Relators sought writ of mandamus to have referendum on zoning ordinance passed as emergency legislation placed on upcoming general-election ballot.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Relators caused unreasonable delay in waiting to file action, as relevant to whether action was barred by laches;
- City and prospective purchaser of land were not prejudiced by delay, and thus action was not barred by laches;
- Relators lacked adequate remedy in ordinary course of law;
- Ordinance validly passed as emergency legislation was not subject to referendum under city charter; and
- Ordinance sufficiently stated reasons for passage as emergency legislation.
Zoning ordinance validly passed as emergency legislation was not subject to referendum under city’s charter, which stated that zoning ordinances “shall be subject to the provisions of [the charter] pertaining to their enactment and matters of initiative or referendum”; natural reading of charter was that “subject to” had one object, i.e., “the provisions of [the charter],” meaning that zoning ordinances could be enacted in same way as other ordinances and that charter’s referendum provisions applied to such ordinances, and charter incorporated state law concerning referendum petitions, which law exempted from referendum power ordinances passed as emergency legislation.
Stated reasons in zoning ordinance for its passage as emergency legislation, specifically, to preserve and increase municipal income tax revenues, to protect value of previously made utility infrastructure investments in zoned area, and to protect city’s influence over and ability to fund infrastructure improvements in zoned area, were sufficient to satisfy requirement that ordinance set forth reasons for passage as emergency legislation under statute providing that such ordinances go into immediate effect, and thus zoning ordinance was not subject to referendum.