|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
Vista Committee Members Question Redevelopment Spending July 19, 2010 – While the City of Vista is in the process of acquiring numerous downtown properties which officials “hope to sell . . . to private developers who will construct mixed-use buildings,” members of the Project Area Committee are questioning what the City has been spending its redevelopment money on. Click here to read the North County Times article. High-Speed Rail Concerns in Gilroy July 19, 2010 – Residents and community leaders in Gilroy are becoming increasingly cynical about the High-Speed Rail Project as property owners worry about property condemnations, eminent domain and other impacts. Yet, the community has yet to get any answers from the rail authority with Council Member Perry Woodward saying, “to a large extent, I just think this is a dog-and-pony show they’re putting on.” Read the recent Gilroy Dispatch articles – “Property owners brace for fight with High-Speed Rail Authority” and “Halt the bullet”. Redevelopment Done Right July 11, 2010 – The Bay area city of Newark has approved a redevelopment strategy that leaders hope will rejuvenate the local economy. Unlike many communities who use redevelopment to seize homes and businesses for private development, the City of Newark decided not to include the power of eminent domain. Instead, the city plans to work with property owners to make community improvements. Read more. Redevelopment Agencies – Community Asset or Detriment? July 5, 2010 – While the City of Fontana’s redevelopment agency is among the wealthiest in the state, the San Bernardino Sun examines whether redevelopment agencies are the valuable assets city officials claim or really just “corporate welfare centers for well-connected developers.” Read more. Where Does U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Kagan Stand on Kelo? June 27, 2010 – Columnist George F. Will proposes some tough questions for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, including addressing the 2005 Kelo vs. New London decision which said “government can seize property for the ‘public use’ of transferring it to wealthier private interests who will pay more taxes to the government.” Click here to read more. Rancho Cordova City Council Refuses to Sign Private Property Rights Pledge June 16. 2010 - Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo v. New London decision that sanctioned government’s ability to forcibly seize private property from unwilling sellers for the purpose of economic development, elected officials throughout the U.S. have rejected this invitation to abuse private property rights by signing the “Hands Off My Home Pledge” - a pledge members of the Rancho Cordova City Council have refused to sign! So, why hasn’t even one member of the council signed the pledge? Is it because they support ongoing efforts to use eminent domain to seize private property along Folsom Boulevard and within the city’s redevelopment district? Their silence should concern local property owners for until Rancho Cordova’s elected leaders sign the pledge or pass a local ordinance limiting their power of eminent domain, the threat of abuse is very real. Click here to learn how private property rights are under attack in Rancho Cordova. City of Stockton’s “Gross Abuse of Discretion” in Eminent Domain Taking June 8, 2010 – The City of Stockton will pay a $2.5 million settlement following a 2004 land acquisition a court called a “gross abuse of discretion.” The Marina Tower property was taken by eminent domain and demolished in 2004 with the city allegedly planning to hand it over to a private developer to build apartments. Read the Stockton Record article. Redevelopment Plans Falter along Metro Gold Line Expansion June 6, 2010 – While city officials bemoan the loss of redevelopment funds to the state, too often these funds were misused to seize property for private development. Redevelopment plans around the proposed Metro Gold Line expansion in several Southern California communities are faltering. In Azusa, property assembled for a proposed retail project may be at risk because the city “can no longer afford to part with the land at below-market prices.” And the City of Arcadia blames their challenges on an ordinance limiting eminent domain. “We don’t have that leverage that we could use to negotiate,” says City Manager Don Penman. Read more. High-Speed Rail Saga Continues May 17, 2010 – In yet another setback for the proposed High-Speed rail development, Union Pacific, which operates freight trains up and down the state, is objecting to plans to place high-speed rail tracks next to its tracks for some 200 miles. Union Pacific’s opposition follows reports of increasing costs for the proposal as well as concern from property owners who will be impacted and possibly lose their homes by eminent domain to make way for the rail system. The San Diego Union-Tribune says of the high-speed rail proposal, “The rail authority’s problem with Union Pacific is just one more powerful reason to call it quits.” City of Indio Sits on Seized Property May 17, 2010 – The Indio City Council is continuing their long history of eminent domain abuse, taking properties with no plans to use these properties to build schools, roads or for any other “public use.” Instead, the city’s misguided redevelopment efforts over the past 20+ years have cost over $20 million dollars and left vacant eyesores, with the city holding on to the properties until they can sell it off to developers. Longtime resident Al Meza, whose business was taken in the late 80’s “said he has yet to see something tangible come from the city-owned properties.” Read more. Redevelopment Money Better Spent Elsewhere May 7, 2010 – Last week, a Superior Court ruling upheld the State Legislature’s authority over redevelopment agency money, requiring local redevelopment agencies throughout the state to hand more than $2.7 billion over to the state for education spending. In this Orange County Register opinion piece, State Assemblyman Chris Norby cites failed redevelopment programs as a “permanent drain on the budget," saying “Last year, redevelopment agencies diverted $5.4 billion in local taxes within their zones – 12 percent of all property taxes. That amounted to $2.7 billion taken from public schools. . .” He also addresses the fact that redevelopment, often under the threat of eminent domain, often benefits developers and giant retailers at the expense of property owners and taxpayers. Read more. San Pablo Drops Plans to Reinstate Eminent Domain May 4, 2010 – Due to public outrage, the City of San Pablo reversed course and dropped plans to reinstate its redevelopment agency’s power of eminent domain. Residents feared that eminent domain would be used to seize their property for the benefit of out of town developers. "Instead of being for the people, you are for the developers," resident Adolfo Sanchez told the City Council. The Alliance applauds the San Pablo City Council for making the fair decision to protect the community’s private property rights. Read the Contra Costa Times article by clicking here. San Jose’s Pursuit of A’s Stadium Could Cost Property Owners – And Taxpayers April 25, 2010 - The City of San Jose continues to pursue plans to lure the Oakland A’s Major League Baseball team to town. However, the plan will require San Jose to spend millions of dollars to assemble the property and even more to improve access to the stadium. The city currently owns less than half the property needed for the A’s stadium. And despite a $116 million budget deficit, the city has budgeted $35 million over the next 5 years to buy properties to complete the project – properties that include homes, small businesses and a 72-year-old book wholesaler who haven’t been asked if they want to sell. Should any of these property owners hold out, the city could use eminent domain to take their homes and small businesses – even if the ballpark never materializes! According to the San Jose Mercury News, if the ballpark plan falls through, the city “plans to continue buying up the 14 acres and build a mix of offices, housing and retail at the site.” “The city’s just thinking about themselves,” said an employee of an industrial gas supply company which sits on the location of the proposed field and who hopes they won’t have to relocate. Rancho Cordova - Demolishing Private Property Rights April 23, 2010 - At an April meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council, the