Santa Cruz considers eminent domain on long-empty downtown lot

Santa Cruz Sentinel ^ | 12/2/04 | SHANNA McCORD

[freebilly]

SANTA CRUZ — Downtown property owner Ron Lau vows he will fight the city’s attempt to seize his land for redevelopment.

"That’s unfortunate and misguided and just a flaw in how we as human beings operate," Lau said of the city Redevelopment Agency’s plans to condemn his Pacific Avenue property that has been sitting empty since the Loma Prieta earthquake leveled much of the area in 1989.

A Hawaiian native who lives in Watsonville, Lau is a self-described free spirit who doesn’t like to be told what to do or when to do it. He owns the gaping concrete pit between Lulu Carpenter’s and the World Savings Bank branch — a spot many see as nothing but an eyesore and place for weeds to sprout in the heart of downtown.

The 20,000-square-foot lot has been appraised at $1.4 million.

Lau has 90 days to accept an offer by local developer Bolton Hill to buy the parcel. If a deal is not reached, the agency will attempt to negotiate with Lau. If that proves unsuccessful, the city says it will consider eminent domain.

Bolton Hill is a 25-year-old Santa Cruz-based development and consulting firm that specializes in housing projects. It’s responsible for the Pacific Shores apartment complex that opened last year on Shaffer Road.

Bolton Hill first approached Lau with an offer to buy his downtown plot a year and a half ago. When Lau rejected that offer, Bolton Hill struck a deal with the Redevelopment Agency in September 2003 to assist in acquiring the property.

Eminent domain is the power of government to condemn private property and take title for public use, provided owners receive fair compensation.

"With all due respect to Ron, he has been trying to get a project there that was sustainable, but it’s been difficult for him to find and develop a relationship with someone who could meet his ideologies," said Ceil Cirillo, the agency’s director. "He hasn’t done anything so far."

Fault lines Devoted to the idea of constructing a building he believes is "ecologically advanced," Lau’s numerous development plans over the past 15 years have fallen through.

In support of his environmental building ideas, Lau has posted banners on a wall facing his property that endorse "building cities in balance with nature."

There should be more high-rise buildings, in his opinion, rather than further urban sprawl.

Lau said faulty development plans and perpetual delays through the years are partly the result of him not knowing exactly what the perfect fit would look like.

"I’ve never been a developer and I have no idea what the hell to do with it," he said. "I like to understand things thoroughly. I’m interested in the nuts and bolts. I’m not just interested in putting money in and taking it out. I want to see things holistically."

Last week Lau made a last-ditch attempt to present the City Council with a "green project" plan drawn by Healdsburg psychologist Craig Brod, who recently developed a condominium project in San Diego.

The council unanimously rejected that idea.

Up next Bolton Hill’s plans for the site include two adjoining parcels owned by the city and agency.

The entire project reaches from Pacific Avenue to Cedar Street and would involve displacing Oswald’s restaurant, Asian Rose Cafe and Artforms; all three are housed in buildings owned by Lau.

The businesses will receive relocation assistance and benefits, Cirillo said.

"We think it’s very sad that something hasn’t occurred there in 15 years," said Norm Schwartz of Bolton Hill. "It’s not good for the quality of the community. The impacts of not doing this project are significant."

Restaurateur owner Lou Caviglia, who operates Clouds Downtown, has spoken of opening a similar restaurant on the site.

Up to 60 condos and a parking garage would be included.

Burt Rees, owner of the Lulu Carpenter’s cafe building adjacent to Lau’s property, said it’s been frustrating to listen to his neighbor’s repeated empty promises of putting a new building there.

"I’ve listened to Lau, I’ve talked to him, I’ve never had a cross word with him," Rees said. "I’ve supported every idea he’s had, but nothing has come to fruition. ... I’ve become frustrated by the fact nothing has happened."

Rees said a store or restaurant on Lau’s property would improve safety in the northern section of Pacific Avenue.

"There’s not a lot of light and energy at that end of the mall," he said.

Eminent domain would require a super-majority City Council vote — approval by five of the seven council members — which doesn’t appear to be a problem.

The agency would also have to show that taking Lau’s land is in the public interest and meets its requirements.

"There’s no question that this will pass the eminent domain test," Mayor Mike Rotkin said. "It’s a blighted hole in the middle of downtown. People expect to walk down the street and see storefronts. Fifteen years is a long time to leave a hole in downtown."

Lau’s property was home to Bookshop Santa Cruz when the earthquake hit. The building partially collapsed, falling onto a coffee shop, where two people were killed.

Lau, still searching for the ideal eco-friendly project, wants the council to reverse its latest rejection of his plans and allow a project that "better satisfies the needs and aspirations of the local community."

Of the Bolton Hill plan, Lau said, "There’s nothing special about it. It’s done in the same old routine way."

Eminent domain in Santa Cruz March 1991: 554-square-foot vacant land owned by Bernard and Kay Zwerling was taken for construction of a parking structure at Locust and Cedar streets. (This involved only a partial taking.)

# September 1996: A 6,700-square-foot portion of Marnall Alley off Soquel Avenue.

# October 1996: Property owned by Irma Hansett taken for Gateway shopping center project on River Street.

# October 1996: Frontage property owned by Robert and Wanda Cash taken for River Street widening project.

# July 1997: Property owned by Frances Bonne taken for Soquel Avenue/Front Street parking garage.

Rittenhouse parcel also remains vacant

SANTA CRUZ — Lost in all the talk about plans for Ron Lau’s empty Pacific Avenue lot is the future of the Rittenhouse property.

Louis Rittenhouse, owner of the empty lot at Pacific Avenue and Church Street, said he’s ready to launch a four-story 80,000-square-foot retail and office building just as soon as he finds committed tenants.

A building on the lot was damaged during the Loma Prieta earthquake 15 years ago, and was then torn down. The lot has since sat vacant.

"We have the design permits ready to go, we have working drawings," Rittenhouse said. "All we need is a couple of tenants."

His plans were approved by city officials in 2001, just a few months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks brought about an economic downturn, which Rittenhouse blames for the delay in constructing the 20,000-square-foot site.

The council agreed in April to grant Rittenhouse a three-year extension to develop the parcel.

Councilmen Tim Fitzmaurice and Ed Porter voted against the extension, expressing belief that come 2007 the spot will still be vacant.

"We are aggressively working on this project. If not, the council would not have granted the extension," Rittenhouse said. "I’m not willing to build an edifice in my name and not draw rent-paying tenants."

About $1 million already has been invested on drawings and design, he said.

"We’ve been doing everything Ron Lau hasn’t," Rittenhouse said.

The site would fit well for a department store, but Rittenhouse said there’s no interested parties.

He also owns the Flatiron Building at the north end of Pacific Avenue.

[Constantine XIII]

He's a kook alright, but it's his land. The city council and the developer can go suck eggs.

[truth_seeker]

"The guys a whack-job, period. In 15 years he hasn't come up with a viable project? I'm not in favor of the city taking his property, but the guy is still a dick."

It doesn't matter anything about the person.

What if he wants to put an aquarium on the lot, with free admission? You might call him goofy for not having a profit-motive, or whatever.

He seems to be one with a "vision" of an environmentally sound project. Part of what architects to is have "vision."

I'm a long ways from a Northern California tree hugging liberal environmentalist. I do have an intellectual interest in such things as solar heating, and related building technologies.

That would be my basis for a compromise with the city. He should work out guidelines for an eco-demonstration building. The developer would be bound to put technologies in the project, agreeable to the land owner.

From what I read here, I do not see a case for eminent domain. A vacant lot isn't blight. And it is not a transportation corridor.

So let the lot sit for another 50 years. It is his land.

If they want his land, do a project he supports.

[freebilly]

The guys a whack-job and he deserves to do with his property what he sees fit.

The 2 claims are not mutually exclusive....

[freebilly]

The city council and the developer can go suck eggs.

My feeling, too. But based on precedents I'd say he stands a good chance to lose his property.

[freebilly]

A vacant lot isn't blight

You've never met an attorney....

[Constantine XIII]

Someone ought to organize a FReep. It'll be a blow for good and will have the fringe benefit of blowing the little enviromentalist's mind, too! :)

[freebilly]

Can't we just think positive thoughts and surround him with an aura of soft blue light?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[hedgetrimmer]

Lau has 90 days to accept an offer by local developer Bolton Hill to buy the parcel. If a deal is not reached, the agency will attempt to negotiate with Lau. If that proves unsuccessful, the city says it will consider eminent domain.

An individual property owner is told by the government that must sell his property to someone else or they will take it away themselves.

Is the purpose of eminent domain to grant property to people who will do the government's bidding? Thats exactly what this case looks like. It smacks of corruption as well.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[nickcarraway]

Ping

[Don W]

Whether he is or is not a dick is totally irrelvant to this question. It's his land, and he has obviously been paying his taxes on it, or the city would have stolen absconded removed from his possesion taken his land already. It's his, and he wants to do something specific with the land. City council wants to sell this land to someone else. It stinks BIG.

[freebilly]

Who said it was relevant? It isn't, and he's still a dick....

[Seadog Bytes]

Thanks for the ping, Farmfriend!

The city is out of line again (...still?), of course - Big Surprise - but that doesn't mean they won't try to steal Lau's property from him if they think they can get away with it.

...But just in case you might think the COUNTY of Santa Cruz is not capable of 'keeping up' with the City in its utter disrespect for private property rights, I see that the appellate court has once again ruled against Steve Travis' claim for injunctive relief and compensation under the Fifth Amendment (regulatory takings - due to their rent control ordinance, which is in conflict with State Law prohibiting such).

See: Travis v. County of Santa Cruz at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/H021541.PDF
...and earlier background at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S109597.PDF

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that Travis is AGAIN going to have to go BACK to the California Supreme Court if he wishes to enforce his valid (Fifth Amendment) property rights against the County, and to keep them from inflicting their restrictions (upon his use of his own property), which are not permitted under state law.

…Does anyone here have a better grasp of this case... which they'd be willing to share with us…??? ...Thanks!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Brilliant! I love it!