West Oakland Contemplating Expanded Eminent Domain Powers to Aid Redevelopment

West Oakland has some notoriously tough neighborhoods, including the large ACORN project area where Black Panther co-founder Huey Newton was killed and an area known unflatteringly as "Ghost Town."  Over the years, it has been the subject of some controversial public works projects, facilitated through extensive eminent domain.  This includes the West Oakland BART station, a major postal facility, and the ACORN housing project.  

An October 4 article in the Contra Costa Times by Brian Beveridge, "'Eminent domain' draws shudders in West Oakland" describes the development of the postal facility as follows:

Hundreds of homes and at least two popular black-owned nightclubs, Slim Jenkins Club and Ester's Orbit Room, were destroyed or relocated when the Postal Service used eminent domain to acquire the land at Seventh and Willow streets.

Now, as we initially reported a few weeks ago, the City is considering expanding its eminent domain powers in an attempt to accelerate efforts to remediate blight and, in particular, in an effort to facilitate a proposed Kroger facility.  Mr. Beveridge's article explains:

[D]espite objections from both businesses and some residents, Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency staff will recommend Tuesday night that the City Council expand its eminent domain powers to accelerate redevelopment in West Oakland.

The article notes an ongoing effort to acquire property for a 72,000 square foot Kroger facility, though there appears to be some dispute as to what is actually going on.  The City claims Kroger and the property's owner are in active negotiations, and that eminent domain would only be used as a last resort.  The owner, however, claims that no negotiations are taking place.  

Current policies prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire residential properties or for any commercial projects larger than three acres.  The Kroger project involves about five acres, meaning the policy will need to change before eminent domain could be used to acquire property for it.

The City Council is expected to vote tonight on a policy amendment specifically tailored at allowing eminent domain in a small area that includes the property Kroger wants to acquire.  According to Councilmember Nancy Nadel, "The expansion of eminent domain is only for this grocery store project and that is why I support it."

San Jose Avoids Eminent Domain Action: Pays $2 Million for Property Necessary to Accommodate Planned BART Station

When LifeChoices sought to expand its rehabilitation center in 2002, the City of San Jose rejected the proposal, citing its plans for a future Berryessa Bay Area Rapid Transit ("BART") station, which would require freeway interchange improvements on the property.  According to John Woolfolk's October 23 Mercury News article, "San Jose to pay $2 million to acquire parcel and settle lawsuit," five years later LifeChoices' owner, John Licking, filed suit, challenging the City of San Jose's denial as constituting discrimination against the disabled.

Now, San Jose has agreed to pay LifeChoices $2 million for the property to settle the lawsuit and avoid eventual eminent domain proceedings.  LifeChoices will be able to rent the property for $1 a year until it is needed for the freeway improvements.  LifeChoices will also be compensated for the value of the business.  Sound like a great deal for the owner?  According to City Councilman Sam Liccardo, just the opposite might be true.  "[I]t's a bargain" for San Jose

"I would characterize this in technical legal terms as a twofer . . . . We're resolving the suit with the added benefit of getting land that we wanted to buy anyway."

While LifeChoices focused on a discrimination claim based on the City's denial of its plans to expand, the case could have been crafted as a claim for precondemnation damages or unreasonable precondemnation delay.  Fortunately, this particular story has a happy ending, as the City purchased property it badly wanted, and the owner received fair compensation.  If the City had changed its mind about its need for the property after delaying the owners' plans for years, the outcome might have been much different.