City leaders adopted a series of policy “priorities,” including one that involves the use of eminent domain, government’s power to seize private property from unwilling sellers for the benefit of developers. As originally drafted, the priority read to “Demolish a private sector building each year.” Hard to believe they said this, but they did! This is not fair and is why eminent domain has no place among the city’s “priorities,” no matter how it is phrased. The Alliance has joined with local property owners who believe that a more deserving priority would be redevelopment practices that encourage urban renewal without threatening people’s homes and small businesses. Hopefully, the City Council can see the benefits of sharing these values and reverse course on an agenda to “demolish” private property rights. To learn more about this local movement, click here. For related article, click here. San Pablo Residents Oppose Reinstating Eminent Domain April 17, 2010 - San Pablo residents are opposing the city’s plans to reinstate the power of eminent domain for 12 more years. Residents are fearful that Prop. 99, a statewide measure passed by voters in 2008, contains loopholes that will not protect homeowners should the city desire to use eminent domain to take their property for commercial development. Read the Contra Costa Times article by clicking here. Voters in Sierra Madre Approve Measure Limiting Eminent Domain April 15, 2010 - Voters in Sierra Madre scored a victory for property rights on Tuesday when they overwhelmingly approved Measure ED, limiting the city’s power of eminent domain. The measure prohibits the city from using eminent domain for private purposes without the property owner’s consent. To read the article, click here. High Speed Rail Proposal Concerns Peninsula Property Owners April 6, 2010 - Property Owners in communities throughout the San Francisco Bay area Peninsula are voicing concerns about the proposed High Speed Rail. The main concerns include the use of eminent domain to take properties, and noise and vibration caused by the train. The rail authority has proposed the Pacheco Pass through the Peninsula as the Bay Area route. Click here to learn more as well as where affected property owners can submit comments. Martinez Community Fights Redevelopment Plans March 31, 2010 - The Martinez community is once again fighting City Hall’s attempts to establish a Redevelopment Agency. Community members fear that redevelopment will take money away from schools, police and other community services. They also fear the use of eminent domain to take private property. While redevelopment plans have been discussed for the past 50 years, opponents have so far prevailed in preventing the formation of a redevelopment agency. To read the story in the Contra Costa Times, click here. Caltrans as a Landlord? March 25, 2010 - A glaring example of the misuse of eminent domain by government agencies, Pasadena Weekly reports that Caltrans owns more than 18,000 homes, apartment buildings and farms throughout California, all seized through eminent domain for planned freeway construction. Yet, the state is holding on to this surplus property while freeway construction has stalled, often for decades. In L.A.’s 710 corridor, Caltrans owns nearly 500 homes, most seized in the 1960’s with plans to tear down the homes and build a freeway connector. However, due to funding, the project will likely never be built. Instead of selling these properties, Caltrans becomes a landlord – with properties either rented or sitting vacant – and with California’s taxpayers footing the bill. San Francisco Redevelopment Threatens African American Community March 21, 2010 - Not long ago, San Francisco and the Fillmore district was a thriving African American community of 100,000 strong. Following the ‘urban renewal’ efforts of the 1970’s, the African American population shrunk to a mere 40,000. Today, Bayview Hunters Point has been called the “last bastion of concentrated Black life” in the city. Now, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point area are again faced with a city’s redevelopment plan that threatens to drive even more out of the community. According to an article by Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, M.D., the redevelopment project threatens to "deprive the African American people of Bayview Hunters Point of land, historical legacy and culture in a region where they have predominated as an ethnic group since the World War II era." Stockton Resident Supports Proposition 16 - Opposes SSJID's Eminent Domain Action Against PG&E March 20, 2010 - A letter to the editor in the Stockton Record points out the positive effects of Proposition 16, which will appear on the ballot this June. The letter says, “South San Joaquin Irrigation District has accumulated millions of taxpayer dollars because certain bonds are now paid off. That money belongs to us, the people in the district. Instead, SSJID has already squandered $12 million in its quixotic misadventure to take over PG&E's electric power business in the south county - without the consent of the voters. It will likely cost the people hundreds of millions more dollars if it succeeds, via eminent domain, in taking PG&E's business.” Waterfront Property Owners in Stockton Fight City Plans March 19, 2010 - Property owners on Stockton’s Deep Sea Channel are fighting the city’s Waterfront Connection Plan. The project would connect over 5 miles of waterfront property to create a pedestrian/bicycle trail. While the city believes the project will help revitalize downtown, property owners rightly believe the loss of waterfront property will devalue their land by some 25 percent. One property owner, Greg Culhane said, "If you take my waterfront, you're taking the soul and the heart of my property, the reason I bought that property." To read the story in the Stockton Record, click here. Lack of Eminent Domain Reforms Threatens Milpitas Property Owners March 18, 2010 - Proposition 99 continues to fail small business owners in Milpitas. The city has scheduled two upcoming meetings to consider "reinstating eminent domain over non-residential uses in the amendment areas" as well as add some 600 acres to the redevelopment project area. While the city claims no eminent domain action will be taken on residential properties, small businesses, churches and many other properties that create jobs and shape our communities have no protections. To learn more about the threat to small business owners, read the Milpitas Post article by clicking here. Vista Redevelopment Committee Member Warns Community of Eminent Domain March 17, 2010 - While the City of Vista has plans to take property by eminent domain for private development, the North County Times reports that Jerome Hymes, a member of the City of Vista’s redevelopment Project Area Committee is standing up for local property owners. Hymes distributed a letter to local businesses warning that "their property may be in danger of being seized by the city," and stating that the city has "no intentions to treat property owners as partners" in the redevelopment process. Hymes told his colleagues on the Committee that he distributed the letter to educate downtown business owners and "Sometimes it takes a public to get government or cities to listen," Hymes said. "If other people are asking, maybe you'll see it as important." To read the article, click here. High Speed Rail: Troubles in Southern California February 12, 2010 - The California High Speed Rail Authority’s plan to bring a bullet train to the state is not only hitting roadblocks in the San Francisco Bay Area, Southern California communities are expressing concerns too! The City of Glendale has discovered that the proposed tracks would run right through land that is currently slated for a $20 million dollar mixed use development that they purport is critical to their local economy. Perhaps, Councilman Ara Najarian said it best, “What should we tell them [the developers]? Back off? There’s going to be eminent domain?” Read the Burbank Leader article by clicking here. Seven Year Old Eminent Domain Case: Over, But Not Forgotten Seven long years ago, the City of San Jose bungled an eminent domain attempt on the Tropicana shopping center. Yesterday the all but-forgotten property rights story became center stage in a debate between candidates seeking a spot on the San Jose City Council. The San Jose Mercury reports that, “Some of the more pointed questions came from the Tropicana merchants addressing the