| April 20, 2008 - The campaigns for Propositions 98 and 99 on the June 3 ballot are getting heated, and it would be no surprise if most California voters are confused by the two eminent domain-related measures. If both measures pass, the one with the higher number of votes goes into effect. So we urge support for real eminent domain reform, Prop. 98, and opposition to phony reform, Prop. 99.
April 7, 2008 - Ken Woods never fancied himself more than a small business owner. But these days he's become the poster child for critics trying to scale back California's redevelopment law. The owner of a small Baldwin Park sewing-machine repair shop, Woods' business property was taken by eminent domain in 1980 when the city redeveloped a downtown commercial strip. He was forced to relocate his Woods 'N Sons a few blocks away. "After we moved, they told us that we'll never have to worry about redevelopment again," he said. Now, Woods claims, the city has broken that promise.
April 1, 2008 - The Vista City Council has proposed a plan to more than double the size of Vista's 2,016 acre redevelopment area. More than 50 percent of the expanded redevelopment are would be in residential neighborhoods and residents are worried the city will use eminent domain to take their property.
March 30, 2008 - When Victor Gudzunas purchased a three-acre slice of Hacienda Boulevard 50 years ago, he expected to pass the land on to his boys. Today, the property faces eminent domain proceedings and a May trial if Gudzunas and the city can't work out a settlement before then.
March 19, 2008 – Today, the Alliance announced support for Assembly Bill 1992, legislation introduced by Assemblyman Chuck Devore of Irvine that prohibits public agency associations from using anonymous campaign accounts.
March 17, 2008 – Opponents of eminent domain reform have been accused of illegally funding opposition to Proposition 98, a eminent domain reform ballot measure that will restore private property rights protections in California.
March 15, 2008 – Baldwin Park residents rallied against a proposed multimillion-dollar development this week at a forum backing eminent domain reform.
March 10, 2008 – Opponents of eminent domain reform have been accused of illegally funding Prop. 99, their so called eminent domain reform measure that does little to protect property owners.
February 29, 2008 – The City of Stockton is contemplating seizing electric facilities from Pacific Gas & Electric to generate millions of dollars in revenue for the City.
February 22, 2008 – Opponents of eminent domain reform continue to weaken California’s redevelopment laws, allowing abuse to continue.
February 8, 2008 – The Central Valley Business Journal article illustrates the differences between the two eminent domain measures appearing on the June ballot, with Prop. 98, the CA Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, being the only one to protect all property owners.
January 18, 2008 – A new report from the Institute for Justice finds that property rights reforms don’t limit economic development.
January 12, 2008 – Seaside residents will elect an advisory committee later this month to make a recommendation to the City Council on the use of eminent domain in the controversial West Urban Village Project area.
December 21, 2007 – A San Diego family was awarded $26.5 million for their property after Caltrans used eminent domain to seize a piece for construction of a proposed freeway.
December 21, 2007 – The Reason Foundation and host Drew Carey bring a great video on eminent domain abuse in Redevelopment: A Tale of Two Cities.
December 19, 2007 – A Riverside County park district is trying to use eminent domain to seize a Congressman’s property!
December 16, 2007 – Concerned citizens in Seaside are circulating petitions in opposition to the City extending its eminent domain authority.
December 6, 2007 - 200 people protest the use of eminent domain to demolish their homes for retail development project – including a Best Buy!
December 5, 2007 – The City of Baldwin Park plans to seize hundreds of homes and small businesses in the name of redevelopment. Property owners are fighting back, asking the City to abandon a development agreement with Bisno Development Company.
December 5, 2007 – Despite an ongoing eminent domain battle with the City of Sacramento, Tex Mex Restaurant reopened this week after it was forced to close over a year ago. City leaders have vowed that Tex Mex is “here to stay.”
November 29, 2007 – The LA Times reports that League of California Cities and others are using anonymous campaign accounts to defeat eminent domain reform.
November 27, 2007 – Having submitted over 1.1 million signatures to qualify an eminent domain ballot measure, reformists face a battle against powerful interest groups. Read these recent editorials to learn more.
