As outlined in previous posts, the local officials concocted these outrageous "forced waivers" that appear to prohibit property owners from exercising their Prop. 207 rights to just compensation for regulatory takings.
These "forced waivers" for simple administrative acts like submitting plans or applying for an electrical permit are clearly out of bounds and obviously a backhand by the commissars to the voters.
But legally, these "forced waivers" are likely illegal. The legal terminology is "Adhesion Contract."
Definition: adhesion contract n.
(contract of adhesion) a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.
Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move.
An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.
While we routinely enter into adhesion contracts (also known as take-it-or-leave-it), such as buying groceries or insurance; when the ability to negotiate is absent or limited, the adhesion contract of "forced waivers" are likely illegal.
The good news is a few of the city/town employees seem to be getting the message that they were hired to help citizens and not go out of their way to make our lives miserable. They are not on our payroll to piss-and-moan about not getting their way of micro-managing our lives.
We say, "Thanks but no thanks! Now, get back to work."