Legal Precedents Supporting the Veterans' Position
- BVMB Board
- Feb 24
- 15 min read
Updated: Jun 2
The following four legal cases establish strong precedent for protecting veterans' memorial properties from being repurposed for other uses. These cases demonstrate that land acquired for veterans' memorials and meeting places remains dedicated to that purpose and cannot be arbitrarily reassigned, even by government agencies. Each case reinforces the legal and ethical obligation to uphold the original intent behind such properties.
In addition, see the following: Opinion of DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General, ANTHONY S. Da VIGO, Deputy Attorney General, No. 95-302, December 20, 1995
1. Powers v. McDonough
This case underscores the binding legal nature of property dedicated for veterans’ use. It affirms that government entities cannot ignore established legal protections and must honor commitments made to veterans' organizations.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County cannot ignore the original land use restrictions that designated the property for veterans' memorials and meeting places.
2. Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104, United Spanish War Veterans
This case ruled that once land is dedicated for veterans, the government cannot revoke or repurpose it without legal justification. The ruling also reaffirmed that veterans and their organizations have standing to challenge violations of dedicated land use.
Application to BVMB: The BVMB property was legally acquired with a special tax for veterans' use and cannot be arbitrarily repurposed for a fire station. The veterans have standing to challenge the County’s actions.
3. Veterans of Foreign Wars v. City of El Paso de Robles (1998)
This case determined that a government entity that accepts property dedicated for veterans must maintain or replace it with an equivalent facility. It held that the City could not simply repurpose or abandon a veterans' hall, even under claims of financial hardship.
Application to BVMB: The County cannot repurpose the BVMB property without legally dedicating a substitute facility for veterans' use. The County must honor its obligation to veterans.
4. Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of California (1974)
This case established that government agencies cannot divert funds or repurpose assets acquired through special taxation for purposes outside their original intent. It upheld that any attempt to do so is an illegal misappropriation.
Application to BVMB: The BVMB property was purchased using a special tax specifically for veterans' memorials and meeting places. Repurposing the land violates tax law and breaks the trust of taxpayers and veterans.
In Summary
These cases collectively reinforce the legal argument that Contra Costa County does not have the authority to repurpose the BVMB property for a fire station. The City of Brentwood can and should deny the permit application on the grounds that it violates land use restrictions, veterans' protections, and taxpayer trust. The County must uphold its legal and ethical obligations to veterans by preserving the property for its intended use.
Details
How Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104, United Spanish War Veterans Supports the BVMB’s Case Against Contra Costa County
The case Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104, United Spanish War Veterans provides strong legal precedent that supports the BVMB’s argument that Contra Costa County cannot repurpose the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) property for a fire station. This case reinforces the legal principle that land dedicated for veterans' use remains legally protected, even when government entities attempt to reclaim or repurpose it.
Key Legal Takeaways from Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104 That Apply to BVMB:
Once Dedicated, Veterans' Property Cannot Be Arbitrarily Repurposed
The ruling in Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104 established that once land is dedicated for veterans’ use, it cannot be arbitrarily revoked or reassigned for another purpose without proper legal action.
Application to BVMB: The Brentwood Veterans Memorial property was purchased with a special tax specifically for veterans’ memorials and meeting places, and its intended use cannot be ignored just because the County owns the land.
Government Cannot Ignore the Legal Purpose of Veterans’ Land
In Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104, the court reinforced that local governments must honor legal commitments to veterans' facilities and land use restrictions.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County cannot ignore the original purpose for which the BVMB property was acquired—a memorial and meeting place for veterans—and attempt to repurpose it for a fire station.
Veterans Have Standing to Challenge Misuse of Dedicated Property
The case affirmed that veterans and their organizations have standing to challenge improper use of dedicated veterans' land.
Application to BVMB: The BVMB Board and veterans’ organizations have the right to challenge the County’s attempt to repurpose the property, and they are well within their rights to demand that the land remain in compliance with its legal restrictions.
