Judge dismisses Beek suit

A lawsuit brought on by a local resident to put an end to the “City Hall in the Park” ballot initiative was dismissed by an Orange County Superior Court judge this week, but the resident promised an appeal would be made with hopes to go to the California Supreme Court.

Newport Beach resident Allan Beek originally filed a lawsuit in November to stop the initiative, known as Measure B, from going to voters, but the court found his lawsuit was filed too late. He amended that lawsuit in April after the initiative passed in February, alleging that a City Hall building initiative was not a legislative matter, and instead an administrative one.

Superior Court Judge Peter Polos issued a final ruling this week dismissing Beek’s lawsuit. The decision was expected, Beek said.

“State Supreme Court [outranks] this judge, and I think we should win on the merits of the lawsuit,” Beek said. “I think the fact there was a Supreme Court decision on this on our side is a pretty good reason to think we are going to get a reversal.”

Measure B was approved by 53% of voters. The initiative amended the City Charter to place City Hall on a 12.8-acre site adjacent to the Newport Beach Central Library on Avocado Avenue.

The lawsuit Beek is referencing is Simpson v. Hite (1950), where the Supreme Court found, “Only ordinances which involve an exercise of legislative power may be enacted by initiative.”

Beek and his attorney believe the city initiative is not legislative and therefore can’t be enacted by voter approval.

“Simpson v. Hite is not on point — it doesn’t apply,” said attorney James V. Lacy, who wrote the charter amendment and represents a group that backed Measure B. “It is a well-worn argument that has lost in front of two judges. It is a bunch of baloney.”

Lacy argues that Simpson v. Hite dealt with a county initiative that altered a state mandated building, leaving two agencies in conflict. With Measure B, Lacy said there are no competing agencies.

Newport Beach City Atty. Robin Clauson echoed Lacy’s opinion that Beek’s case law is not relevant. Clauson went as far as to suggest Simpson v. Hite may support the city more than it support’s Beek’s case.

“I believe, and I think the judge agreed with this, that the law is very clear. That it was a valid subject matter for a ballot initiative, particularly in this case,” Clauson said. “A judge didn’t agree with him, and I don’t believe an appeals court will either.”

Clauson said the lawsuit has not delayed the City Hall project, which is having five firms develop competing concepts over the summer. Clauson didn’t have the exact amount of money the lawsuit has cost the city thus far, but estimated it was between $20,000 to $30,000.

Lacy called Beek’s lawsuit a waste of taxpayer dollars, labeled Beek a “vexatious litigant” — a person suing without sufficient grounds and serving only to be troublesome to the defendant — and laughed at the idea of the case going to the state Supreme Court.

“Mr. Beek is now zero for three in legal hearings before legal judges,” Lacy said. “I suspect this will be summarily dismissed. My question for you and the citizens is, when this is all over, how will the citizens get their money back from Beek?”

DANIEL TEDFORD may be reached at (714) 966-4632 or at [email protected].