Here’s some news making headlines this week in the eminent domain community:
- The Base Year Transfer Rule Under Threat of Eminent Domain: A new published California Court of Appeal decision — Duea v. County of San Diego — came out yesterday addressing whether a property owner can transfer their base year value to a replacement property when the owner sells its property to a private developer under threat of eminent domain. The Court held that the owner had some procedural missteps which doomed the case, but also went on to hold that this type of transfer does not qualify for a base year value transfer. We’ll have more on the opinion shortly, but in the meantime, take a look at our colleague Robert Thomas’ inversecondemnation.com blog post on the case.
- Eminent Domain in Placer County: According to an article in the Sacramento Bee, Eminent domain process OK’d for road widening in Placer County, Placer County Supervisors authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire pieces of five properties needed to complete the widening of Auburn Folsom Road. While the property owners argued that the County failed to negotiate in good faith, the County responded that the road widening project had been on the books for years and it had successfully negotiated with 13 other impacted owners.
- Condemnation for Hesperia Interchange: According to an article in the Hesperia Star, City officials could use eminent domain to acquire interchange land, the City of Hesperia may turn to eminent domain to complete the Ranchero Interchange, a $59 million project that would connect Ranchero Road to Interstate 15. The City has apparently obtained rights to all necessary properties but one. The City hopes to begin construction work on the project in late 2012 or early 2013 and have the interchange open by July 2014.
- Redevelopment Updates: Looking for an update on redevelopment in California? There’s a nice, simple opinion piece in the Bakersfield Californian, Redevelopment work may have a place after all, which gives a concise update on some bills making their way through the legislature. SB 1585 would clean-up the dissolution process and better defines "enforceable obligations," while SB 654 would restore some funds for low and moderate income housing. SB 986 would require bond proceeds specified for specific developments to be used for those projects as opposed to throwing the money into the city or county’s general fund. And SB 1186 would allow agencies to establish community development authorities to oversee affordable housing projects.
Keep on the look-out for our E-Alert on the Duea opinion.