Zoning Activities Are Not Protected Speech

When a property owner brings a regulatory taking / inverse condemnation claim based on a city or county's zoning decisions, the owner often provides context and history, including public statements made by staff, board members or city council members. Are those public statements protected speech and therefore subject to California's Anti-SLAPP statute? A recent California Court of Appeal decision, City of Redondo Beach v. 9300 Wilshire, provides some context on what is and what is not permissible.

9300 Wilshire involves the site of a power plant in the City of Redondo Beach. The property owner filed a complaint against the City alleging that the City's zoning of the property for park and open space, and subsequent refusals to re-zone the property in a way that would benefit the owners, constituted a taking by depriving the owners of economically viable uses of the property. The City filed a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, asserting