When we moved out of the Laburnum house, we were unclear whether our urns were subject to Ordinance No. 567 (adopted Oct. 18, 2006), requiring the "preservation of historical artifacts within the town of Atherton". Even though we didn't agree with the ordinance, we applied for a permit to move the urns to our new home. We filled out the application in good faith, assuming that since the ordinance was designed to keep artifacts within the town (and the urns would remain in Atherton), no issues would arise. Town staff agreed, telling us they foresaw no problems in getting the permit issued.
Following our application, town staff members prepared a report recommending that the Planning Commission approve our request, which they did in December 2006. However, contrary to the Planning Commission's vote, the City Council inexplicably denied our application. The arbitrary nature of this decision concerned us deeply, for ourselves as well as others who might find themselves in similar straits. We decided to challenge the council's decision, believing it was wrong as both a matter of law and policy.
We took the matter before the San Mateo County Superior Court. Some of the key facts we asked the court to consider:
First, the urns were on the property when we purchased our Laburnum Road home, they were lying on their sides and in disrepair, and we had them restored at our own expense.
Second, the urns were not included in the official inventory of the ordinance.
Third, although there was some thought that the urns might have been part of the Flood Estate, no one had demonstrated that they actually were.
Finally, after careful study by an expert paid for by the town, the urns were not found to be part of a historical setting, which might prevent us from moving them a couple of miles down the road.
On Aug. 7, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald ruled that the town of Atherton must set aside its decision prohibiting us from relocating our urns. He also directed the town to revisit a long list of problems with the ordinance (after which we might be required to reapply), and then awarded us a portion of our legal fees. Judge Buchwald added that the town's decision to refuse to allow us to move the urns was "clearly arbitrary and capricious." In short, the Town of Atherton made a mistake, and was directed fix it.
We appreciate the urns for what they are, not where they are. We covered the costs of restoring them, and sought only to move them from one home in Atherton to another. Does the town have the right to dictate what we can do with our personal property?
In the months to come, the City Council will consider changes to Ordinance 567 as directed by the court. To those who believe that council's attitude about "eminent domain" is wrong, we urge you to have an impact on the new ordinance: Attend as many meetings as you can, write to your council members, and let your voice be heard.
Randy and Lisa Lamb live on Park Lane in Atherton.
This story contains 614 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.