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

We've previously reported on several cities contemplating the renewal of their redevelopment agencies' powers of eminent domain.  In the cities of San Pablo and Barstow, it appears that public outcry may have derailed those renewal efforts, at least for now.  Here's a brief update:

• We previously reported that the City of San Pablo was contemplating renewing its eminent domain powers for an additional 12 years.  According to a Mercury News article, "San Pablo dumps eminent domain plans," the City has dropped its redevelopment renewal plans after residents turned up with "a racous groundswell of mistrust and resentment of city government that included threats of a recall."  While City officials attempted to demonstrate the accomplishments of the redevelopment agency, such as the development of shopping centers, athletic fields and parks, commercial corridors and new housing developments, the citizens were not buying it.  After a study declared 90-percent of the City blighted, one resident went so far as to describe giving the redevelopment agency the power of eminent domain would be like "having your chicken house guarded by a pack of very hungry wolves."
• We also previously reported that the City of Barstow was deciding whether to reinstate its redevelopment agency's power of eminent domain.  According to a Desert Dispatch article, "Barstow Council deadlocks over eminent domain," the City has been unable to reach a decision, with its council members currently deadlocked on the issue.  Citizens voiced concerns, and complained that their questions regarding redevelopment and blight had not been answered.  So what happens next?  Apparently, no future meeting has been scheduled, as the council remained deadlocked on whether to table the issue indefinitely or whether to bring the item back for discussion at a future meeting.  However, one council member was absent, and his vote will ultimately break the deadlock.  It will be interesting to see how that council member votes, especially if there is strong public opposition.

If nothing else, these examples demonstrate that public opposition can influence government decision-making. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In November, we reported that the Barstow City Council would be deciding whether to reinstate the redevelopment agency's power of eminent domain.  According to a January 20 Desert Dispatch article, "Eminent domain issue sparks fear among residents," the City Council has decided to table the issue until May. 

According to the article, the redevelopment agency sees its eminent domain power as a necessary tool to remove blight in the area northwest of Interstate 15 near the outlet malls.  But like most redevelopment efforts, the issue is drawing much public debate.

At the City Council meeting this month, at least 16 residents spoke against the Council's reinstituting the redevelopment agency's ability to utilize eminent domain.  While the City Council pointed out the redevelopment agency could not use eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied homes (a result of the passage of Proposition 99), residents were also concerned about the use of eminent domain on churches. 

In order to address the residents' concerns, the City Council plans to hold a public forum on eminent domain issues within 30 days. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the November 13, 2009, Desert Dispatch article "City seeks to reinstate eminent domain powers," the Barstow city council will decide next month whether the Barstow Redevelopment Agency's power of eminent domain should be reinstated after expiring last year.  The Redevelopment Agency believes the use of eminent domain may be necessary to remove blight in the area along East Main Street bordering the Marine Corps Logistics Base. 

The article reports that the Redevelopment Agency's chair, Tim Silva, believes eminent domain is a valuable tool, although he'd hate to see it used frequently by the government.  Silva comments:

There’s many things we can and can’t do, but we’ve got to keep those laws there so they can be used.  I would never approve eminent domain, which isn’t going to be (used for) the public benefit.

Reinstating the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain power may simply be form over substance, as the Agency has never resorted to such use since it was established in 1973.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link