city's failed 2003 eminent domain takeover of the shopping center that ended in settlements costing taxpayers $8 million.” It is good to see that property owners are holding those seeking public office accountable for their actions and ensuring that they understand and respect the property rights of those that they serve. California High Speed Rail: The Saga Continues January 19, 2010 – Once again the California High Speed Rail is proving too good to be true. As we have said before, the train will make its way through cities, usurping the land that is needed for the rail by seizing private property through eminent domain. Now, a column in the San Jose Mercury News is reporting that ticket prices, which were promoted to voters as reasonable, are intended to compete with plane tickets. Though the High Speed Rail might have showed some promise, it is slowly turning into a bureaucratic nightmare. Landowners beware! BALLOT MEASURE QUALIFIES FOR JUNE BALLOT January 14, 2010 – The Secretary of State reports that a statewide ballot measure that will make it more difficult for public agencies to seize private utility companies by eminent domain has qualified for the June ballot. For example, if the measure qualifies the South San Joaquin Irrigation District will have to place their plan to seize PG&E’s property by eminent domain on the ballot – essentially dooming their scheme. Read the San Francisco Chronicle article by clicking here. Property rights champion wins Assembly seat! January 12, 2010 – Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby has been elected to the California State Assembly! Norby has also been actively involved in our organization and with Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform where he played a major role in authoring Redevelopment: The Unknown Government -- an extensive report on eminent domain abuse and redevelopment in California and what can be done about it. Congratulations Assemblyman-elect Norby! Read more about Norby’s win in the by clicking here. Property owners sue to prevent government from accessing their land January 11, 2010 – The State is seeking access to 170 properties for the purpose of exporting Northern California water to Southern California. Properties owners are suing to stop the government from trappeling on their property. Read the Stockton Record editorial by clicking here. Political scholar pens insightful piece on Brooklyn Yards January 4, 2010 – The Alliance has been following this story for some time, but George Will has penned an insightful piece on the Brooklyn Yards eminent domain scandal. Will chronicles the woe of an area that is by no means blighted (despite the city’s best attempts to call it such) and the attempts of a billionaire developer to get his way, no matter what the cost, in order to build a sports arena. Property owner comes out on top in lawsuit brought on by city January 4, 2010 – The City of Pittsburg has finally settled the lawsuit they brought against the innocent owner of Marine Express because he refused give up his property! While rare, we are happy to report that the owner prevailed. To learn more about this story, read the Contra Costa Times article by clicking here. Could federal stimulus dollars be used for eminent domain? January 3, 2010 – The City of Rosemead has reinstated the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. However, their city “renewal plan” explicitly calls for using stimulus dollars to seize private property from unwilling sellers. Are federal tax dollars intended to create jobs being used to seize private property? We’ll soon see. To read the Pasadena Star-News article, click here. San Joaquin Irrigation District Launches PR Campaign to Seize Private Property December 28, 2009 – The Modesto Bee reports that the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) has mounted a PR campaign to seize PG&E’s private property by eminent domain by winning the hearts and minds of local ratepayers. However, local ratepayers would be wise to see through this campaign and read the fine print. According to PG&E, the irrigation district is woefully understating the value of its assets and this could drive up the cost of seizing PG&E’s assets – meaning that all costs associated with using eminent domain will be passed on to SSJID ratepayers in the form of higher electricity rates. City Takes Positive Steps in Redevelopment Restraint December 19, 2009 – In 2005, after tumultuous dealings with redevelopment, the citizens of Chula Vista passed a ballot measure that would prohibit the City from taking property for private development. Four years later, Chula Vista might be on the right track to property owner-friendly redevelopment by holding public meetings to learn what the community would like to see. The city’s redevelopment agency has also seen a tightening of the belt in terms of its budget and administrative costs. It is a positive development to see a city working with the community and listening to their concerns, as well as making budget friendly changes – we hope other cities take notice! Read more about this story by clicking here. Once Bitten, Twice Shy - Sacramento’s $40 million redevelopment project fails December 11, 2009 - Downtown Sacramento’s K Street has been a hotbed of eminent domain activity for years and failed redevelopment projects that fail time after time. In 2008, the City exercised eminent domain over K Street property owner Moe Mohanna by forcing the sale of his property for over $18 million. When all is said and done, the city will have poured $40 million to the redevelopment project (taxpayer dollars) with nothing to show for it! Now the city is scrapping its latest plan and trying again. When will they learn? When will taxpayers revolt? Silicon Valley City Aims to Close Proposition 99 Loopholes December 10, 2009 – The Mercury News reports that the City of Sierra Madre is attempting to do what Proposition 99 failed to do – protect property owners from eminent domain takings for private use. A City Counsel-sponsored measure which aims to do just that will be on the ballot in April. Councilman John Buchanan supports the measure saying, "Taking one person's private property to hand it to another is morally questionable, to say the least.” We could not agree more and urge the citizens of Sierra Madre to support this measure. City of Winsor Extends Police Powers of Redevelopment Agency December 10, 2009 - The Town of Winsor has recently taken steps to extend the life of the city’s Redevelopment Agency. Unfortunately, the town is hiding behind this power grab by using ‘blight’ as an excuse. Although the city claims that it will not take residential properties, it does have the power to take “commercial properties” – a fancy way of saying businesses! This is just proof again that Proposition 99 did not go far enough in protecting property owners. Read the Santa Rosa Press Democrat story by clicking here. Senator Tom Harman's Take on Property Rights December 10, 2009 - Senator Tom Harman pens a column for the Huntington Independent stressing the importance of private property rights from a historical perspective. Senator Harman also calls for the Kelo v. New London decision to be reversed and revisits the story of the City of New London and where their ‘redevelopment’ project stands today. New Private Property Rights Case will be heard by U.S. Supreme Court December 3, 2009 - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear one of the biggest property rights cases since Kelo v. New London. Owners of beautiful beachfront property on the Florida Panhandle have had their private access beaches usurped by the Florida Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). How you ask? By using erosion corrections as a guise, the FEPA has added sand to the beaches, but instead of extending the property lines -- they declared it a public beach! This action has made these valuable beachfront properties, beachfront no longer. The property owners are fighting against FEPA, as their property values have hit had by the loss of the private beach. The Wall Street Journal said an opinion piece featuring the case, “The Florida case is all the weirder because the beaches in question aren't threatened by erosion and some have grown naturally in recent years, adding to the suspicion that "beach renourishment" is a state pretext to gain waterfront rights in a desirable area.” Government’s far reaching hand has once again encroached on property rights and we can only hope the Supreme Court sets them straight.