Land Dedicated for Veterans' Use Remains a Public Trust
Charles v. Gridley Camp No. 104 highlighted that property dedicated for veterans remains a public trust and cannot be taken away unless legally abandoned or replaced with an equivalent facility.
Application to BVMB: The BVMB property has not been abandoned, and the County has not offered any equivalent substitute for the space. Therefore, the County cannot justify repurposing the land for a fire station.
Government Must Uphold Its Commitments to Veterans
The case emphasized that governments must uphold their legal and ethical obligations to veterans regarding the use of dedicated land and buildings.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County is violating its legal obligation to maintain the property for veterans' use and is failing to uphold its commitment to preserving the memorial.
How This Case Helps the City of Brentwood Deny the Fire Station Permit
This ruling reinforces the City of Brentwood’s authority to deny the permit for the fire station project because:
The County is violating legal protections for veterans' memorials and meeting places.
The County has failed to justify repurposing the land under existing legal frameworks.
This case provides clear legal precedent supporting the veterans’ position that Contra Costa County does not have the authority to repurpose the BVMB property for a fire station without violating laws protecting dedicated veterans' facilities.
How Powers v. McDonough Supports the BVMB’s Case Against Contra Costa County
The case Powers v. McDonough provides strong legal precedent supporting the BVMB’s argument that Contra Costa County cannot repurpose the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) property for a fire station. This case highlights the government’s duty to uphold commitments to veterans, particularly concerning properties and facilities dedicated to them.
Key Legal Takeaways from Powers v. McDonough That Apply to BVMB:
Government Cannot Revoke or Repurpose Veterans' Facilities Without Proper Legal Authority
Powers v. McDonough established that the government cannot arbitrarily revoke benefits, facilities, or property set aside for veterans without following proper legal procedures.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County cannot simply repurpose the veterans' property for a fire station just because it controls the land. The property was purchased under a special tax for veterans’ memorials and meeting places, making it legally restricted.
Veterans' Facilities Are Considered a Dedication to Public Purpose
The ruling in Powers v. McDonough emphasized that once a facility is dedicated for veterans, it cannot be taken away without a legally valid reason.
Application to BVMB: The BVMB property was dedicated as a memorial and veterans' meeting space under state law, meaning the County does not have the legal right to repurpose it without properly addressing the statutory protections in place.
Legal Protections for Veterans' Facilities Cannot Be Ignored
The case reinforced that laws protecting veterans' benefits and facilities must be followed and cannot be ignored by local or state governments.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County is attempting to disregard legal restrictions on the property by claiming it can use it for any purpose just because they own it. This contradicts both case law and statutory protections.
The County’s Justification Does Not Override Veterans' Legal Rights
In Powers v. McDonough, the government's justification for taking action did not override the clear legal rights veterans had to their benefits and services.
Application to BVMB: The County's justification for needing a fire station does not override the clear legal restrictions protecting the land for veterans’ use. Just because the County deems it necessary does not make it legal.
Veterans Must Be Given a Comparable or Substitute Facility If Their Dedicated Space Is Taken
The ruling suggested that if a facility dedicated to veterans is taken, an equivalent substitute must be provided.
Application to BVMB: The County has not offered any equivalent substitute for the property being taken for the fire station. Even if the County were to attempt this, it would need to follow a legal process, which it has not done.
How This Case Helps the City of Brentwood Deny the Fire Station Permit
This ruling reinforces the City of Brentwood’s authority to deny the permit for the fire station project because:
The County is violating legal protections for veterans' memorials and meeting places.
The County has failed to justify repurposing the land under existing legal frameworks.
The City can insist that the County comply with legal obligations before approving any permits.
The City should not approve a permit that contradicts state and federal protections for veterans' property.
This case provides a clear legal precedent supporting the veterans’ position that Contra Costa County does not have the authority to repurpose the BVMB property for a fire station without violating laws protecting veterans' dedicated facilities.
How VFW Post 10965 v. City of El Paso de Robles Strengthens the BVMB Case
The ruling in VFW Post 10965 v. City of El Paso de Robles reinforces several critical legal principles that directly apply to Contra Costa County’s improper use of the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) property for a fire station.
