Housing in California is a hot topic, particularly when the short-term rentals are thrown into the mix. Those opposed to short-term rentals often argue that it removes permanent housing stock from the market and that such rentals negatively impact communities and reduce surrounding property values due to the temporary character of the residents, constant turn-over, noise and overuse. On the other hand, short-term rentals may be an opportunity to maximize income from one’s property, and many investors purchase properties based on their income-generating potential. …
When the government forces a property owner to sell private property, it is usually done through an eminent domain action (a direct taking), and the government is required to pay just compensation. But what if the forced sale is because the property is a public nuisance (for example, if the property is dilapidated and has code violations) -- does that constitute a taking requiring the use of eminent domain? According to a recent Court of Appeal decision, the answer is no: the forced sale of private property based on public nuisance grounds is within the government’s police powers.
In City of Fontana v. United States Bank (2022 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2127), a residence was in disrepair and the City sent the owners and their lender a notice and order to repair and abate . . .
For those of you who missed our recent webinar, "Living on the Edge: Managing Sea Level Rise in California", you can find a recording of the event posted on our website. My colleagues Ben Rubin and John Erskine provided a great overview of ways to protect existing infrastructure and private property through coastal resiliency, what the models and data are suggesting on the future of sea level rise and the status of pending sea level rise legislation in California. I covered risks and possible solutions for public agencies and property owners, with a focus on how Coastal Commission and ...
When the government requires a property owner to give up private property, the takings clause normally comes into play and the government is required to exercise its power of eminent domain. But is that always the case? According to a recent court of appeal opinion, People v. Gonzalez (Nov. 24, 2020, D077208), there are a number of circumstances in which the government can require a property owner to sell without triggering a taking of private property.
In Gonzalez, a property owner was charged with using his property without a permit or variance and maintaining an unauthorized ...
California Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain. We cover all aspects of eminent domain, including condemnation, inverse condemnation and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts and report on all major eminent domain conferences and seminars in the Western United States.
Stay ConnectedRSS Feed
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- Court Decisions
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- New Legislation
- Public Agency Law
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take