Champion of Property Rights Poised to take 72nd Assembly District Seat November 19, 2009 - In a special election held this week, Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby was the top vote earner in the 72nd Assembly District. Norby has been a champion of property rights in California, having formed Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform (MORR) and was a staunch advocate for Proposition 98, which would have brought Californians real eminent domain reform. Supervisor Norby told the Whittier Daily, “I think fixing redevelopment is part of fixing the state's fiscal mess. We've got a Byzantine mess of how we fund public services. (Redevelopment) hijacks money that would normally go for public services.” Norby will now face a run off against Democrat John MacMurray and is expected to win the heavily Republican seat. The Alliance looks forward to having a friend of private property rights and redevelopment reform in the legislature. Congratulations, Supervisor Norby! New London Redevelopment Plan Scratched! Proposition 99 Loopholes Exploited by City of Vista November 10, 2009 - In the City of Vista, the Redevelopment Agency has taken interest in purchasing the propety of a local motel owner in order to place a car dealership there. There is one problem, however. The owner has stated that he is unequivocally not interested in selling. So far, the City Council has promised not to take homes as part of its redevelopment efforts, but now they say that businesses do not apply to their policy. This is a perfect example of how Proposition 99's purported protections are a sham, as they do not protect the business and livlihoods of small business owners. We could not agree more with the North County Times in its editorial today when it states that, "It is flat-out wrong to even hint at using (let alone to use) eminent domain to grab someone's property, only to give or sell it to another private interest." A Potentially Perilous Plan for a New San Diego Chargers Stadium November 10, 2009 - The City of San Diego and their hometown Chargers are in talks to build a $1 billion football stadium in downtown. This project would require the heavy hand of redevelopment and perhaps eminent domain. Although we try to remain optimistic with such endeavors, San Diego has made the task a little more difficult with its notably bad choices when it comes to private property rights. A little over five years ago the Gran Havana, a local small business located downtown, was seized by the city, bulldozed and then paved over for a a hotel never built. Today it is a parking lot! Regrettably, the city has not ruled out the use of eminent domain for the stadium and it doesn’t look good for the Wonder Bread building, which is located in the 14 acres they intend to use for the stadium. This makes it a prime target for eminent domain abuse, unless the owners can reach an agreement with the city. Although nothing has been formalized, we strongly urge San Diego to consider property owners in its quest to bring the Chargers downtown. Read the San Diego Union Tribune article to learn more about the city’s stadium plans. Family's Dream Property Seized by City of Lake Forest November, 5, 2009 - As we noted here in September, the Hernandez family had plans to build a business venture on a plot of land now desired by the City of Lake Forest who has plans to enter into a land swap deal with Orange County. The primary reason why the Hernandez Family has refused to sell their property so far is the city is offering an unacceptable purchasing price. So like many public agencies seeking property on the cheap, the city announced this week that they will play hardball by invoking eminent domain. The greatest investment of their lives’ is now becoming a nightmare. Read the Orange County Register article by clicking here. Conference on Redevelopment Abuse October 27, 2009 – On Saturday, November 7th, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform (MORR) will be holding its 15th Annual Conference on Redevelopment Abuse. For more information on the event, location and featured speakers, click here. Boondoggles – Stockton among Redevelopment Projects that Fall Short of Promises October 25, 2009 –Redevelopment agencies run by local government promise great economic returns to taxpayers, when in reality the projects often come at the expense of property owners. Dan Walters, in his recent Bee column, cites many such examples in California. While it is noteworthy for Walters to underscore how frequently redevelopment projects fleece taxpayers, they are not the only victims. All too often property owners lose their homes and livelihood to these failed redevelopment projects. This was certainly the case in Stockton. Champion of Private Property Rights Running for State Assembly October 26, 2009 - Chris Norby, Orange County Supervisor and leader of Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, is running for the California State Assembly. Steven Greenhut, an editorial writer for the Orange County Register and author of Abuse of Power, writes a column defending Norby’s character and record on private property rights. Greenhut is absolutely right to do so for when State legislators (Republicans too) gave lip service to private property rights, Norby was on the front line taking on special interests groups and putting the interests of property owners first. Action Alert: Contact Calfornia Gubernatorial Candidates October 23, 2009 – While the California election for Governor seems like a way off, it is not too soon for the candidates to share with voters their position on private property rights and how they intend to limit government’s ability to seize homes, businesses, family farms and churches. As far as we are aware, only former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has revealed her position to a political blogger. However, to date not one candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, has posted a detailed policy position on private property rights to their campaign website. Contact the candidates and let them know that voters have a right to know where they stand. Ripon City Council Pro Eminent Domain October 22, 2009 - As reported in the Manteca Bulletin, the Ripon City Council passed a resolution endorsing the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s plan to forcibly seize PG&E’s power lines by eminent domain. The plan not only violates private property rights, but it is fraught with danger and unintended consequences. For one, the purported savings to current ratepayers is questionable and by no means guaranteed. The city council appears to agree since they modified the resolution saying it "may" provide local ratepayer savings, instead of “shall." Wow… so they endorse taking of private property even though they concede that the benefits to their constituents is by no means “guaranteed!” Effort to Seize Property for Basketball Franchise No Slam Dunk October 14, 2009 – The Wall Street Journal reports of New York state property owners who are suing to stop a redevelopment agency from building a new arena for the New Jersey Nets basketball team. Rightfully so, they take issue with a government agency seizing private property by eminent domain to benefit a private developer. As another example of how government’s frequent claim that “public benefits” outweigh private property rights often run afoul and hits taxpayers in the pocketbook, the city’s independent budget office reports that the taxpayer financed project will “cost the city nearly $170 million, nearly $40 million more in spending than it would generate in tax revenue.” What is the public benefit of being fleeced? Los Angeles Seizes Land From Citizens, Gives to Billionaire Developer! October 8, 2009 - An eye opening article in LA Weekly reveals that despite growing budget deficits, the Los Angeles Community Development Association (LA – CRA) used eminent domain and taxpayer dollars to finance a downtown redevelopment project. In essence, while projects for the poor are cut, the rich and famous are getting government handouts in LA! To make matters worse, private property seized by eminent domain was used to build a Ritz Carlton hotel! ” The LA Weekly article goes on to say that “the eminent domain takings in the area of what is now Staples and L.A. Live in the 1990s left many private landowners deeply embittered over being forced off their property at “market/fair value.” In one case, a developer got a taxpayer subsidy only to flip the property and sell it to another developer, and did not return the property to its original owner. Alliance President Marko Mlikotin is quoted in the article saying, “The CRA was using public dollars to seize private properties. Shouldn’t that property revert to the original owner?” You can read the rest of the LA Weekly article by clicking here. Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman Takes Firm Stand for Property Rights October 7, 2009 – In a recent interview with FlashReport, a major political blog, gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and former CEO of eBay, lays out her position on private property rights and government’s use of eminent domain. Whitman is quoted as saying, “My view is that it should be very hard for the government, or a city, or a county to take people's property rights. Property rights is a core part of, I think, why people live in America. Think about the history of owning property in the United States. It's the American dream.” Since California has among the weakest private property rights laws in the Nation, we can only hope that this issue is important to all the gubernatorial candidates. U.S. Supreme Court Battle – October 4, 2009 - In 2005 Susette Kelo’s pink home was taken by eminent domain for private redevelopment project, a fight she took all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its famous Kelo vs. New London decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Ms. Kelo by granting local government greater authority and ease by which they can seize homes, small business and family farms from unwilling sellers. Ironically, some four years later The Associated Press is reporting that the site where her home once stood is still empty! As she puts it, “"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing. I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision." Family’s Dream Crushed by Eminent Domain September 18, 2009 - The Hernandez family has dreamed of building their business on property they picked years ago, but now the City of Lake Forest is trying to take it in a land swap deal with the Orange County. Although the city has expressed interest in purchasing the land, the family refuses to sell. The fate of the Hernandez family’s dream remains to be seen and any glimmer of hope seems to be dwindling by the day. To read The Orange County Register's in-depth look at this story, click here. City of Manteca Votes to Support Taking of PG&E Assets September 18, 2009 - Yesterday, at great risk to their political future, the Manteca City Council voted to support the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID) plan to forcibly seize PG&E assets by eminent domain. Time and time again, public opinion surveys reveal considerable public opposition to government seizing private property and businesses by eminent domain. Perhaps if SSJID is successful in taking PG&E property, the City of Manteca will feel obligated to hire the hundreds of displaced PG&E employees who have lost their jobs! Fair enough, right? Read the Lathrop Manteca Sun Post article by clicking here. California Bullet Train Could Railroad Property Owners September 30, 2009 - Yesterday, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) revealed its long awaited plans for the Bay Area train route. These plans spell big trouble for property owners that could be affected by proposed train paths. The San Mateo County Times reports that, “The expansion may result in taking of homes and businesses through eminent domain.” So far, Menlo Park and Atherton have sued the agency, fearing the power the CHSRA could have over their cities and their futures. The plan revealed yesterday will most likely be a starting point for this controversial project and all of its far reaching implications are yet to be seen, but the CHSRA has few options when it comes to obtaining the land it needs. It is already clear that eminent domain will most likely play center stage to the transformation of the bay area as these trains move in and it is important that a spotlight be kept on the CHSRA as they grow closer to finalizing these plans. After Losing Bid, City of Sausalito Looks to Eminent Domain to Steal Property! September 10, 2009 - The City of Sausalito is considering the use of eminent domain to acquire water front property after they lost out to a developer who offered a higher price for the land. In an editorial today, the Marin Independent Journal warns the city against using the highly controversial land acquisition technique saying, “Even after being outbid by a private investor, the city is still pursuing the property, including talking about acquiring it through the risky legal maneuver of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a powerful device that that also carries a sizable financial risk for taxpayers.” This threat puts Morgan at a major disadvantage with the city, should he need to come before the council or planning commission to build on the land. The paper is clear when it comes to property rights saying, “The city must be careful not to sacrifice fairness and respect for private property rights in its negotiations with Morgan. Council members should not let their real estate negotiations cloud a fair and open planning process. Redevelopment Scheme Alive and Well September 8, 2009 – As reported by Bee columnist Dan Walters, “(City of) Industry has hired a squad of well-connected lobbyists to pass the stadium measure and also promote its scheme to allow cities to extend soon-to-expire redevelopment projects in return for allowing the state to shift some redevelopment funds to the deficit-ridden state budget.” The scheme involves allowing the state to divert redevelopment funds to help balance the state budget and in return, the legislation will make it easier for local redevelopment agencies to seize homes and small businesses by eminent domain. It is no wonder California has some of the weakest private property rights laws on the books – and getting weaker if developers of a proposed football stadium get their way. Will South San Joaquin Irrigation District's Eminent Domain Plan Fleece Taxpayers? Bulldozing Developer Files for Bankruptcy! September 4, 2009 – They say what goes around, comes around. That is certainly the case for a Baldwin Park developer who was scheming with city leaders to build a project that involved seizing over 500 homes and businesses by eminent domain. The Los Angeles Business Journal reports, “Real estate developer Bob Bisno, who last year failed in an attempt to build a large redevelopment project in Baldwin Park, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.” Fortunately for local residents, the developer pulled the plug on the project before the bulldozers began demolition and his bankruptcy means local residents are safe – for now! Alliance Against AB 226 and AB 291 September 1, 2009 - This week, the Alliance has come out against AB 226 and AB 291. Both of these bills would expand the powers of the California Coastal Commission, which has already proved to have overreaching authority when it comes to private property rights. “As we all know, times are tough in California, but allowing agencies to supplement their budgets by removing the essential oversight functions of the courts is wrong and would sell California property owners short,” said Marko Mlikotin, President of the Alliance. “California is already far behind other states in ensuring property rights protections, but AB 226 and 291 would go even farther in eroding those rights guaranteed in our Constitution.” AB 226 will allow the Commission to become its own judicial branch of government, acting as both prosecutor and judge when imposing fines for indiscretions. No coastal property owner is safe, when the Coastal Commission is able to impose fines at will, with no due process for those Californians. AB 291 would allow Coastal Commission staff to deny permit applications without a hearing. This bill would allow staff to stop the processing of a permit application if they deem the property owner already has a violation on their land. There have been numerous times when commission staff has claimed a violation had taken place, when the Commissioners disagreed with their findings. Tell your state representatives that enough is enough! Click here to find your legislators. South San Joaquin County Irrigation District Desires PG&E’s Property Public Television Program Shills for Redevelopment Agencies August 2, 2009 – The LA Times reports how “The California Redevelopment Assn. and its partners have put up $320,000 to help Howser produce 14 episodes highlighting the achievements of redevelopment projects around the state, part of an attempt to convince Californians that they should care about this little-understood arm of government that receives and spends more than $5 billion a year in property taxes.” The article truly exposes how public television can be exploited to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, reporter Huell Howser did not profile the countless examples of redevelopment projects that involve demolishing people’s homes and small businesses (livelihoods), only for developers to walk away from the projects. How Did Budget Proposal Benefit Blight Barons? August 2, 2009 – Steven Greenhut, of the Orange County Register writes of his great relief that a special interest provision in the recently approved state budget was removed. The provision would have made it easier for redevelopment agencies to seize private property and give it to developers. Greenhut writes, “And something even more wonderful took place in Sacramento last week: The budget package "takes" $1.7 billion away from the state's redevelopment agencies, and the Assembly refused to pass a piece of special interest legislation promoted by that giant redevelopment agency of a town, the city of Industry, that would have allowed cities to expand redevelopment zones for 40 years without conducting a blight finding. In an up economy, the state never would have grabbed the cash, and it would almost certainly have given the redevelopment agencies that extra latitude, which Industry wanted as an obvious means to pay for the infrastructure for a new NFL stadium proposed by the city's most influential developer.” When California law allows property to be seized by eminent domain, even if it is next to blighted property (maybe even blocks away), private property rights throughout California were spared a direct assault by special interest groups. Vallejo's Redevelopment Project a Flop? July 26, 2009 – The Times-Herald reports that “Vallejo city leaders banked big dreams on a federal urban renewal project that promised a new era of prosperity.” Unfortunately, “A half-century later the city is still trying to realize that promise and unlock the waterfront’s and downtown’s potential.” You can just add Vallejo to a host of other California cities like San Francisco, Fresno, Baldwin Park, Garden Grove, San Diego and many others that used taxpayer dollars to seize private property by eminent domain to “revitalize” their communities. In many cases, after years of inertia and wasted tax dollars, such redevelopment projects are abandoned or never fully realized. Perhaps, a former Vallejo mayor said it best, “They tried but nothing ever happened.” Vallejo is a frightening example when one considers that this failed redevelopment plan displaced over 500 families and dozens of businesses. Vallejo is just another reason elected officials are calling for redevelopment reform and presenting market based alternatives to eminent domain that strengthen communities without infringing on private property rights. For those who wish to learn about a movement to reform redevelopment practices, read Simplify, Don't Subsidize by the Institute for Justice. It is a worthwhile read and a movement worthy of public support. Transmission Line Plan Tanked July 17, 2009 – The Transmission Agency of Northern California’s plan to build 600 miles of high voltage transmission lines over private property is dead, leading property owners throughout Northern California good reason to celebrate. The center of the controversy included the agency’s power of eminent domain and this invoked considerable protest from neighbor groups from Modesto to as far north as Redding. Is the plan dead and if so, for how long ask property owners. The local utility companies are still under pressure to meet state mandated renewal energy standards and no “Plan B” has emerged to achieving this mandate without the recently tanked transmission line plan. Stay tuned for developing news. Threatened Long Beach Property Owners Fight Back! July 12, 2009 – In the Southern California community of Long Beach, a home can be deemed blighted if its garage is untidy. Yes, you read this correctly! As many of you know, a blight designation is a perquisite for government to condemn and seize your property by eminent domain. So, you can only imagine, in a community that has had over 40% of the landmass deemed “blighted,” the Long Beach Press Telegram reports that homeowners are fighting back. In the article, the city defends its practices and claims that they have never seized a home by eminent domain. This may be true, but public agencies use the “threat” of eminent domain to achieve the same objective. Like a gun placed to a property owners head, government simple says take the offer for your home or else – and it works. Soon enough, even the last holdout sells when they see their neighbors move, homes boarded up, landscape deteriorate and crime grow. If the goal of the City of Long Beach is to improve the quality of life, why don’t they simply create an economic environment that stimulates job creation, fund neighborhood improvement programs and increase policing rather than seize people’s homes and livelihoods? And here is another crazy thought… how many Long Beach city council members had untidy garages when they extended the city’s eminent domain powers? Supreme Court Nominee: Enemy of Property Rights July 11, 2009 – According to an adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute, “it is not easy for a judge to undermine property rights further than the Supreme Court did in 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London. Conn.” That is unless you are Judge Sotomayor. As we all know, the Kelo case was the landmarked decision that sanctioned government’s ability to profit by seizing private property from unwilling sellers and give it to a private developer. In 2006, Judge Sotomayor ruled against property owners in a case that involved a politically connected developer who tried to extort over $800,000 or a 50 percent stake in their proposed CVS pharmacy and in return, the developer would not urge the City of Port Chester, N.Y. to seize their property by eminent domain! Sotomayor’s panel ruled that even if the property owner’s account of the case was true, the city still had the right to seize their property because the developer’s project served a so-called “public benefit.” As Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin this week, will U.S. Senators fully explore Judge Sotomayor’s position on private property rights or will they ignore the need to protect our Nation’s Fifth Amendment? Stay tuned. Controversial Power Line Project Zapped? July 7, 2009 – As reported in the Sacramento Bee, a controversial plan by the Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) to build over 600 miles of transmission lines by seizing private property by eminent domain lost one of its largest financial partners last week when the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) decided that the project “isn’t strong enough to justify spending additional money on scoping and planning.” Without this critical funding, a consortium of other municipal utility districts will have to pony up even more money for the project to pencil out. The massive power line project is needed for the consortium to meet a state mandate that requires their power portfolio to include a mix of renewal energy sources such as wind and solar. Critics say that alternatives to new power lines need to be explored. Regardless of what view people subscribe to, the property owners from Modesto to Redding who stand to lose their property to eminent domain celebrated the 4th of July and SMUD’s decision this past weekend. A test for Prop. 99 June 23, 2009 - In June of 2008, Prop. 99, an eminent domain ballot measure financed by redevelopment agencies and other public agency organizations that profit by seizing private property, won voter approval. While roundly criticized by the Alliance and legal experts for its many loopholes, a case in Lynwood may put the new law to the test. Developers have re-introduced a massive 44 acre hotel, auto mall and retail project that has one problem-there is no open space in this Los Angeles area community, just homes and small businesses! Local property owners fought a similar project by the same developer some years earlier when the proposed project included a NFL football stadium that would rest on top of hundreds of homes and small businesses, displacing about 1000 people. According to the Los Angeles WAVE newspaper, the developer has now moved the project to crush another neighborhood instead with presumably fewer “owner occupied” homes that are purported to be illegal seizures under Prop. 99. We guess if you fail the first time, try… try again. A Documentary Critical of the California Coastal June 17, 2009 - A filmmaker who is producing Sins of Commission, a movie critical of the California Coastal Commission’s infringement on private property rights, was served a subpoena by the commission to acquire raw footage of the film before its final release! Claiming that this intimidation is an attack on his 1st Amendment Rights, the filmmaker is going public. This legal tactic comes as no surprise to property owners who have dealt with a commission who has denied them the ability to make even the most modest improvements to their homes -- or permission to trim dry brush around their property during fire season. In fact, some believe that the Coastal Commission is using intimidation to suppress any criticism of the unelected commission that is accountable to no one! Perhaps, it will only be when the film is finally made public that California voters will understand the full scope and authority of this powerful, yet otherwise obscure State commission.
June 15, 2009 – Columnists compare the Transbay Joint Powers Authority’s use of eminent domain to legendary outlaw Black Bart. June 14, 2009 – The NY Times reports, “Judge Sonia Sotomayor will doubtless be questioned about Kelo at her confirmation hearings next month. But her answers will be complicated by her participation in a 2006 decision applying and extending Kelo.” June 8, 2009 - The Associated Press writes, “The federal government backtracked Friday and decided not to seize the western Pennsylvania property needed to build a Flight 93 (9-11) memorial, saying instead it would renew negotiations with landowners.” June 7, 2009 - Residents in upstate California who have had their property right’s threatened by the proposed high voltage power lines have started to fight back by forming the North State Land Owners Committee. June 6, 2009 – A writer states in a San Francisco column that the President’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court; “Her record on property rights is no more promising. In 2006’s Didden v. Village of Port Chester, she ratified an eminent-domain abuse that makes the infamous Kelo case look mild.” June 4, 2009 – Caltrans is coming under increasing criticism for becoming one of the state’s biggest slumlords by acquiring property by eminent domain for roads never built and allowing them to deteriorate into blighted properties. Selling these properties to balance the state budget deficit is just one of many solutions according to a local state legislator. June 3, 2009 -- The citizens of the California High Desert are fighting back against the use of eminent domain to seize property to build obtrusive power lines. May 31, 2009 – The Orange County Register suggests reforming redevelopment to save the State budget $5 billion! May 26, 2009 – A filmmaker takes on the California Coastal Commission in his recently released film, "Sins of Commission." To learn about the film and view testimonials from property owners fighting for their rights, visit www.sinsofcommission.com. May 11, 2009 – Northern California property owners fighting plan to build major power lines through their property and communities. May 7, 2009 – To build a 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania, the Associated Press reports that the federal government intends to seize land by eminent domain so that “the Flight 93 memorial can be built by