This case helps establish that:
The County has a mandatory duty to maintain and protect BVMB for veterans' use.
The County cannot revoke the dedication of the property for veterans unless they consent or abandon it.
The County cannot take the benefits of owning the property without carrying the burdens that come with it.
1. The County Has a Duty to Maintain BVMB for Veterans' Use
In VFW Post 10965, the City of El Paso de Robles was required to maintain, repair, or provide a substitute for a veterans' memorial building after acquiring the property from the county. The court ruled that the city assumed a legal obligation when it took ownership of land that was originally dedicated for veterans' use.
Application to BVMB:
Contra Costa County acquired the BVMB property through a special tax in 1923 specifically for veterans’ memorials and meeting places under Political Code Section 4041f.
The County has continued to benefit from owning the property while expanding the fire station, just as El Paso de Robles benefited from leasing parts of the veterans’ building in VFW Post 10965.
The County cannot legally claim it has no obligation to maintain the property for veterans, just as the city in VFW Post 10965 was held responsible for preserving its veterans’ building.
2. The County Cannot Revoke the Dedication Without Veterans’ Consent
The VFW Post 10965 case reaffirmed Military and Veterans Code Section 1266, which states that once a veterans’ building is dedicated, the county cannot revoke that dedication unless:
Veterans abandon the property, or
The County provides a substitute facility of equal value and function.
Application to BVMB:
BVMB has never been abandoned—veterans actively use the hall for meetings, events, and memorial functions.
The County has not provided a substitute facility, meaning it cannot legally repurpose the land for a fire station without violating state law.
The County’s transfer of the property to the Fire District does not erase these legal obligations—the land remains dedicated to veterans' use under Military and Veterans Code Section 1266.
3. The County Cannot Take the Benefit Without the Burden
The court in VFW Post 10965 cited California Civil Code Section 1589, which states that if a government accepts the benefits of a property transaction, it must also accept the obligations that come with it.
Application to BVMB:
The County has benefited from owning BVMB, including by using portions of the land for a fire station and expanding that use over time.
The County now wants to take more land for a new fire station without fulfilling its legal duty to preserve BVMB for veterans.
Just as El Paso de Robles could not accept the benefits of acquiring a veterans’ building while refusing to maintain it, Contra Costa County cannot claim ownership while ignoring its legal responsibility to maintain the property for veterans' use.
Conclusion: The County Is Violating Veterans' Legal Protections
The VFW Post 10965 case confirms that Contra Costa County cannot legally repurpose the BVMB land for a fire station because:
The County has a duty to maintain BVMB for veterans.
The County cannot revoke the land’s dedication without providing a substitute facility.
The County cannot take the benefits of owning the land while ignoring its legal obligations.
This case further strengthens the veterans' argument that the County must comply with land use laws and veterans’ rights before attempting to build Fire Station 94 on this site.
How Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of California Supports the BVMB’s Argument
The Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of California case ruled that public funds raised for a specific purpose must be used exclusively for that purpose and that any diversion of those funds to an unrelated purpose is unlawful. The case dealt with the Veterans' Farm and Home Building Fund of 1943, where funds were diverted to county veterans' service offices in violation of the original voter-approved bond laws. The court ruled that this violated both the law and the trust placed in the government by taxpayers and veterans.
Key Legal Takeaways from This Case That Apply to BVMB:
Funds and Property Acquired for Veterans Must Be Used for Veterans
In VFW v. State of California, the court ruled that money approved by taxpayers for veterans’ homes could not be diverted to other unrelated government programs.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County purchased the BVMB property using a special tax in 1923, explicitly for veterans' memorials and meeting places. The county cannot now claim it has the authority to repurpose the land for a fire station when it was purchased under legal restrictions for a different purpose.
Voter-Approved Special Taxes Must Be Used for Their Stated Purpose
The VFW v. State of California case emphasized that once taxpayers approve funds for a specific purpose, the government is bound to use those funds accordingly. The state could not later claim that the funds were “surplus” or that they could be redirected.
