CA: Legislature, governor tinker with eminent domain

Sacramento Bee ^ | November 17, 2006 | Timothy Sandefur

[calcowgirl]

The U.S. Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London allowed state and local governments to condemn private land and transfer it to developers to construct shopping centers or other private development. The ruling led to a nationwide outcry, and last week voters in nine states adopted new restrictions on eminent domain to prevent such abuses.

In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed five bills that he claimed would rein in abuses of eminent domain in California. Unfortunately, these laws accomplish little -- they simply tinker with procedural details while leaving the state's abusive redevelopment industry intact.

For example, SB 1206 is supposed to narrow the legal definition of "blight"-- an important step because current law defines that term so vaguely that virtually anything can qualify. Once politicians declare a neighborhood "blighted," they can use eminent domain to take any land there and give it to developers.

However, the new law does not fix the problem. Instead, it allows officials to declare property blighted whenever they think there are "abnormally low lease rates," "conditions that prevent or substantially hinder viable use or capacity of buildings" or "nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of ... the project area." What qualifies as "viable," "abnormal" or "incompatible" is still left to politicians to decide.

(snip)

... California officials have seized 50 properties for transfer to private developers and have threatened to condemn 296 more in the 16 months since Kelo was decided.

In that same period, more than half of the other states have enacted new restrictions on eminent domain. Yet California's lawmakers don't seem to think the issue is important enough to act. They spent 2006 shooting down any attempt at genuine reform, substituting instead these five insignificant changes that leave home and business owners vulnerable to unfair takings.

[calcowgirl]

Timothy Sandefur is a staff attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, specializing in eminent domain, and author of the book "Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America."

[calcowgirl]

http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1114

Eminent-domain fight to move back to Legislature
By Colin Rigley
November 16, 2006
Capitol Weekly

Despite the rejection of Proposition 90, property-rights activists, local officials and state lawmakers all have eminent domain on their minds as they look to the 2007 legislative year--and the 2008 ballot.

The eminent-domain issue is still on the table, said Jean Hurst of the California State Association of Counties. "CSAC is very open and eager to resolving the eminent-domain abuse question."

But Proposition 90 supporters say the solution being crafted by local officials and developers--Proposition 90's strongest opponents--is not likely to satisfy them.

"I think you're going to see a lot of maneuvering on their part, and some interesting dynamics involved in the next year," said Kevin Spillane, who consulted the Yes on 90 campaign. "I think we can anticipate their plays, and we're going to take our own counter-measures based on what we know they're going to do."

The Legislature tried, through several different legislative vehicles, to deal with the issue in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 in the case of Kelo v. New London. The ruling effectively allowed for local governments to exercise eminent-domain rights to transfer private party to another owner if it constitutes a "public benefit."

"What they're trying to do now is a sham piece of leg which isn't pure Kelo reform, but simply claims to be," Spillane said. When asked if the fight over eminent domain was over, he said, "Oh, hell no."

The Kelo decision sparked a wildfire of legislation across the country, with over 30 state bills and propositions seeking to find a solution to the new ruling. Similar measures to Proposition 90 have passed elsewhere, such as in Arizona and Nevada, but opponents in California said the law effectively would undermine the zoning power of local governments.

(snip)

[Cicero]

Arnold won't do a damn thing unless he is forced to.

[Michael.SF.]

The U.S. Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London allowed state and local governments to condemn private land and transfer it to developers

No, the Constitution did that. The Supreme Court simply stated that the use for which land can be taken is not limited, or clearly defined, by the Constitution.

The ruling led to a nationwide outcry, and last week voters ... adopted new restrictions on eminent domain

Those who so strongly condemn the Kelo decision, often forget (or overlook) that it was because of that decision that grass roots action by local citizen's has been instigated to limit the power of government and to take back our rights.

As disagreeable as the practice of E.D. can be, the Kelo decision was correct and the resultant action was predicted by many at the time.

[calcowgirl]

We can't count on the legislature doing anything--it might limit their $43 billion dollar spending spree.

I'm hopeful that it gets back on the ballot and people stop listening to the scare-tactics of CSAC and the like. Of course, there is nothing like more stories of actual abuse to help get people informed. Hopefully it won't take too long for voters to see the threat.

[sergeantdave]

Re-read the Kelo decision and also the 5th amendment.

The Marxian logic behind Kelo is apparent and unmistakable. The five black-robed Marxists ruled that seizing private property and giving it to another private owner was for the public good, not public use.

Public good is a Marxist concept that communists refer to as "the common good." The term public good can be expanded without limit to mean anything government wants it to mean.

Public use is limited and restricted to those properties that will be used by the public.

Seizing one person's property and giving it to another private user is in no way a "public use," thus it is unconstitutional regardless of what five goosestepping Marxists say.

The judges who ruled in favor of Kelo should have been impeached for sedition, stripped of all property and money and shipped one-way to North Korea.

[Michael.SF.]

The term public good can be expanded without limit to mean anything government wants it to mean.

However, as a result of the anger over the Kelo decision local governments are more clearly defining that term and thus making it more difficult for ED to be used in the future. And that is the 'good' that is coming out of a very unpopular decision.

[sergeantdave]

"...local governments are more clearly defining that term and thus making it more difficult for ED to be used in the future."

Yes, that's one good result of Kelo.

Unfortunately prop 90 was defeated in CA. In a way, I'm not surprised. The majority of Californians have been completely brainwashed by the the eco-fascists.

I just returned from your beautiful state and found that most Californians are stone-dead stupid when it comes to rights in private property. The majority of citizens, even highly intelligent people, are emotional dimwits who are incapable of rational thought.

They're more interested in pursuit of happiness than in securing their individual freedoms.

I found it highly amusing that people feared wildfires sweeping up the mountainsides and destroying their homes, yet they were afraid to clear out the manzanitas because some bureaucrat might come along and fine them for removing habitat for an endangered critter. And then they vote prop 90 down. Talk about a disconnect with logic...

I'm most happy I left CA in 1989, returning there only to visit friends and inject some comic relief into my life. I do, though, have much respect for people still trying to fight the good fight and return some semblance of sanity to my former home.