⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Due Process (void-for-vagueness)
• 1st Amendment – chilling effect on expressive naming
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §7 – due process
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must be clear and precise
────────────────────────────────────────
2) CONTRADICTORY STANDARDS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
§1001(g) defines "offensive and derogatory" categorically, but
§1006(c) applies a "reasonable person" test — these two standards directly contradict each other, and it is unclear which governs.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Due Process (lack of fair notice of applicable standard)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11340.1 – regs must be internally consistent
• California APA §§11340–11365 – ambiguous regs are unenforceable
────────────────────────────────────────
3) PETITIONER-DRIVEN SUPPRESSION
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Private petitioners can force suppression of their disfavored historical names via content-based criteria.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – viewpoint discrimination; compelled government speech
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §2 – free speech
────────────────────────────────────────
4) UNEQUAL TREATMENT / SPECIAL RIGHTS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Special rights and explicit prioritization of a group's names and culture.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §31 (Prop 209) – prohibits race/ethnicity preference in government decisions
────────────────────────────────────────
5) NO MEANINGFUL APPEAL PROCESS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
No standard of review, no timeline for the Secretary on appeals, and no right of appeal for public agencies ordered to rename features.
Only petitioners can appeal.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – procedural due process (right to meaningful hearing)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §7 – due process
• Government Code §11350 – right to judicial review
• California APA – meaningful review for all affected parties
────────────────────────────────────────
6) SILENCE TREATED AS APPROVAL
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Secretary's 30-day inaction deems petitions and replacement names accepted without any affirmative on-the-record finding. Silence cannot equal approval.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – procedural due process
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• California APA §§11340–11365 – requires affirmative agency action
• Government Code §11346.1 – requires findings before regulatory action
────────────────────────────────────────
7) UNFUNDED MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Local agencies must fund unfunded signage, maps, databases, and emergency updates within strict timelines.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine (enforcement authority not clearly granted)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. XIII B §6 – unfunded state mandates
────────────────────────────────────────
8) NO CLEAR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
CACGN is an advisory committee with no established enforcement powers. Citing "any remedy available by law" without specifying
those powers is legally hollow. Creates conflict with local home rule authority and separation of powers principles.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine – legislative power cannot be delegated without an intelligible principle
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11000 – agencies act only within delegated authority
• California APA §11342.2 – regs must be within statutory authority
────────────────────────────────────────
9) SCOPE CREEP BEYOND ORIGINAL INTENT
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Expansive definitions and the "similar names" cascade go well beyond the original focus on eliminating slurs — overreach and scope creep.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine – agencies may only act within the specific boundaries of power delegated to them
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §§8899.90–8899.95 – enabling statute scope
• California standing doctrine (APA & case law) – petitioners must demonstrate concrete, particularized injury
────────────────────────────────────────
10) OVERBROAD STANDING FOR PETITIONERS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Overbroad standing allows out-of-state petitioners to qualify if "relatives have lived" in an affected place. Creates unfair preference that marginalizes non-petitioning community groups.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Article III – requires anyone bringing a legal claim to show a real, concrete injury, not a generalized grievance
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §8899.94 – limits petition rights to defined parties
• California APA – regs must stay within enabling statute's scope
────────────────────────────────────────
11) RETROACTIVE / HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Retroactive judgment by modern standards with no required balancing factors. Enables selective cultural revisionism with no required balancing of historical context or local consensus. Can't erase history.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – expressive association with historical names
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must account for full public impact
────────────────────────────────────────
12) ENDLESS / SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Ideologically driven campaigns; the "perceived association" standard enables endless petitions and selective enforcement, with no limiting principle.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – viewpoint discrimination
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Broad petitioner eligibility + subjective criteria
────────────────────────────────────────
13) TAXPAYER AND ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Taxpayer costs for signage/GIS, resident address changes, and disruption to emergency services. Creates financial burden, administrative chaos, and property record impacts for affected communities.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Practical harm argument – real-world burdens far outweigh any public benefit
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. XIII B §6 – unfunded mandates
────────────────────────────────────────
14) UNEQUAL WEIGHT GIVEN TO STAKEHOLDERS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Unfairly prioritizes one group's input over local voters and factual disputes about naming origin. Creates unfair preference that marginalizes some community stakeholders.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Equal Protection
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §31 (Prop 209) – race/ethnicity preference
────────────────────────────────────────
15) MISSION CREEP / RESOURCE DIVERSION
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Starts with slurs but enables open-ended historical revisionism.
