinion). The court held the issue wasn’t yet ready for review, since a declaratory judgment regarding the plaintiff’s rights would have required the court to speculate about future events, such as whether the city would amend its zoning code. Slip op. at 9-10. The court held “[t]he moratorium resolution thus merely gave notice to the public of potential legislation that might be adopted in the future with respect to HMZ provisions.” Slip op. at 10.