Home › Breaking News
Flynn suit rejected
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Breaking News
A judge turned down Oxnard City Councilman Tim Flynn's attempt to force his colleagues to consider the Oxnard Traffic Initiative tonight instead of July 8.
Flynn filed a lawsuit Friday in the hope of getting a judge to order the matter be added to the council's agenda immediately because he feared missing a filing deadline to get the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.
In a written ruling issued today, Superior Court Judge Ken Riley said no irreparable harm will occur if the council does not consider the initiative until July 8.
"I'm obviously disapointed," Flynn said. "But I feel we achieved a victory because the mayor has committed to getting it on the November ballot."
Mayor Tom Holden said Friday that the council could put the initiative on the ballot while considering an impact report — an optional assessment of the measure that the city has 30 days to prepare.
In a nearly packed courtroom today, Assistant City Attorney Alan Holmberg and Attorney Richard Francis, representing Flynn, made brief arguments.
Francis told the judge that state law requires the initiative be put on the agenda at the next City Council meeting, which is tonight. The initiative qualified for the ballot last Thursday with valid signatures from 10 percent of the city's registered voters, but the City Council still must vote to place it on the ballot. And the paperwork must be filed with the Ventura County Clerk's office by Aug. 8 to qualify for the November election.
Holmberg said the initiative probably will be put on the agenda on July 8.
"I don't think that as a staff member or as an attorney it makes any difference whether this ultimately gets on the ballot in November or whether its heard on July 1 or July 8," Holmberg said in an interview.
To have heard the matter today would have violated the state's open meetings act, Holmberg said, adding that the law requires 72-hours notice to put an item on the agenda.
Flynn's lawsuit alleged that City Clerk Daniel Martinez improperly dragged his feet in placing the matter before the City Council. Riley disagreed.
"The court is not convinced that Mr. Martinez would have had enough time under the Brown Act to place the issue on the July 1st agenda," Riley wrote in his opinion.
Martinez said the judges decision "is confirming that I am following the process and doing this in a timely manner. This is a very complicated process."
Martinez confirmed that the initiative will be on the council's July 8 agenda.
If approved by voters, the initiative could significantly curtail development in Oxnard. The measure would provide that commercial or industrial developments of more than 10,000 square feet or housing developments of more than five homes could not be approved by the city unless all intersections within a five-mile radius of the proposed project had a peak level of service of C or better in the preceding year.
Opponents, including the Citizens for a Safe & Prosperous Oxnard, an anti-traffic initiative group, argue that the initiative provides no money to fix traffic and there would be a "significant impact" on the city's economy.
Posted by Ventura22 on July 1, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another Flynn fiasco...
Posted by Ventura22 on July 1, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another Flynn fiasco...
Posted by chair on July 1, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the anti-initiative arguments goes "who is going to pay for traffic improvements?" Well, they should! It is, after all, the developers who are erecting residences and retail outlets that only exacerbate our traffic congestion, both in town and on the 101. Existing residents are hurt -- not helped -- by their efforts. The city gains in developer fees and in sales tax revenues, but that money is soon eaten up in insufficiently supporting the new retail outlets and the new residents. A more comprehensive resolution would be to require the city to ensure a number of high-paying jobs become available IN OXNARD concurrent with the new construction. (X houses = X jobs; X new employees = X well-paid employees, i.e., in excess of $20/hr.) Retailers typically provide us only with more folks eligible for public assistance. It's a minus-zero-sum game!
Posted by anonrp on July 1, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How many signatures do I need to recall Tim Flynn? What a waste of taxpayer's money and of the courts! Tim, you should know better since you are a political science teacher at Oxnard Collage.
Posted by AskingQuestions on July 1, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Flynn is a part-time instructor at Oxnard College. He teaches FULL TIME at Camarillo High School!
Posted by anonrp on July 1, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AskingQuestions: Regardless if he is a full or part time college instructor does not really make a difference. As a councilman and a college instructor, he should have know that there was a need for a 72 hour notice for the item to appear on the agenda.
High_society: Talk to me when you get a BS or BA in Business or Economics.
Lets see, wasting city's attorneys time: $250 per hour, Time spent for police investigate harassing phone call to city staff: $75 per hour, being told by a judge your lawsuit lacks merit: priceless
Last count I had was:
City of Oxnard: 2
Tim Flynn:0
Posted by surferdude on July 1, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thank Flynn. I hate sitting in traffic jams inhaling exhaust fumes. If development and retail were the answer to prosperity Oxnard would be the richest city in ventura County.
Posted by half_and_half on July 1, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All I got to say to Mr. Tim Flynn is "HA HA!" what a waste of time and taxpayer money for everyone that was involved. Court system, judges, attorneys and staff time. And by the way, the people who signed the petition were bamboozled!
Posted by Oranges on July 1, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The people that signed the petition represent the constituents the city council is supposed to represent. By stalling its clear they have no regard for those that put them in office. To all the Flynn haters, your other council members think your nothing but crap on the bottom of their shoe.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on July 1, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm just glad I don't live in Oxnard.
A city that does not seem to have zoning. It grows without creating the infrastructure needed to support the growth.
I avoid the town whenever I can..Costco is as close as I want to get..I try to stay on the north side of the 101 as much as possible.
Posted by Rob_Dawg on July 1, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Flynn won. Holden promised to get the initiative on the November ballot. The point of these types of suits is not to win the battle but the war. Now for all those who complain about wasting time and money there is an alternative; lobby the council to accept the foregone conclusion of passage and adopt the resolution en toto and obviate the need for a vote and ensuing expensive attempt to forestall the inevitable with an acrimonious campaign.
Before; the City and Council were prepared to miss the deadline and postpone a public vote they know they will lose. After; the mayor promises a November ballot. Tell me again how Flynn lost?
Next up will be the accusations of divisions the vote will cause in the city and on the council. Again, don't blame Flynn. The Council has it in their power unite and do something radical; listen to the people.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.