November 21, 2007 – Proponents of eminent domain reform submit over 1.1 million signatures to qualify ballot measure for June 2008!
November 15, 2007 - The League of California Cities and other taxpayer financed organizations have spent more than $7 million to defeat eminent domain reform from anonymous campaign accounts that don’t disclose their donors!
November 5, 2007 – Small business owners in Azusa are threatened by the City’s plans to use eminent domain to make way for national retail chains.
October 17, 2007 – The City of Fresno may try to acquire the bankrupt Running Horse project, possibly using eminent domain, to hand over to billionaire developer Donald Trump.
October 16, 2007 – An appeals court has ruled against a Riverside property owner who tried to place an eminent domain ballot measure on the city’s ballot in 2005.
October 13, 2007 – Eminent Domain has become an election issue in Riverside’s upcoming city council races in light of the City’s aggressive use of eminent domain over the years.
October 4, 2007 – Recalled council members in Lynwood refuse to give up their seats, instead, continue to push a controversial stadium proposal that would level 1,000 homes.
October 3, 2007 – The Chicago Tribune reports on the high displacement by eminent domain among “the poor, the less well-educated and non-whites,” citing the Community Youth Athletic Center in San Diego as a prime example.
September 26, 2007 – The Community Youth Athletic Center, represented by the Institute for Justice, filed a lawsuit challenging National City’s bogus blight declaration.
September 23, 2007 – Development company, notorious for development projects that come at the expense of small business owners, has its sights on Fresno.
September 21, 2007 – To the delight of hundreds of citizens gathered before them, the Moorpark City Council unanimously rejected an amendment to reinstate their eminent domain authority.
September 9, 2007 – Last year, Sacramento forced the doors closed on K Street’s Tex Mex restaurant. While the city gave millions of dollars in incentives to an upscale chain restaurant just blocks away, Tex Mex’s owners were never offered the opportunity to stay and improve their business.
September 7, 2007 – A Fresno bar
owner has successfully fought the city of Fresno to keep
his century-old Cosmopolitan bar and grill!
September 5, 2007 - The new League of California Cities
president, Jim Madaffer, is a champion of eminent domain.
His opposition to Prop. 90 and support for ACA 8 is further
evidence that the League won’t be changing its stripes
anytime soon!
September 2, 2007 – The Orange County Register
calls ACA 8, “an initiative designed to accomplish
the very opposite of what its supporters claim,” and
elaborate on the false claims being made against the Alliance
sponsored CA Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.
August 31, 2007 – Farm Bureau President Doug
Mosebar discusses the California Property Owners and Farmland
Protection Act in this guest commentary.
August 31, 2007 – The San Diego Union Tribune
comments on Mayor Ron Morrison’s “chronic dishonesty”
in regards to the city’s threat to seize the CYAC
and the need for an eminent domain ballot measure.
August 31, 2007 – After garnering national media
attention, National City will allow the Community Youth
Athletic Center to stay and develop around it. Despite this
victory, lawyers will continue to fight the city’s
eminent domain authority.
August 20, 2007 - The city of Seaside strikes out
in negotiations with baseball legend Reggie Jackson, agreeing
to the possible use of eminent domain to replace a church
and several homes with Jackson's proposed hotel
development.
August 17, 2006 – Another classic case of eminent
domain abuse. Sacramento sends notices to a property owner’s
tenants informing them that their business will be seized
by eminent domain and as tenants vacate the property, the
city makes its case that the neighborhood is now “blighted,”
due to high vacancy rates! This sets the stage for major
battle to protect private property rights in Sacramento.
Action Alert!
August 16, 2007 – The Assembly Local Government Committee
will hear ACA 8 (De La Torre) on August 22, 2007. We encourage
you to contact your legislators today, and ask them to oppose this measure.
August 10, 2007 – If Billionaire Donald Trump
get his way, hundreds of Fresno residents may lose their
homes to make Trump even richer!
August 6, 2007 – Reason magazine discusses the
effectiveness of eminent domain reforms enacted since the Kelo v. New London decision.