Diverts public resources from core government functions and creates a chilling effect on all geographic names.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – chilling effect
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §§8899.90–8899.95 – exceeds enabling statute intent
────────────────────────────────────────
16) DRAFTING ERRORS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Title misspells "DERROGATORY" (double-r); §1001(g)(3) drops list structure mid-sentence, creating an ambiguous run-on.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• (none cited)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must be clear, concise, and easily understood
• California OAL review standards
The draft General Plan and Local Area Plans will come before you soon. Please slow the process down enough to allow meaningful public review and review all the comments not entered, review requests for deletions submitted and look at each section closely. A tremendous amount of work has gone into these plans by LAPAC members, advisory groups, and members of the public, staff and consultants. Many of us have spent months — and in some cases years — carefully reviewing these documents and submitting comments. My concern is that as revisions continue, the people who did that work need an opportunity to see what was actually changed, what was accepted or rejected, and whether new language or policies have been added before these documents move toward adoption. This is especially important for the Local Area Plans. The LAPACs know their communities. They should have an opportunity to review the final revised versions of their plans before those plans move forward. There is no harm in taking a little more time to get a General Plan that will guide Lake County for decades right. We have spent years working on this. Taking a few more weeks or months to make sure we get it right is insignificant compared with the decades these plans will govern Lake County. Please don't let the desire to finish the process become more important than the quality of the final product and meaningful public participation. I respectfully ask the Board to give the LAPACs, advisory groups, and the public adequate time to review the revised documents before moving them forward for adoption. Thank you.
CACGN (California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names)
DEROGATORY AND OFFENSIVE NAMES DRAFT LEGAL ISSUES
NOTE: Status: second Outreach event has been completed. Next is the Regulatory Process. CACGN has not announced when that process will begin.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
────────────────────────────────────────
1) VAGUE, SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Highly subjective definitions ("perpetuate stereotypes," "perceived association," "pejorative ideology," "reasonable person" test)
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Due Process (void-for-vagueness)
• 1st Amendment – chilling effect on expressive naming
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §7 – due process
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must be clear and precise
────────────────────────────────────────
2) CONTRADICTORY STANDARDS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
§1001(g) defines "offensive and derogatory" categorically, but
§1006(c) applies a "reasonable person" test — these two standards directly contradict each other, and it is unclear which governs.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Due Process (lack of fair notice of applicable standard)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11340.1 – regs must be internally consistent
• California APA §§11340–11365 – ambiguous regs are unenforceable
────────────────────────────────────────
3) PETITIONER-DRIVEN SUPPRESSION
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Private petitioners can force suppression of their disfavored historical names via content-based criteria.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – viewpoint discrimination; compelled government speech
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §2 – free speech
────────────────────────────────────────
4) UNEQUAL TREATMENT / SPECIAL RIGHTS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Special rights and explicit prioritization of a group's names and culture.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §31 (Prop 209) – prohibits race/ethnicity preference in government decisions
────────────────────────────────────────
5) NO MEANINGFUL APPEAL PROCESS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
No standard of review, no timeline for the Secretary on appeals, and no right of appeal for public agencies ordered to rename features.