Application to BVMB: Contra Costa County raised money via a special tax to purchase land specifically for veterans under Political Code Section 4041f. The county is bound by law to honor this restriction, and any attempt to use the land for a fire station violates the taxpayer trust established when the levy was passed.
The County Cannot Use the Property for a Fire Station Just Because It Owns It
The court ruled that the state could not use money from the Veterans’ Farm and Home Building Fund for anything other than its designated purpose, even though the state owned the fund and controlled its spending.
Application to BVMB: The county may own the BVMB property, but it does not have unlimited discretion to use it for anything it wants. The land is subject to legal restrictions tied to its original purchase, and its use must remain consistent with its intended purpose for veterans.
Government Cannot Change the Purpose of Restricted Funds or Property Without Proper Authorization
The court in VFW v. State of California ruled that legislative or administrative actions cannot override voter-approved restrictions on the use of funds. Any such change would amount to a repeal of the law without voter approval, which is unconstitutional.
Application to BVMB: The county has never provided evidence that the legal restrictions on the property have been lifted or changed. If the county wants to use the land for a fire station, it must first provide a lawful basis for overriding the original tax restrictions, which it has not done.
A Precedent for Restoring Misused Funds or Property
The court ruled that the state must return funds that were unlawfully diverted, reinforcing that governments must be held accountable when they misuse veteran-designated resources.
Application to BVMB: If the county has misused the property by allowing the fire station to encroach upon it over the years, this case supports the argument that the land should be restored to veterans' use. The fact that a fire station was previously placed there does not justify its continued use or further expansion.
** UPDATE **
Application of Glenn County Veterans Council, Inc. v. County of Glenn to the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) Case
The Glenn County Veterans Council case is a key precedent for the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) dispute, as it confirms several important legal principles about veterans’ rights to dedicated facilities and the obligations of local governments under the Military and Veterans Code (MVC). Here’s how it applies to the BVMB case:
1. Veterans' Rights to Dedicated Facilities Under MVC § 1262
In Glenn County, the court affirmed that local governments must provide and maintain veterans’ halls, as outlined in MVC § 1262. The veterans successfully argued that their rights to the use and maintenance of the hall were not discretionary—rather, the county had an obligation to uphold their access.
Application to BVMB:
The BVMB property was purchased in 1923 using a special tax under Political Code § 4041f (now MVC § 1262(f)), which specifically authorized funds for veterans' memorials and meeting places.
Just like in Glenn County, the County must maintain and uphold the original purpose of the land. They cannot arbitrarily repurpose it without following legal requirements.
Contra Costa County cannot claim unrestricted control over the property just because it holds the title—the County has a fiduciary duty to veterans, just as Glenn County did.
If the County of Contra Costa fails to uphold veterans' access and proper maintenance of BVMB, they may be violating MVC § 1262, just as Glenn County was found to have done.
2. MVC § 1266 – Dedication of Property Cannot Be Revoked
One of the most critical findings in the Glenn County case was that once a county dedicates a veterans' hall, it cannot revoke that dedication unless:
A substitute facility is provided, or
Veterans consent to the change or abandon the property.
Application to BVMB:
The entire BVMB property was dedicated in 1923 for veterans' use.
Contra Costa County never provided a substitute facility before transferring a portion of the land to the fire district.
Veterans did not consent to the removal of their land or its repurposing for a fire station.
This means that the County violated MVC § 1266 by taking the land without following the legal process.
The County is now offering a re-dedication of the remaining portion of the property as a “concession.” However, this is meaningless because the entire property was already dedicated under state law—they are simply trying to reframe their violation as a favor.
3. The Government Cannot Ignore the Original Tax Restrictions
In Glenn County, the veterans successfully argued that their rights came not just from the Military and Veterans Code but also from the original funding mechanism that established the hall.
Application to BVMB:
The BVMB property was purchased using a special tax under Political Code § 4041f.
