Livermore Residents Divided Over Eden Housing Referendum Refusal

LIVERMORE, CA — Livermore residents are divided over whether City Clerk Marie Weber was justified in rejecting a referendum opposing the location of Eden Housing, a 130-unit housing development downtown approved by the city council in May.

A group called “Move Eden Housing” gathered over 8,000 signatures to put the issue up for a referendum in November, and presented it to the city clerk on July 8. Weber, in consultation with City Attorney Jason Alcala and an outside law firm, sent the group a letter on July 13 stating that the matter was “administrative” rather than “legislative,” and thus not eligible for a voter referendum in November.

“Since the City Council’s resolution did not contain any legislative acts, the petition did not have a right to be processed as a referendum using the procedures in the Elections Code,” Weber wrote in a subsequent email to The Independent, which originally reported on the decision. “I have a duty to ensure voters are not misled throughout the election process. Processing this as a referendum would have misled voters into believing the act itself is subject to referendum.”

Barry Fadem, an attorney for Move Eden Housing, told the Independent that Weber is “flat-out wrong”, and that if a referendum receives the number of votes required (in this case, 5,700, or ten percent of the city’s eligible voters.)

“The city will force us to file a lawsuit and they will spend taxpayer dollars to try and deny the will of the people,” Fadem said.

Weber’s decision has received an outpouring of reactions both for and against. During the council meeting Monday, dozens of people called in to speak on the issue, and comments had to be broadcast at the beginning and end of the meeting. Since the item was not agendized, council members did not speak about it. 17 residents spoke in support of the referendum, while 12 opposed it. The city also received 79 written comments (beginning on p. 671), most of which support a referendum.

Referendum supporters argued that Weber was overstepping her bounds and denying the will of the voters.

“Let the residents of Livermore vote,” resident Donna Cabanne said, echoing a refrain found across the comments and letters. “Eight thousand Livermore residents signed petitions. Eight thousand Livermore residents signed the referendum. The city voters want a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should respect the process and allow a vote. The residents never had a vote on the location of Eden Housing. The courts will determine if what the city is doing is legal. However, forcing this measure to go to the courts is wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on better issues.”

Detractors argued that Weber was simply doing her job, and that the issue had already been decided by numerous meetings, votes, and an extensive public outreach campaign. Some callers claimed that anti-housing groups were “bullying” Weber.

“It is simply not a referendable item,” said Lisa Tromovitch. “The city clerk is an elections official for our city. She is a constitutional officer with a duty to the citizens as a whole to uphold the election laws. The duties she performs support not just our city, but the democracy of the United States. Lawyers for a recently-formed group calling themselves Move Eden Housing are attempting to intimidate Marie into altering her assessment and determination and submit petition signatures for further review against the rules and laws that govern the use of taxpayer dollars to put a referendum on the ballot.”