July 16, 2007 – The San Francisco Chronicle’s
Debra Saunders says, “when states and cities, in search
of a richer tax base, can take your land and give it to
a private developer -- they have license to trample on everyone's
rights. And no one, except the very rich, is safe.”
July 12, 2007 - Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2007 introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives
July 11, 2007 – Two recent editorials characterize
ACA 8 as a “sham” reform meant to stifle true
reforms.
July 9, 2007 – Just weeks after publicly praising
a hotel for recent renovations, Claremont city officials
declared the property blighted in order to hand the property
over to the hotel developer.
July 5, 2007 – ACA 8 passed out of the Assembly
Judiciary Committee this week, despite widespread opposition.
July 5, 2007 – Opposition from the Community
Youth Athletic Center has forced National City to delay
a vote to renew eminent domain authority.
June 29, 2007 – Yesterday, Alliance Chariman
and former State Senator Jim Nielsen announced his candidacy
for the California State Assembly, District 2, a seat currently
held by Alliance Honorary Co-Chair Doug LaMalfa who is termed
out in 2008.
ACTION ALERT!
June 27, 2007– In order to avoid a contentious public
hearing, the Assembly Judiciary Committee has moved up it’s
hearing on ACA 8 to July 3, 2007. We encourage
you to submit letters in opposition to this measure today.
June 23, 2007 – ANNIVERSARY OF KELO – The Wall Street Journal writes, “Today
marks the second anniversary of Kelo v. New London,
the Supreme Court ruling that gave governments the authority
to seize property on behalf of private developers. Since
the 5-4 ruling, many state governments have taken some sort
of action to limit these "takings." But in areas
that legislators have failed to protect -- which usually
turn out to be where low-income minorities reside -- citizens
are still exposed to eminent domain abuse.”
June 22, 2007 – A new Report examined campaign
contributions towards property rights ballot measures across
the nation and found that more money was spent against Prop.
90 than against eminent domain reform measures in other
states combined!
June 22, 2007 – Donald Trump, who once tried
to seize a homeowner’s property so that limos could
park at his New Jersey casino, may now have his sight set
on Fresno.
June 22, 2007 – Riverside man is fighting a
legal battle after the city denied his right to circulate
an anti-eminent domain petition.
June 21, 2007 – In the two years since the Supreme
Court’s Kelo v. New London decision, California has
failed to consider any meaningful eminent domain reforms
and has “arguably moved backward on private property
rights.”
June 20, 2007–Ahmad Mesdaq lost his business
in San Diego’s Gaslamp district to eminent domain
two years ago, yet his property, which was bulldozed to
make way for a luxury hotel, remains vacant.
June 20, 2007– The Community Youth Athletic
Center (CYAC) is fighting “bogus blight” in
National City, where city leaders plan to hand over the
youth center to a developer to build luxury high-rise condos.
June 19, 2007 – “Victimizing the Vulnerable,”
a new study from the Institute for Justice, documents how
“poor, less educated and minorities are disproportionately
targets of eminent domain abuse.”
June 19, 2007 – After San Bernardino voters
passed Measure O to limit the county’s use of eminent
domain, county officials consider an ordinance that allows
their redevelopment agency to do the dirty work. Read more
about this loophole!
June 7, 2007 – Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle released a report this week explaining how city officials
brought “economic vibrancy” to Anaheim without
resorting to eminent domain takings.
June 7, 2007 – California received a D- for
failing to implement substantive reforms to eminent domain
laws since the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision nearly
two years ago, reports the Institute for Justice.
May 24, 2007– The Orange County Register comments on Assemblyman De La Torre’s so-called eminent
domain reform bill by saying, “No one should be shocked
by dishonesty in the political process, but an effort by
the League of California Cities and other big-government
organizations to supposedly restrict the abuse of eminent
domain is so dishonest that it's worthy of caution.”
May 23, 2007 – The Institute for Justice,
who represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court,
provides analysis of the De La Torre Legislation, saying,
“the Act will do little to prevent the actual taking
of property in California – and this flaw is fatal.”
