California Eminent Domain Report : a blog following condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings written by attorneys with Nossaman LLP.

In February 2009, the city of American Canyon filed an eminent domain lawsuit in Napa County Superior Court to acquire vacant property on which the city intended to build two water storage tanks.  According to a Napa Valley Register article, "AmCan settles deal for water tank property," the city has now settled the lawsuit for $542,909.  In return, the city obtained 3.2 acres of unimproved land and an additional four acres for permanent and temporary easements.

It appears that the settlement was prompted by the court's recent ruling that the property owner was not entitled to severance damages to the owner's remaining 100-acres of property not being condemned by the city.  The court reasoned that "the construction and use of the water tank project did not cause the economic damages claimed by [the owner]."  As part of the settlement, the city has agreed to provide the owner with water and sewer services, potentially a major savings for the owner's planned residential development.

The city obtained prejudgment possession of the property early in the lawsuit, and construction of the first water tank is nearing completion.  The city, however, has been unable to find funds to pay for the second storage tank.  The second tank will eventually be connected to a high-pressure tank on a 313-acre preserve the Napa Valley Unified School District purchased several years ago.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the weekend, someone posted a comment on an earlier piece involving the City of Vista's Efforts to Assemble an Auto Mall.  The comment referred to potential tax advantages to owners facing condemnation, and was probably more timely than the person commenting realized.  Here is the main point of the comment:

I have read that Owners forced to sell property though eminent domain have tax advantages on any gain as opposed to if they sell voluntarily.

The comment refers to Internal Revenue Code Section 1033, which provides tax deferral for "involuntary conversions" of property.  Many people are familiar with so-called "1031 exchange" rules, which allow owners to transfer their basis from one investment property to another without triggering tax liability under certain circumstances. 

Section 1033 is somewhat different, in that it applies where the owner "sells" involuntarily -- for example, where the property is condemned.  Being an eminent domain attorney -- not a tax attorney -- I am not going to pretend to understand all of the niceties of how this works.  What I do know is that a "1033 conversion" offers advantages in many ways better than what owners performing a "1031 exchange" receive.  In particular:

• The owner need not utilize an intermediary, but can actually hold the sale proceeds pending reinvestment; and
• The reinvestment period is longer than the reinvestment time under section 1031.

That's all well and good, but what makes this subject timely is that the California leglislature currently has before it Assembly Bill 2640 which would, if enacted, eliminate the state tax deferral for involuntary conversions.  Owners would still receive federal tax deferral (typically, deferral of the 15% federal capital gains tax), but would not avoid California tax on the gain (typically, around 10%).  The change would be retroactive to January 1, 2010. 

One of my partners, Julia Caputo Stift has drafted a short summary of the measure entitled "Real Estate Owners May Lose Capital Gains Tax Shelter."  We will keep you updated it if looks like this is getting close to passage. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Marc Scribner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute published this week an article about the economics of eminent domain for economic development (i.e., for redevelopment purposes) entitled "This Land Ain’t your Land; this Land Is my Land."  I found the piece interesting, despite the fact that it seemed the author started from the conclusion "eminent domain is bad" and worked backwards crafting an analysis to get there. 

Ultimately, however, Mr. Scribner does provide some interesting insight.  He does not simply come out and say eminent domain for economic development is unconstitutional or that it qualifies as eminent domain abuse (though it seems clear that is how he really feels about it).  Instead, his article purports to analyze whether using eminent domain for economic development makes economic sense in the long run.  And this is where the piece creates some interest. 

Mr. Scribner claims that the mere fact that eminent domain for economic development is possible has a chilling effect on entrepreneurship, especially in lower income areas where an entrepreneurial spirit may be most needed.  The reasoning behind this is somewhat complicated, but relies in large part on the idea that the government is simply incapable in most cases of accurately assessing the various economic forces at play:

An increase in the discretionary use of eminent domain for economic development would lead to a decrease in entrepreneurship. As local officials lack the knowledge and expertise to effectively promote private development, their political missteps can keep their localities in poverty by undermining entrepreneurship, and forgo the wealth it would have created.

In the end, Mr. Scribner and I part ways on his conclusion that eminent domain should never be used for redevelopment purposes.  I think that in some cases, the open market simply cannot adequately address truly blighted situations, and having the government step in -- even when eminent domain is required -- can trigger revitalization and economic growth. 