the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks, property owners say they're disappointed and surprised by the plan.” May 7, 2009 – The Sacramento Bee reports, “Property owners in five counties around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are protesting plans by the state to survey their land for a controversial new water canal – opposition that has landed them in court.” May 5, 2009 – The Orange County Register reports that, “The Fullerton City Council is set to vote today on a noxious redevelopment plan that will undermine property rights, promote the use of eminent domain.” May 4, 2009 – Stockton farmers threatened by eminent domain are taking the State to court. Case may be the first of many in the battle to fight the proposed Peripheral Canal. May 1, 2009- Justice David Souter, who sided against against Susette Kelo and her pink house in one of the most controversial eminent domain cases, Kelo v. New London, is said to be retiring from the Supreme Court. Friends of property rights should breathe a sigh of relief! April 23, 2009 - The City of Fullerton intends to declare an area with over 160 businesses 'blighted,' which would leave them susceptible to eminent domain abuse. March 14, 2009 – Forest City Enterprises, a developer who has preyed on private property rights throughout California and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat eminent domain ballot measures, pulls out of Fresno redevelopment project. Local property owners are spared eminent domain for now. March 13, 2009 – Despite veto threats from Governor Barbour, the Mississippi State House overwhelmingly passed legislation that would severely limit the use of eminent domain. Unfortunately, eminent domain reform has not come to California. March 11, 2009 – March 11, 2009 – Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, opponent of eminent reform in California, has announced his intentions to run for Insurance Commissioner. March 10, 2009 – In an unusual case in San Mateo County, one government agency is attempting to use eminent domain to acquire water wells from another government agency. March 5, 2009 – Since Lodi voters rejected a ballot measure that prompted fears of eminent domain, city leaders are now searching ways to improve their community without threatening private property rights. March 4, 2009 – Voters soundly reject a measure that would broaden redevelopment plans in Lodi and prompted fears of eminent domain abuse. March 3, 2009 – In order to acquire new water, Oceanside is threatening to use eminent domain. Seizure puts property owner’s plans to build a hotel at risk! February 28, 2009 – Community group opposes city of Pittsburg's use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project. February 18, 2009 – The Stockton Record reports, “The court ruled Friday that Stockton's acquisition of Marina Tower, on the north bank of the Stockton Deep Water Channel, was based on vague resolutions of necessity that failed to specify for what use the city sought the land. "This is a case of 'condemn first, decide what to do with the property later,' " the court ruled.” February 11, 2009 - City of San Jose may seek political retribution against business group for its efforts to unseat a pro-eminent domain councilmember. February 7, 2009 – Ontario homeowners raise eminent domain concerns and protest proposed plan to bulldoze their homes for industrial properties. January 26, 2009 - Read the Wall Street Journal’s book review of the “Little Pink House,” the story of Suzette Kelo’s battle to protect her New London Connecticut home from eminent domain – a battle that launched a national private property rights debate. January 26, 2009 – The Los Angeles Times reports on Temple City and a case involving alleged campaign contributions, bribes and eminent domain. January 22, 2009 – In a victory for property rights, the Institute for Justice wins an appeal case that reverses a decision to throw out an eminent domain case brought by a Youth Athletic Club that would hold the city accountable for its redevelopment plans. January 17, 2009 - The Institute for Justice takes on a Southern California city that has unrightfully declared 700 properties blighted, including a youth athletic center. January 9, 2009 - Sadly, Dudley Holman, a founding director of the Alliance, has passed away. He was a good friend and champion of private property rights, and other noble causes in his community. Dudley helped establish the Alliance when the Yolo County Board of Supervisors sought to seize a 17,000 acre ranch by eminent domain, using profits from a local casino to pay for it! Everyone who came to know Dudley as a friend, community leader and a champion of private property rights will miss him dearly. January 6, 2009 – The Azusa City Council votes unanimously to seize a family business by eminent domain for a restaurant and grocery store. The business is not “blighted.” It just stands in the way of another business that promises more tax revenue! January 6, 2009 - Never before has a budget proposal put California private property rights at such risk. California already has some of the weakest private property laws in the Nation. Under current law, a modest home or productive business can be deem blighted and subjected to eminent domain even if it is just next to so-called "blighted" property. As Dan Walters points out, in return for diverting redevelopment funds to the State of California, these very agencies can redesignate properties "blighted" without any new blight studies! This budget plan will only give public agencies financial incentives to gobble up private property from unwilling sellers to satisfy government's insatiable need for new tax revenue! December 29, 2008 – Eminent Domain/Water Rights: The Conaway Ranch, once threatened by eminent domain, is being sued by environmental groups for selling its surplus water. December 21, 2008 – The Orange County Register editorializes on the ills of redevelopment. December 7, 2008 – Victorville residents say city’s “land grab” ruined them. December 5, 2008 – Azusa furniture store owner begins petition drive to save his business from eminent domain. December 2, 2008 - The fight to protect Baldwin Park from eminent domain abuse is over. The developer’s business has collapsed and he even had to sell his home! November 26, 2008 – Only after a ranch and modest homes are seized by eminent domain and bulldozed does the developer pull the plug on the project. Yet another promise of revitalization at the expense of property rights fails! November 25, 2008 – Illustrating that property owners are never truly compensated when their property is seized by eminent domain, a developer is suing a public agency for NOT using eminent domain to acquire property on the cheap. While it cost them more, the agency chose to do the right thing. They entered into a willing agreement with the property owner. November 24, 2008 – Efforts to use eminent domain to build an NFL team in Los Angeles is not dead! How can a stadium be built when homes and businesses stand in the way? November 21, 2008 - Today, property owners in Baldwin Park are celebrating! For the past two years, the City of Baldwin Park was working with a controversial developer to seize over 200 homes and 300 businesses by eminent domain - an area of over 125 football fields! This week, the developer backed out of the deal! November 16, 2008 – Only weeks after the City of Sacramento acquires private property under the threat of eminent domain does the city’s chosen developer seek even more taxpayer dollars to subsidize the project. The property owner gets pennies on the dollar for his property and now taxpayers get fleeced! What’s next? November 13, 2008 – Former residents (over 1000 families) of Chavez Ravine share painful memories of being tossed from their homes for Dodger Stadium and never being fully compensated for their lost property. November 12, 2008 – South San Joaquin Irrigation District lobbies business group to stay neutral on their efforts to seize PG&E property by eminent domain. See related articles:
November 9, 2008 – Read how San Francisco’s “Harlem of the West” lost over 900 businesses and 4,700 homes to eminent domain and little to show for it! As the city takes on redeveloping San Francisco’s last remain black neighborhoods, have they not learned from their mistakes? October 31, 2008 - The Long Beach Press Telegram says, “Residents of North Long Beach, worried that some of their homes might be condemned for redevelopment projects, are giving City Hall a tough time. Rightfully so.” October 28, 2008 – Long Beach pack rats beware! City of Long Beach considers homes blighted if you can’t fit your car in your garage. Organization that litigated the Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court finds this "bizarre and offensive." October 21, 2008 – As columnist Dan Walters reports, redevelopment projects that are intended to revitalize communities can backfire. October 17, 2008 – Threatened by eminent domain, historic Long Beach bookstore closes its doors after nearly 75 years of business. October 14, 2008 - The Alliance announces their endorsements of property right advocates in key races across California. October 8, 2008 –Prop. 99 proves to be a sham! Yesterday, the City of Long Beach voted to extend eminent domain powers to its redevelopment agency in accordance with Prop. 99, or so they say. Redevelopment interests that drafted and financed Prop. 99 claimed throughout their campaign that their measure provided “iron-clad” protections for homeowners. However, the City has found several loopholes, including one that allows them to seize homes if the homeowner does not comply with “maintenance standards,” including having a untidy garage. Pack rats beware of eminent domain!
