A Santa Clara vineyard owner refused to evict a worker. Now he’s fighting California’s rigid zoning laws

Affordable housing can be hard to find in California, so vineyard owners Michael and Kellie Ballard got creative when a long-time employee lost his lease. They allowed him and his family to live rent-free in a trailer on their land.

The solution hurt no one. The trailer is safe, well-maintained and hidden from view at the back of the Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards, a 60-acre winery the Ballards have owned for nearly 30 years in Santa Clara County.

The trailer is not even visible from the highway or neighboring properties. Yet local zoning officials pounced when they learned about the arrangement in 2019. Citing rigid rules against living in a trailer year-round, the county demanded that the Ballards evict their tenants.

Zoning enforcement did not care that a family would have to uproot and find new employment, new schools and new housing somewhere more affordable. The county wanted the trailer empty and fined the Ballards $1,000 a day to force compliance.

The couple refused. They consider the employee, vineyard manager Marcelino Martinez, as part of their family — along with his wife and children.

“There was just no way in the world we were going to throw these people out on the street,” Michael Ballard says.

Day by day, these daily fines soared above $120,000. Rather than buckle under the pressure, the Ballards fought back with a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents the couple.

Their case is a local dispute but reflects a broader problem nationwide: More than half of U.S. property owners and renters struggle with skyrocketing housing costs. Rigid zoning rules, which limit what private citizens can do on their land, make the problem worse.

Many jurisdictions restrict apartments, duplexes and small additions to existing homes. For example, Seattle gave Anita Adams permission to build backyard units for her adult children — but not until she installed low-cost housing for strangers or paid roughly $80,000 to the city’s “Mandatory Housing Affordability” fund.

Adams could afford neither option, so her project remains on hold.

Meanwhile, the police showed up on Robert Calacal’s Meridian, Idaho, doorstep the day after he allowed Chasidy Decker to move into her tiny house on wheels, which she parked behind a fence on his property. The city told Calacal the vehicle could stay but Decker could not.

Zoning officials will not even let people break ground on affordable housing in Calhoun County, Georgia. One charity, Tiny House Hand Up, submitted plans in 2021 for a community of southern-style cottages that would be 540 to 600 square feet each.

Calhoun County blocked the houses for no other reason than their size. Public planners enforced a minimum square footage to keep out the “riff-raff,” as supporters of the policy admitted during one public hearing.

Other examples of abuse abound.

Too often, what zoning officials forget in their campaigns against property rights is the Constitution. Santa Clara County seemingly violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “excessive fines” by charging more than $120,000 for a harmless violation that actually helps people.

The county also tramples on 14th Amendment due process protections. Forcing the Ballards to evict the Martinez family — potentially leaving them homeless — shocks the conscience. It is not only unconstitutional, but cruel.

The California Constitution includes similar provisions. The Ballards understand this instinctively. Yet zoning officials have turned off their sense of decency and continue to plow ahead.

“When they started to impose fines, it was like they were such bullies,” Michael Ballard said.

He and his wife are just trying to do the right thing, while addressing the affordable housing crisis in a way that costs taxpayers nothing. Regulators should welcome such initiative, not punish it.