That said, the forces Mr. Scribner identifies no doubt exist, and suggest the government should go down such a path only after careful thought and analysis.  Had local officials in New London, Connecticut, viewed the issue as Mr. Scribner views it, the string of events leading to the infamous Kelo decision might have played out differently.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On March 9, 2010, Chapter 67 of the IRWA is holding its monthly lunch meeting.  The meeting is being held, as always, at the Santa Ana/OC Airport Holiday Inn.  This month's speakers are Patrick A. Hennessey and Michael H. Leifer, who are presenting "Inverse Condemnation: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."   MCLE credit is available for attorneys. 

You can RSVP to Hospitality Chair Joe Munsey at Jmunsey@semprautilities.com (it's $15 if you RSVP, or $20 at the door).   Here are the details:

Santa Ana/OC Airport Holiday Inn
2726 South Grand Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Meet & Greet:  11:30am - 12:00pm
Lunch/Presentation:  12:00pm - 1:00
Board Meeting: 1:00pm - 2:00pm (all members are welcome to attend the Board meeting).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In December, we reported on Sierra Madre's decision to allow voters to decide whether the City should possess the power to condemn property for redevelopment purposes.  On April 13, 2010, voters will decide the issue by ratifying or rejecting City Ordinance 1304, but for now, the measure has triggered some colorful debate. 

On February 27, Susan Henderson offered a Mountain View News article "Eminent Domain Measure -- Yes or No?"  She purports to analyze the measure in the broader context of recent eminent-domain-reform efforts, including California's Proposition 99, passed in 2008 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's much-maligned 2005 Kelo decision.  She ultimately concludes that the measure is irrelevant, and amounts to mere political "grandstanding" by Sierra Madre's Mayor MaryAnn MacGillivray.

On March 1, "Eric Maundry," aka City Council candidate John Crawford, responded in a Sierra Madre Tattler piece entitled "Has The Mountain Views News Come Down On The Side Of Eminent Domain?"  In addition to several somewhat silly attacks on Ms. Henderson and her analysis, Mr. "Maundry" contends that the measure has real teeth, prohibiting the City from all eminent domain for redevelopment purposes -- i.e., eminent domain where the goal is to turn the condemned property over to another private owner for redevelopment. 

The dispute appears to be part of a larger political controversy in Sierra Madre, where an ongoing debate over growth issues has apparently become the cornerstone of the upcoming election.  I'm smart enough to stay out of that larger debate, but I do want to comment on the eminent domain issue.

As to eminent domain and the impact of Ordinance 1304, I have to side with Mr. "Maundry."  The ordinance goes well beyond the limited restrictions Proposition 99 offers state-wide, and should, if approved, create a real barrier against eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.  Especially with respect to businesses, no current federal or state prohibition exists on condemning property for redevelopment purposes, as long as the condemning agency makes proper blight findings.  Ordinance 1304 would change that, at least in Sierra Madre.   

Is prohibiting all eminent domain for redevelopment purposes a good thing?  I'll leave that to Sierra Madre residents to decide on April 13. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the past, we've reported on the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's condemnation of the historic Hugo Hotel.  It now appears that city officials in Ukiah may utilize a similar playbook and reinstate the redevelopment agency's power of eminent domain in order to acquire the historic 119-year old Palace Hotel.  According to a Press Democrat article, "Ukiah seeks new life for Palace Hotel," the city may turn to eminent domain after decades of unsuccessfully nudging the hotel's Marin County owners to rehabilitate the historic vine-covered building in the heart of downtown. 

Nearby residents recall the Palace Hotel serving as a hub of activity in the 1970's and 1980's when it housed a restaurant, a bar, and a popular music venue attracting well known acts.  But the Hotel has been sitting vacant since 1988.  According to the article, in 1994, more than 200 downtown merchants and customers signed a petition demanding that the city have the building either cleaned up or torn down.

The property appraised in 2006 for $309,000, but the owners purportedly want over $1 million.  A study commissioned by the city concluded it would cost $4.5 million just to tear the Palace Hotel down.  Like any redevelopment, the proposed use of eminent domain is drawing a wide range of opinions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The City of Placentia has a large redevelopment area, and ambitious plans to redevelop an industrial neighborhood in south Placentia.  But the City has responded to the outrage over eminent domain and, in particular, eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.  The City apparently has no power to condemn property for private redevelopment. 

