iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Statutory Construction			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 Statutory Construction-Clear Meaning Binding
(Citizens for Safer Streets-Dissent)

 Statutory Construction-Clear Meaning Binding
Citizens for Safer Streets-Dissent

 “In construing a statute, our role is limited to ascertaining the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.  (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 1000; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 621.)  We look first to the words of the statute because they are the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.  (In re J.W. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200, 209.)  If the statutory language on its face answers the question that answer is binding unless we conclude the language is ambiguous or it does not accurately reflect the Legislature’s intent.  (People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1071-1072; Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562; see Esberg v. Union Oil Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 262, 268.)”  (Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1271).  The meaning of the statute was clear enough to the City in 1993, two years after it was enacted.  Then, seven different city agencies issued a report addressing the issue raised in this appeal.  That report was prepared by the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office and Office of the Chief Administrative Officer in association with Department of City Planning, Department of Parking & Traffic, Department of Public Works, Department of Real Estate and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.  The report considered the need for low cost housing but concluded that “this kind of disposition would clearly conflict with the basic purpose of the land transfer.”  (Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Replacement Project:  Recommendations on Disposition of Broadway Parcels (March 1993, p. 11.)  That conclusion was correct and remains so whether or not the City believes that it needs the property for that purpose.  The intended use that appellant seeks to enjoin is plainly “another and different purpose” (Mulvey v. Wangenheim, supra, 23 Cal.App. 268, 271), and is therefore ultra vires to the Legislature’s grant and to section 72.

            In conclusion, because the City has wrongly assumed that the property may be used for any purpose it wishes without the consent of the Legislature, provided only that it is not needed for the one for which it was conveyed, I would reverse.

Citizens for Safer Streets v. S.F. 2/26/04 CA1/4A102773
 

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com |  Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US |United States News
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law  | Advanced Trial Handbook
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commissionmm  
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com