LAKEPORT, Calif. – Representatives of the city of Lakeport and the county of Lake, and a group of mobile home park owners suing over two senior mobile home park rent control initiatives are scheduled to appear in court on Friday afternoon for the first hearing in the case.
The case, Smith et al. v. Chapman, et al., is set for 3 p.m. in Department 2 at the Lake County Courthouse in Lakeport.
In January, Kerry Smith, daughter of a county park owner, and the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association filed for a writ of mandate and named both the city of Lakeport and the county of Lake, as Lake County News has reported.
Smith and the association argue that the two initiatives – one to go on the June ballot in the county and the second to appear on Lakeport's November municipal ballot – are unconstitutional.
Specifically, the plaintiffs cite violation of due process, an illegal taking and state preemption issues, and so are asking a judge to set the initiatives aside rather than place them before voters.
Lakeport's measure defines senior parks as those where at least 80 percent of the homes have at least one person age 65 or older; the county initiative defines a senior park as one where 80 percent of the homes in a senior park have at least one person over age 55.
The measures are identical in the requirement to roll back rents to Jan. 1, 2012, and require that rent increases be tied to rises in Social Security benefits.
The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing schedule due to the fact that the county measure is set to be on the June ballot. Neither the city nor the county opposed the sped-up schedule.
The city of Lakeport's response states that City Clerk Janel Chapman has no authority to unilaterally withhold the challenged initiative from the ballot, and that Chapman, in her official capacity, has a ministerial duty to place it before voters after being directed to do so by the Lakeport City Council last September.
The county is taking a similar approach, according to County Counsel Anita Grant.
“We're saying exactly the same thing that the city said,” Grant told Lake County News.
The county's filing states that it's not Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley's function to determine whether a proposed initiative is within the powers of the electorate to adopt or if it will be valid if enacted.
“At this point, the registrar of voters has to move forward unless the court determines otherwise,” Grant explained.
She said Fridley is required by the state elections code to be completely objective. Fridley also can't drag her feet in taking the required action, as changing the timeframe can impact the outcome, Grant said.
“The election code is written that way to avoid shenanigans,” Grant said.
In December, the supervisors voted to place the initiative on the primary ballot.
The Board of Supervisors had two choices when the county initiative went before it – adopt the measure or place it before voters, Grant said. “The board had two choices, the registrar had none.”
Grant added, “This hasn’t been adopted by the voters so it isn’t yet county law,” so the county doesn't have a duty to defend the measure.
Nelson Strasser, who wrote the Lakeport initiative and is a member of the “Save Our Seniors” group that sponsored both measures, has been named a real party of interest in the case.
He told Lake County News that he submitted a letter to the court citing several cases and codes in support of the measures, and he plans to appear at the Friday hearing, at which point he hopes to address the court.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