Only petitioners can appeal.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – procedural due process (right to meaningful hearing)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §7 – due process
• Government Code §11350 – right to judicial review
• California APA – meaningful review for all affected parties
────────────────────────────────────────
6) SILENCE TREATED AS APPROVAL
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Secretary's 30-day inaction deems petitions and replacement names accepted without any affirmative on-the-record finding. Silence cannot equal approval.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – procedural due process
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• California APA §§11340–11365 – requires affirmative agency action
• Government Code §11346.1 – requires findings before regulatory action
────────────────────────────────────────
7) UNFUNDED MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Local agencies must fund unfunded signage, maps, databases, and emergency updates within strict timelines.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine (enforcement authority not clearly granted)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. XIII B §6 – unfunded state mandates
────────────────────────────────────────
8) NO CLEAR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
CACGN is an advisory committee with no established enforcement powers. Citing "any remedy available by law" without specifying
those powers is legally hollow. Creates conflict with local home rule authority and separation of powers principles.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine – legislative power cannot be delegated without an intelligible principle
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11000 – agencies act only within delegated authority
• California APA §11342.2 – regs must be within statutory authority
────────────────────────────────────────
9) SCOPE CREEP BEYOND ORIGINAL INTENT
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Expansive definitions and the "similar names" cascade go well beyond the original focus on eliminating slurs — overreach and scope creep.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Non-delegation doctrine – agencies may only act within the specific boundaries of power delegated to them
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §§8899.90–8899.95 – enabling statute scope
• California standing doctrine (APA & case law) – petitioners must demonstrate concrete, particularized injury
────────────────────────────────────────
10) OVERBROAD STANDING FOR PETITIONERS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Overbroad standing allows out-of-state petitioners to qualify if "relatives have lived" in an affected place. Creates unfair preference that marginalizes non-petitioning community groups.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Article III – requires anyone bringing a legal claim to show a real, concrete injury, not a generalized grievance
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §8899.94 – limits petition rights to defined parties
• California APA – regs must stay within enabling statute's scope
────────────────────────────────────────
11) RETROACTIVE / HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Retroactive judgment by modern standards with no required balancing factors. Enables selective cultural revisionism with no required balancing of historical context or local consensus. Can't erase history.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – expressive association with historical names
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must account for full public impact
────────────────────────────────────────
12) ENDLESS / SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Ideologically driven campaigns; the "perceived association" standard enables endless petitions and selective enforcement, with no limiting principle.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – viewpoint discrimination
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Broad petitioner eligibility + subjective criteria
────────────────────────────────────────
13) TAXPAYER AND ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Taxpayer costs for signage/GIS, resident address changes, and disruption to emergency services. Creates financial burden, administrative chaos, and property record impacts for affected communities.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• Practical harm argument – real-world burdens far outweigh any public benefit
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. XIII B §6 – unfunded mandates
────────────────────────────────────────
14) UNEQUAL WEIGHT GIVEN TO STAKEHOLDERS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Unfairly prioritizes one group's input over local voters and factual disputes about naming origin. Creates unfair preference that marginalizes some community stakeholders.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 14th Amendment – Equal Protection
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Art. I §31 (Prop 209) – race/ethnicity preference
────────────────────────────────────────
15) MISSION CREEP / RESOURCE DIVERSION
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Starts with slurs but enables open-ended historical revisionism.
Diverts public resources from core government functions and creates a chilling effect on all geographic names.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• 1st Amendment – chilling effect
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §§8899.90–8899.95 – exceeds enabling statute intent
────────────────────────────────────────
16) DRAFTING ERRORS
────────────────────────────────────────
ISSUE:
Title misspells "DERROGATORY" (double-r); §1001(g)(3) drops list structure mid-sentence, creating an ambiguous run-on.
⚖ FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED:
• (none cited)
⚖ CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATED:
• Government Code §11342.2 – regs must be clear, concise, and easily understood
• California OAL review standards
The draft General Plan and Local Area Plans will come before you soon. Please slow the process down enough to allow meaningful public review and review all the comments not entered, review requests for deletions submitted and look at each section closely. A tremendous amount of work has gone into these plans by LAPAC members, advisory groups, and members of the public, staff and consultants. Many of us have spent months — and in some cases years — carefully reviewing these documents and submitting comments. My concern is that as revisions continue, the people who did that work need an opportunity to see what was actually changed, what was accepted or rejected, and whether new language or policies have been added before these documents move toward adoption. This is especially important for the Local Area Plans. The LAPACs know their communities. They should have an opportunity to review the final revised versions of their plans before those plans move forward. There is no harm in taking a little more time to get a General Plan that will guide Lake County for decades right. We have spent years working on this. Taking a few more weeks or months to make sure we get it right is insignificant compared with the decades these plans will govern Lake County. Please don't let the desire to finish the process become more important than the quality of the final product and meaningful public participation. I respectfully ask the Board to give the LAPACs, advisory groups, and the public adequate time to review the revised documents before moving them forward for adoption. Thank you.