A judge has declined to throw out Mayor Kasey Reynolds' vote on Chico's Downtown Revitalization Project. The project would reduce vehicle lanes on Main Street and Broadway, widen sidewalks and add bike lanes.
A group of residents sued after Reynolds voted against the project in April. They argue Reynolds should have recused herself because she co-owns Shubert's Ice Cream and Candy, a downtown business in the project area. They wanted a judge to disqualify her vote and allow the project to move forward.
Here's what to know about the case.
What did the judge decide?
Judge Tamara Mosbarger denied a preliminary injunction that could have voided Reynolds' vote.
The people suing Reynolds wanted the court to act quickly so Chico could apply for a major Caltrans grant before a June 22 deadline. The judge said no.
For now, Reynolds' vote still stands and the project remains stalled.
Why did the judge rule that way?
The judge said the challengers had not shown enough evidence to justify immediate court action.
A key question was whether the project would have a meaningful financial effect on Reynolds' business. The judge said parts of that argument were speculative and that there wasn't enough evidence showing how Shubert's would be affected financially.
The judge also raised concerns about the court being drawn into the City Council's democratic process.
Why does the June deadline matter?
Supporters say Chico is facing a June deadline to apply for state transportation funding.
They argued that if the court didn't act now, the city could lose its chance at the grant. But the judge said the funding opportunity generally comes around every two years, meaning any harm would likely be a delay rather than a permanent loss.
That worked against the supporters’ request for immediate court action.
Why has this become such a big debate?
The fight has grown into more than a disagreement over one vote.
Supporters say downtown needs investment and believe a more walkable, bikeable downtown could help businesses. Opponents worry about losing traffic lanes, delivery access and construction impacts on downtown businesses.
For many people, the debate has become about what downtown Chico should look like in the future.
What happens next?
The lawsuit is still alive, though there are questions about whether the group that brought it will want to continue the litigation in light of the judge’s May 27 ruling.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 1.
A separate California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) investigation into conflict-of-interest complaints involving Reynolds is also pending. That investigation has not resulted in a finding of wrongdoing.
For now, Reynolds' vote stands, the project remains stalled and the lawsuit is not over.