This special tax created a legal restriction: the land must be used for veterans’ memorials and meeting places.
The County never compensated the veterans’ fund when repurposing the land—a clear violation of special tax accounting principles.
Just as in Glenn County, Contra Costa County is attempting to rewrite history by claiming broad control over the land without acknowledging the tax limitations.
4. Public Benefit and Enforcement of Veterans’ Rights
In Glenn County, the veterans argued that enforcing their rights would benefit all veterans in the county by preserving their access to a dedicated hall. The court agreed, recognizing that the Memorial Hall was not just for one group of veterans but for all veterans in Glenn County.
Application to BVMB:
The BVMB is not just for current veterans—it is for all veterans in East Contra Costa County, including future generations.
If the County is allowed to take the land now, what stops them from further reducing veterans’ access in the future?
The fire station is a necessary service, but that does not justify violating veterans’ legal rights.
This is a larger issue than just Brentwood—if the County gets away with this now, it could set a dangerous precedent for other veterans’ halls.
5. The Fire Station Has Never Paid for the Land – Financial Mismanagement
In Glenn County, veterans argued that they were entitled to compensation for use of the facility. The County had wrongfully charged them fees, which were ultimately refunded as part of the settlement.
Application to BVMB:
The fire station has been on the property for decades without paying rent or compensating the veterans’ fund.
If the fire district had paid for its use of the land, that money could have funded maintenance and upgrades for the veterans' hall.
Instead, the County let the hall fall into disrepair while continuing to use the land for non-veteran purposes without proper financial accounting.
Contra Costa County essentially diverted public funds meant for veterans' memorials to subsidize a fire station, violating both the Military and Veterans Code and the original tax law.
6. The County Cannot Ignore the Law Just Because It Hasn’t Been Challenged Before
The Glenn County case also disproves an argument that Contra Costa County has tried to make: that because no one has challenged the fire station’s use of the property for decades, it must be legal.
In Glenn County, the veterans’ claims were upheld even though the issue had gone unchallenged for many years. The court ruled that the legal obligations did not disappear just because no one had pushed back earlier.
Application to BVMB:
Supervisor Diane Burgis and the County argue that because a fire station has existed on the land for many years, it must be valid.
However, historical misuse does not make it legal—just as in Glenn County.
The County cannot argue that because no lawyer has challenged this in 100 years, it must be legal. That logic was rejected in Glenn County, and it should be rejected here.
Conclusion: A Strong Legal Precedent for the BVMB Case
The Glenn County case proves that:
✔ Veterans have legally protected rights to their dedicated properties.
✔ Once land is dedicated for veterans, it cannot be revoked without a substitute facility or veterans’ consent (MVC § 1266).
✔ Counties cannot misuse veterans' properties without following proper legal processes.
✔ Just because misuse has gone unchallenged does not make it legal.
✔ If a county has violated veterans' rights, legal action can correct the wrongdoing.
This case gives BVMB strong legal standing to challenge Contra Costa County’s actions. It shows that the County has a legal obligation to return the veterans’ land or provide full compensation for its use. Veterans are not being unreasonable—they are simply asking the County to follow the law.
Legal Disclaimer: We Are Not Lawyers
The following blog post discusses legal cases and statutes related to veterans’ memorial properties, including the cases cited above and other relevant legal precedents. We want to make it clear that we are not attorneys, and this post does not constitute legal advice.
Our analysis is based on a plain reading of the cited cases, statutes, and historical documents. While these legal precedents appear to support our position, only a qualified attorney can provide a definitive legal interpretation. We strongly encourage any readers seeking legal guidance to consult a licensed attorney specializing in municipal law, veterans’ rights, or land use law.
Furthermore, any legal conclusions drawn in this blog post are our own interpretations and should not be construed as an official or binding legal opinion. The information provided is for informational and advocacy purposes only and reflects our good-faith effort to understand and explain the legal issues at stake.
If you have any questions about your legal rights, we recommend reaching out to legal professionals who can provide proper legal counsel on these matters.
Comments