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

We've been closely tracking H.R. 1433 -- the "Private Property Rights Protection Action of 2011" -- a bill that would limit the power of eminent domain on a national platform.  (See our August and April 2011 posts.)   There hasn't been much action lately, but we finally saw some significant movement. 

According to an article by Lawrence Hurley in the E&E Reporter, "House panel approves bill limiting federal eminent domain power," the House Judiciary Committee finally approved the bill by an overwhelming 23-5 vote. Now, the legislation will move its way to the House for approval.

As a quick refresher, H.R. 1433 would do the following: 

1.  Prevent states and municipalities from using eminent domain for economic development purposes (such as redevelopment) if the agency receives federal economic development funds.
2. Penalize any state or municipality that violates (1), above, by making the agency ineligible for federal economic development funds for 2 years.
3. Prohibit the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. 
4. Allow for enforcement of these provisions by (i) a property owner or tenant subject to eminent domain or (ii) the attorney general.
5. Prevent any state or federal agency from using eminent domain to acquire property of a religious or non-profit institution by reason of that entity's non-profit or tax exempt status, or any quality related thereto.

With the elimination of redevelopment agencies in California, the bill -- if ultimately passed by the House and Senate -- likely will not have much impact here.  But for other states across the country, this is big news.   We'll see if the momentum continues and let you know what happens next.

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

While the redevelopment battle wages on in California, there's a somewhat similar discussion taking place on Capitol Hill.  We reported back in April about the House Judiciary Committee's consideration of H.R. 1433 -- the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011" -- a bill that would prevent states and municipalities from using eminent domain for economic development purposes (such as redevelopment) on any project for which the agencies are receiving federal funding.  But there has not been much news since.  That may all change today.

According to an Energy & Environment Daily Report, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee are scheduled to vote today on the bill in an effort to respond to the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London.  So far, the bill has received Republican support, while Democrats have been a bit more skeptical.

Arizona's Republican Representative, Trent Franks, is quoted as saying that Congress should "restore the property rights protections that were erased from the Constitution by the Kelo decision."  New York's Democratic Representative, Jerrold Nadler, on the other hand, has expressed reservations about the bill and wants the Committee to seriously consider whether it strikes the right balance between property rights and economic development.

The bill has 24 sponsors, so it will be interesting to see how the Committee votes today.

UPDATE (5:00 pm):  according to our Washington insiders, the bill apparently was not voted on today.  We'll stay on top of this and keep you updated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

I presented an update on eminent domain/redevelopment issues making their way through the legislature at this week's IRWA Chapter 67 (Orange County) monthly meeting, and I've received a few follow-up requests for more information.  So I decided it was probably worthwhile to put all the information here on the Nossaman blog. 

• Status of California Redevelopment Agencies:  It's now been several weeks since the  attempted Assembly votes, where Governor Brown's attempt to eliminate redevelopment agencies fell one vote short.  The Governor needs the $2.2 billion in redevelopment funds this year to bridge the budget deficit.  It sounds like there is some intense back-channel lobbying taking place with the Redevelopment Association proposing a voluntary suspension of their funding or at least agreeing to contribute a portion of their revenue stream to local school districts.  I spoke with a few connected people this week and word is that Governor Brown's elimination plan -- at least as proposed -- is not likely to pass (aside from the Assembly, the proposal would also need to pass the Senate, which does not seem likely).  We'll just have to wait and see what ultimately comes of this.

• Federal eminent domain legislation: The House is currently considering H.R. 1433, dubbed the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011," which is a bill that would prevent states and municipalities from using eminent domain for economic development purposes (such as redevelopment) on any project for which the agencies are receiving federal funding.  H.R. 1433 also prohibits the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development (including increasing tax revenue or creating jobs for general economic growth).

• Use of Redevelopment Funds for Sports Teams:  Assemblyman Chris Norby (Fullerton) has introduced AB 1234, which would prohibit redevelopment agencies from using tax revenue or bond proceeds to develop, recruit, or retain any professional sports teams.  This legislation, if passed, could potentially kill a new stadium for the Oakland A's or the San Diego Chargers, which are both being contemplated through the use of redevelopment funds.  (In case you missed it, read a more detailed article here.)

• Inverse Condemnation Liability:  AB 328 is also working its way through the State Assembly; it is a bill that would require a reduction in compensation payable to a successful plaintiff in an inverse condemnation action in direct proportion to the owner's percentage of fault in causing damages to the owner's property. This would change current law whereby a public entity is liable for 100% of the damages where its project causes physical damage to private property, regardless of whether others contributed to those damages.

• Renewable Energy Mandates:  This week, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 2X, which requires private and public utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2020, raising the target from the current 20%, while providing the flexibility necessary to meet the higher standard.

We'll follow-up on these legislative issues as soon as we catch wind of anything newsworthy. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link