Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation to Protect Private Property Rights (or not?)

Governor's Website ^ | 09/29/2006

[calcowgirl]

09/29/2006   GAAS:706:06   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation to Protect Private Property Rights

Gov. Schwarzenegger signed legislation today that protects the rights of private property owners.

 

“Government must respect the private property rights of our citizens,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “I am proud to sign legislation to further enhance the protection of property rights of Californians.”

 

Specifically, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the following five bills:

 

SB 53 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) requires an agency to make additional findings of blight if the agency wishes to extend the time limits on its authorization for eminent-domain actions. This bill would require a redevelopment agency, in its redevelopment plan, to specify where, when and how the agency is authorized to use the power of eminent domain.  Under existing law, a redevelopment plan must include a time limit, not to exceed 12 years, in which a redevelopment agency can exercise its power of eminent domain.

 

SB 1206 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) provides three major reforms to California Redevelopment Law: 1) it narrows the statutory "blight" definition; 2) it increases state oversight by involving the Attorney General, Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development; and, 3) it makes it easier to challenge redevelopment decisions. Additionally this bill reinforces the requirement that agencies make clear and well articulated findings as to the necessity of engaging in redevelopment activities. 

 

SB 1210 by Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) revises the existing law that permits a plaintiff (eminent domain taking authority) to make ex-parte application to the court for pre-judgment possession of land and instead allows the issuance of pre-judgment possession orders only when the property owner has been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing. This bill allows a property owner, within 30 days of receiving the notice, to submit to the court written opposition to the taking, signed under penalty of perjury, and containing a brief description of the hardship that would be caused by the taking. This measure requires a public entity seeking to use eminent domain to pay the reasonable costs of an independent appraisal, up to $5,000. Finally, this bill prohibits a redevelopment agency from exercising eminent domain over 12 years after adoption of the redevelopment plan, unless "substantial blight" exists that cannot be eliminated without eminent domain. 

 

SB 1650 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) prohibits a public entity from using a property for any use other than the public use stated in its resolution of necessity, unless the entity first adopts a new resolution that finds the public interest and necessity of using the property for a new stated public use. Existing law only permits a public entity to use eminent domain if it has adopted, by a two-thirds vote of the members of its governing body, a "resolution of necessity" including, among other things, a statement of the public use for which the property is taken and a declaration that the governing body has found and determined that "public interest and necessity" require the project, that the project is planned and located in the manner "most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury," that the property is "necessary" for the project, and that the public entity has offered "just compensation" to the owner.

 

SB 1809 by Senator Michael J. Machado (D-Linden) requires a redevelopment agency to record with the county recorder a statement describing any land situated in a redevelopment project area “within 60 days” of any action adopting or amending a redevelopment plan. This bill also prohibits a redevelopment agency from commencing an action in eminent domain under an adopted or amended redevelopment plan before the required statement is recorded. Existing law requires a redevelopment agency to record a description of the land within a redevelopment project area with the appropriate county recorder once the agency has adopted a redevelopment plan. Existing law also requires that any amendments to a redevelopment plan be recorded as “promptly as practicable” following adoption by the redevelopment agency.

 

[calcowgirl]

I haven't read these laws in detail, but on the surface it sure sounds like they are protecting more of the rights of those doing the taking than the property owner.

We need Prop 90!

[ElkGroveDan]

SB 1626 Ashburn: Dylan's Law, relating to juveniles who commit serious crimes of sexual assault.

[Dog Gone]

Why the "or not" part of your headline?

[calcowgirl]

See post #2

[LexBaird]

I haven't read these laws in detail, but on the surface it sure sounds like they are protecting more of the rights of those doing the taking than the property owner. We need Prop 90!

Remember when the legislature short circuited the "no D/Ls for Illegals" prop by withdrawing the Davis signed bill? I suspect this is a ploy to do the same to Prop 90. Even as we should have gone ahead with the first, and so have stopped One Bill Gil for good, so we should still vote in Prop 90.

[BenLurkin]

Respectfully, my friend you are wrong about these bills. They definetly restrict the condemnors.

For instance the provisions doing away with ex parte applications for possessio (the so-called "quick take" process)

Owners have always had the right to seek a greater deposit of probable compensation when that procedure was used. The public would have 'possession' of the property being aqcuired and could then certify the project to open the bid process for construction.

Now the certificatio of public projects such as roads, hosptials and schools will be dealyed by at least thirty days for each owner who contests.

[Dog Gone]

I read the summaries completely opposite of how you're reading them, but I haven't looked at the actual laws.
The summaries you posted are additional restrictions on the entity attempting to exercise eminent domain.

[Amerigomag]

I haven't read these laws in detail

Here are two red flags.

1) The party registraion of the sponsors
2) The impending decision on Prop 90.

Read each submission with care with an eye toward how they deal with Prop 90, if the measure succeeds in November

[Carry_Okie]

It is typical of the California legislature, when facing a pending iniative with politically unpalatable attributes, to craft a law that supposedly renders the initiative "unnecessary," while (wile?) accomplishing either considerably less or precisely the opposite (depending upon how well organized is the support for the initiative to publicize the true consequences of the legislative action before the election). (I think that sentence probably wins the glossophilia award for the day.)

Such was exactly the case with workman's comp reform, which accomplished about a third of what the pending initiative would have.

[Dog Gone]

I haven't heard anything about Prop 90 which I'm guessing is related to this issue.

Still, I'd bank anything that chipped away at whatever the Proposition was seeking to eliminate.

[Amerigomag]

Bingo! First read. SB 53.

(e) In any litigation to challenge or attack any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section, the court shall sustain the actions of the legislative body and the agency unless the court finds those actions were arbitrary or capricious.

If Prop 90 is enacted, costs will substantially rise, litigation will result because of the reimbursement limitations sections and the courts will be forced to decide in favor of the agency, who most certainly will not have embarked upon an arbitrary or capricious action in their takings with knowledge of the protections that the SB 53 language offers.

[sdillard]

I want to know if Prop 90 would result in rent control being a cause for a lawsuit demanding compensation for not being able to earn maximum income from your property.

San Francisco's draconian rent control allows rent increases of approximately one-half of one percent a year. If the property is vacant, a landlord can charge what the market will bear. Sounds like government "taking" to me.

[Carry_Okie]

See Amerigomag's #12.

[Dog Gone]

I don't have the full context, but that certainly looks like the poison pill provision.

[John Jorsett]

Looks like a classic attempt by the legislature to head off a ballot proposition. They did something similar to this with Prop 13 by passing some half-assed 'reforms' so they could say, "We fixed it already!" before the public voted.

[Amerigomag]

Yes. Rent control is exactly the type of taking that Prop 90 was designed to address.

Prop 90 would not end rent control but it would force government to formally address the reimbursement of property owners for the losses created by the taking. The cost of defending their decisions and the time involved to adjudicate the litigation, under Prop 90, would force government to evaluate it decisions more throughly.

Prop 90 will not stop government from exercising their power of Eminent Domain nor will it force the end of social engineering because the costs of Prop 90 will be born by the taxpayer, not the elected/appointed official. It will, however, cause the electorate to have more public information, ripped from the headlines, upon which to base their review of the appropriateness of the actions of their republican representatives.

[calcowgirl]

Looks like a classic attempt by the legislature to head off a ballot proposition.

It certainly offers for plausible rhethoric in opposition to Prop 90--something like: "Well, we recently passed legislation so Prop 90 is no longer required."

Unfortunately, none of this legislation touches on the abuses that Prop 90 will help eliminate.

[hedgetrimmer]

What do you expect from a Schwarzensocialist, anyway?