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

Last week was quite busy in the world of California eminent domain, and the start of this week appears to be no different.  A few updates:

• International Right of Way Assocation (IRWA) Chapter 67 is holding its annual, half-day seminar on May 10 at the Holiday Inn in Santa Ana (sorry for the late notice).  The seminar is focused on mobilehome acquisitions and appraisals, and there are a number of great speakers lined up.  (I'll also give a quick update on the City of Los Angeles v. Plotkin decision involving precondemnation damages.)  I hope to see you there.
• The Marysville Joint Unified School District has reached a tentative settlement on an eminent domain case scheduled to go trial next month.  According to an Appeal Democrat article, MJUSD eminent domain case settles, the 70-acre Yuba County property at issue had a value spread of $770,000 (agency) versus $3.1 million (owner); the main contention was whether the property's highest and best use was for agriculture or residential development.
• The Banning Redevelopment Agency is scheduled to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity to begin condemnation proceedings to acquire property necessary for the Village at Paseo San Gogornio development.  According to a Press Enterprise article, Banning considers eminent domain to obtain property, Banning has already acquired most of the necessary property, but a 15,000 square foot vacant hold-out parcel is necessary in order to complete the Ramsey street widening necessitated by the project.  The agency has offered $75,000 for the property.

If there's any other eminent domain news you'd like us to report or discuss, feel free to give us a call or shoot us an e-mail.

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

Another recent interesting court decision was somewhat lost in all the excitement last week over (1) the County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project case striking down Glendora's redevelopment plan for inadequate blight findings and (2) the US Supreme Court decision in the Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection case rejecting a "judicial takings" claim. 

That recent decision was by the California Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad, which came down a month ago, but received little attention as an unpublished decision on a narrow valuation issue.   But on June 11, the Court decided to publish its opinion, making it a whole lot more relevant to us eminent domain attorneys. 

In Union Pacific Railroad, the city sought to condemn an easement across a strip of land owned by the railroad company in order to widen an existing street.  The court held that the railroad was entitled to only nominal compensation for the portion of the property actually used for the rail line, explaining that a special rule applies in such circumstances pursuant to a 1925 California Supreme Court decision, City of Oakland v. Schenck (1925) 197 Cal. 456.

With some thoughtful analysis, it seems pretty clear that the Court got the decision right.  Under the facts as presented in the case, the easement did not diminish the value of the fee given its highest and best use as a rail line, meaning nominal value makes perfect sense -- and constitutes fair market value.  

But the Court apparently found the case to be more novel, concluding that it was bound to follow Schenck, but that the end result was a decision that did not afford the owner fair market value for the property taken.   In my opinion, the Court's analysis is wrong, even though its decision was right. 

For more details about the case, feel free to read my E-Alert, Court of Appeal Holds that a Condemnee is Not Always Entitled to Fair Market Value – But is That Really What the Court Means?
 

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

On Tuesday, the City of Lake Forest voted unanimously to move forward with plans to condemn a 6.11-acre parcel to use as a land swap with the County of Orange.  The property will likely end up being incorporated into Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park. 

According to Orange County Register reporter Erika I. Ritchie, in her November 4 article "City moves forward with seizure of family's land," the property's owner, the Hernandez family, has resisted all efforts by the City to acquire the property voluntarily.   But the City needs the property to complete a land swap with the County that will facilitate the City's plans for a sports park:

[C]ounty officials have agreed to a land swap that will provide the city with more space for its proposed sports park and the county with an added parcel to become part of Limestone-Whiting Wilderness Park.

The real issue, as is most often the case when the government resorts to eminent domain, appears to be money.  The Hernandez family believes the property should be valued for a commercial use, and claims that such properties are selling for $25 to $45 per square foot.  The City's appraiser has apparently concluded that the property's highest and best use is not commercial, as the City's offer is purportedly for only $3 per square foot.

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