September 30, 2008 - Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes AB 2686. The bill would have allowed tribes, sovereign nations, to join joint powers authorities that have the power of eminent domain. In 2005, a Yolo County tribe sought to use their vast financial resources to fund an eminent domain taking of Conaway Ranch -- over 17,000 acres farmland and its water rights. September 24, 2008 - The City of Vista doubles the size of its redevelopment area with no written assurances that private property won’t be seized by eminent domain. September 21, 2008 – Property owners in Yorba Linda qualify a eminent domain reform measure that will appear on the November ballot. September 20, 2008 - Despite assurances by the Vista redevelopment agency that they won't seize homes by eminent domain, the city fuels community distrust by refusing to put it writing! September 17, 2008 - The Long Beach Press Telegram narrows in on Proposition 99’s blatant flaws and explains why property owners have a right to be uneasy with government taking of private property. September 16, 2008 - Despite opposition from residents, Long Beach extends power of eminent domain to seize private property. September 15, 2008 - Yet another national public opinion survey reveals that Americans overwhelming oppose the seizing of private property by eminent domain for economic development purposes. 88% of Americans feel that private property rights is a fundamental right. September 11, 2008 - A local citizen discovers firsthand how a citizens committee designed to advise a city on a redevelopment project was rigged to undermine private property rights. September 2, 2008 - Redevelopment agencies that have acquired considerable wealth by seizing private property on the cheap now stand to lose funds to balance the state budget. All the property owners who have lost their property to eminent domain are not shedding any tears for them. August 29, 2008 - An Atascadero paper reports, "Pat and Sue Gaughn, the Atascadero property owners who sued the city of Atascadero in 2006 claiming ingenuine threats of eminent domain damaged them in excess of $200,000, reached a settlement with the city's self-insurance pool last week." This case illustrates how public agencies use the threat of eminent domain to force people from their property! August 28, 2008 - Under pressure from local residents, Baldwin Park appears to have modified its ambitious plan by limiting their abusive takings of private property to small business properties only. Unfortunately, this came too late for 40 homeowners and will do nothing for over 300 small business owners like Ken Woods whose family business will face eminent domain and the bull dozer for the second time! August 25, 2008 - The LA Business Journal reports on how a group that tried to swindle the state of millions of dollars is to acquire a shopping center project by eminent domain. It pays to be politically connected in LA! August 23, 2008 - Reece Eptein, with Project 21 black leadership network, writes, "Self-professed champions of the poor don't help when they oppose eminent domain reform." August 18, 2008 - In July, the Los Angeles Times reported that a politically connected developer boasted of its relationship with the LA redevelopment agency and lucrative returns on properties, some of which were seized by eminent domain. On Friday, the LA City Council approved a redevelopment agency plan to build a shopping center on property seized by eminent domain, too. Here is the catch. It involves a public subsidy of over $20 million! The rightful owners of the property had plans to build a shopping center, too, but with no public assistance. Why is the city wasting taxpayer dollars? Is it because the plan involves conveying the property to a politically non-profit that tried to swindle the State of over $1.3 million for a soccer field never built?
August 14, 2008 - Over 1000 families are threatened by eminent domain in Los Angeles. How can this be since supporters of Prop. 99 say homes are forever protected from eminent domain abuse? August 13, 2008 - The South San Joaquin Irrigation District continues to position itself financially to acquire PG&E by eminent domain. August 13, 2008 - Does eminent domain benefit poor neighborhoods in South Los Angeles? August 10, 2008 - The City of Azusa abandons its redevelopment project only after seizing and demolishing productive businesses by eminent domain! Yet another example of the risks associated with seizing private property and giving it to development interests. July 27, 2008 - The Orange County Register writes, "So it's with enormous disappointment that we learn that Mr. Howser has agreed to host a 14-segment series paid for by the California Redevelopment Association--the folks who advocate the use of eminent domain on behalf of 'economic development'"... July 23, 2008 - Action Alert: The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) has bought off renowned TV host of California Gold (Public TV) Huell Howser to do a puff piece on redevelopment, without highlighting how public agencies have used eminent domain to destroy historic business districts, homes and livelihoods. While CRA is a sponsor of this segment, the program is aired on public television. Since this is your tax dollars at work, email Mr. Howser today and demand a balanced segment that tells the stories of enriched developers and victims.
July 22, 2008 - We told you so! Even after Prop. 99 becomes law, Baldwin Park is seizing 100 homes and so is the City of Vista. July 21, 2008 -The San Francisco Chronicle reports, "The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency will leave the Western Addition in January, ending a 40-year 'urban renewal' project that was touted as a move to wipe out blight but actually destroyed the city's most prominent African American neighborhood." July 21, 2008 – The idea of having redevelopment agencies bailout the state budget deficit in return for relaxing eminent domain laws is alive and well. July 20, 2008 – Politically connected lobbying firm boasts of huge returns on LA redevelopment projects. Bob Blue, a private property activist, raises concerns. July 18, 2008 - City of Vista is yet another city that seeks to exploit a Prop. 99 loophole that exempts redevelopment zones from purported home protections. Shame on proponents of Prop. 99 for tricking voters! July 13, 2008 - The great debate of who is responsible for "blighted" communities, a requisite for using eminent domain, rages in Stockton. Local columnist says city is responsible! July 12, 2008 - City files suit to remove two-story-high "End Eminent Domain Abuse" mural in St. Louis! July 8, 2008 - What has been developed on Suzette Kelo's property, the case that led to the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. New London decision? Nothing! The property was seized for a development project never built! July 8, 2008 - The City of Baldwin Park is looking for ways to exploit Prop. 99's loopholes so that they can seize over 200 homes! Have they no shame? July 8, 2008 – In return for relaxing the blight designations that are required to seize private property from unwilling sellers, the League of CA Cities and redevelopment interests have come up with a scheme to help bail out the state’s budget deficit! Making it easier to seize private property by eminent domain is not an acceptable solution to balancing state budgets! ACTION ITEM: Call your legislators today and urge them to reject the League’s scheme. July 5, 2008 - More than 20 years ago, the City of Indio used eminent domain to demolish homes for retail projects never built. Locals are now weary of plans to use the vacant property to save a mall that is going out of business! June 26, 2008 - Temple City small business owners believe the city's business moratorium is designed to purposely create blight so that business property can be seized by eminent domain. June 26, 2008 - Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President, reflects on the passing of the Kelo decision's 3rd anniversary and how California still needs reforms. June 22, 2008 - Baldwin Park property owners seek to recall council members for eminent domain abuse. June 21, 2008 - Home that ignited national property rights rebellion is relocated to a new location. June 19, 2008 - Recognizing Prop. 99's shortcomings, Redding City Council passes Prop. 98 like protections. June 19, 2008 - See how Proposition 99's weaknesses and loopholes won't help the citizens in San Bernardino who are now under the threat of eminent domain. June 17, 2008 - A rising trend in local utilities using eminent domain to take private water systems away from businesses and hand them over to government interests. June 13, 2008 - Public agency that funneled money into campaigns opposed to eminent domain reform, rubber stamps millions worth in tax-free bonds. Calls increase for greater oversight. June 12, 2008 - The Sacramento Union reports, "If you voted for Proposition 99 last week, there is an unsettling possibility that you were conned." June 11, 2008- Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency threatens waterfront business with eminent domain. They even want the owner to pay for cleanup of his property should they acquire it! June 8, 2008 - Two more papers have come to the conclusion that Prop. 99 will not protect all Californians from eminent domain abuse and that more reforms need to be passed. June 7, 2008 - No more than 2 days after voters passed Prop. 99 the Seaside City Council extends eminent domain authority. June 6, 2008 - Public agency views passage of Prop. 99 as an invitation to seize PG&E's property by eminent domain. June 5 - More than 200 homes and businesses in Baldwin Park are being threatened by eminent domain and city leaders are unsure if Prop. 99 will stop the city from their redevelopment plans. June 5 - Throughout the campaign, proponents of Prop. 99 claimed that they would pursue additional reforms to fill in Prop. 99's loopholes. However, just days after the Prop. 99's passage they are backtracking on these promises. June 4 - Property rights advocates vow to continue the fight despite the loss of Prop. 98 at the polls.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