Yet, this lack of authority has not stopped some property owners in the redevelopment area from complaining that the "threat" of eminent domain has decimated their property's value.  According to a February 17 Orange County Register article by Adam Townsend, "Businessman: City plans could scare land buyers," at least one owner complained to the City Council on Tuesday that "stymied redevelopment plans and past mentions of eminent domain by city officials have decimated the industrial real estate market in south Placentia." 

Mayor Joe Aguirre responded:

"I just want to make clear that I was at the forefront of opposing eminent domain for [re]development." Aguirre said. "This city does not have that power, and we're not attempting to get that power."

The City believes that the hope of future redevelopment (presumably accomplished without the use of eminent domain) actually enhances the value of properties in the redevelopment area, and that the downturn in the real estate market -- not any "threat" of eminent domain -- is to blame for any problems owners are facing. 

Which side is right?  Probably both.  On the one hand, the public is in such fear of eminent domain these days that the mere mention of redevelopment plans and a redevelopment area is likely to evoke images of Mrs. Kelo's quaint pink house being run over by a bulldozer.  This could impact at least some market participants, regardless of whether that ever happened (it didn't; the house is now a historic building) or whether there is any real risk of it happening in Placentia (apparently, there isn't).

On the other hand, if the area truly does suffer from blight, the hope that it may someday be redeveloped to a better use may well have a positive impact on other market participants. 

In the meantime, getting beyond the current economic crisis and seeing real estate prices rising should help, regardless of which of the two competing forces one believes is really at play. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We reported back in October that the Long Beach City Council approved the use of eminent domain to acquire nearly 10,000 square feet of property to widen Pacific Coast Highway.  Now in February, the City Council is once again considering the issue.  So why, nearly four months later, is the issue back before the City Council?  According to a recent Costa Costa Times article, the reason is because the project description has changed.

Back in the "pre-Kelo" era, agencies would routinely proceed with planned eminent domain despite minor changes to the project description.  However, with recent procedural reforms and greater public scrutiny of eminent domain, Long Beach has correctly determined that taking a step back is a wise move here. 

While the public hearing procedure can be burdensome and time consuming, a public agency that proceeds with eminent domain using a resolution of necessity that does not match what the agency needs to acquire is at great risk.  Sometimes, even now, the agency will get away with changing the project description without adopting a new resolution of necessity, but for a saavy property owner, such a misstep can provide leverage for a right-to-take challenge that could significantly delay -- or even defeat -- a project.  By going back through its administrative process, Long Beach should avoid such a challenge, which could mean that its "delay" actually gets the project built faster. 

This is a good opportunity to point out how important it is for public agencies (1) to work with their engineers and planners to ensure the project description is perfect the first time around, and (2) to allow for sufficient time in case project details do change.  If the agency is facing tight project deadlines, especially when funding is at risk, changing the project description or take area could mean starting from scratch:  a new appraisal; a new offer and negotiation process with the property owner; and a new hearing on a resolution of necessity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our office received notice yesterday afternoon that due to the current fiscal crisis, the Los Angeles County Superior Court is closing Department 59, effective February 22.  Everyone who practices eminent domain in Los Angeles knows about Department 59, the Department designated for eminent domain cases in Los Angeles County. 

Commissioner Mitchell has been handling eminent domain cases in Department 59 for many years, and his knowledge of this unique area of law has made pretrial procedures in Los Angeles run smoother than anywhere else in Southern California.   Even for those attorneys who grew to hate the peculiarities of the onerous local rules for eminent domain in Los Angeles, at least the cases in Department 59 were processed with some consistency and predictability. 

Commencing February 23, things will change.  There will no longer be a designated eminent domain department; pending cases will be reassigned to other courtrooms.  And, presumably, new filings will be assigned along with other general civil filings, to myriad courtrooms. 

We at Nossaman wish Commissioner Mitchell all the best in his new assignment.  (We also wonder what this may mean for the proposed changes to the local rules -- a process Commissioner Mitchell was spearheading.) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks