Santa Cruz considers eminent domain on long-empty downtown lot

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

[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!