May 22, 2007 – In response to Assemblyman De
La Torre’s proposed legislation, Alliance President
Marko Mlikotin tells the Bee’s Dan Walters, it "gives
the appearance of reform when in fact it maintains the status
quo -- preserving government's ability to profit by seizing
private property from unwilling sellers and giving it to
wealthy and politically connected developers."
May 21, 2007 - Tim Sandefur, Pacific Legal Foundation,
exposes the "many loopholes" in Assemblyman De
La Torre's proposed eminent domain legislation.
May 5, 2007 – The San Diego Union-Tribune reports, “For 50 years Ray Brock supported his family
by running an auto body shop on 11th Street and National
City Boulevard. He built up a clientele base so loyal it
includes generations of families and a couple who travel
more than 40 miles from Ramona for repairs. But the future
of Ray Brock Auto Service is in limbo. National City is
trying to take over the property using eminent domain, an
authority it is preparing to extend for 12 years."
April 27, 2007 – The Weekly Standard reports on the bipartisan support for eminent domain reform
and explains why “liberal Democrat” Maxine Waters,
CA and “dependably conservative Republican”
Senator John Cornyn agree on this issue.
April 25, 2007 – A critic of redevelopment agencies
writes in the LA Times, “But these
unelected governments have three extraordinary powers: the
right to use eminent domain to seize private property for
the benefit of private developers, the right to issue municipal
bonds without voter approval and the right to divert property
taxes from schools and other government bodies.”
April 17, 2007 – Seaside property owners are
concerned that a plan championed by a development group
headed up by baseball legend Reggie Jackson may put them
out on the streets! Will the city council go to bat for
homeowners or will they bunt to development interests?
March 25, 2007 – The Desert Sun reports that after spending more than $14.5 million and
seizing property from mostly “African-Americans and
Latinos,” the City of Indio is abandoning their redevelopment/retail
plan and selling the property – “even at a loss.”
March 22, 2007 – The Orange County Register examines the two proposed eminent domain ballot measures
and warns voters to “be savvy and distinguish between
true reform and phony reform pushed by a group that benefits
the most from current abuses.”
March 21, 2007 – The Pacific Legal Foundation exposes loopholes in the League of California Cities’
proposed eminent domain ballot measure! Real Reform or not?
Judge for yourself.
March 16, 2007 – In today’s FlashReport
Commentary, Jon Fleishman reports on the League
of CA Cities proposed ballot measure, calling it a “Trojan
Horse – a measure that looks good until you really
look inside of it. . .”
March 16, 2007 – In an ongoing investigation
into Caltrans’ property seizures, the Orange
County Register reports that, despite Caltrans
insistence that they are offering land owners “just
compensation” for seized property, “75 percent
of the landowners who fought eventually increased their
payoffs.”
March 14, 2007 – California League of Cities
introduces ballot measure that provides “Kelo-light”
reforms. The measure provides limited protections to homeowners,
while excluding protections for small business, family farms
and places of worship. The Alliance believes it is equally
important to provide protections to the businesses and farms
that pay your home’s mortgage.
February 20, 2007 – Supporters of eminent domain
seek to qualify eminent domain ballot measure for June 2008.
February 15, 2007 – A study released by the
Institute for Justice details the devastating effects of
eminent domain abuse on African Americans.
February 14, 2007 – Cathedral City is uprooting
homes and businesses to make way for a new development.
Maria Garcia, who is loosing both her home and business,
is upset with the City’s offer, saying, “I feel
abused because I am a poor person.”
NEWS FLASH!
February 9, 2007 - “Even after the narrow defeat of
Proposition 90, California voters remain deeply concerned
with protecting private property rights,” said Stephen
Kinney, pollster with Public Opinion Strategies. “This
survey shows that a well drafted ballot measure would have
the support of voters in 2008.”
January 17, 2007 — The NY Times reports, “The Supreme Court on Tuesday bypassed an
opportunity to revisit or limit its much-disputed 2005 ruling
that upheld governmental power to use eminent domain to
foster economic development.”
December 20, 2006 – The Orange County
Register reports on the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association’s proposed property rights initiative,
the California Property Owners Protection Act.
December 20, 2006 – The Alliance calls
on the Governor to keep his promise to reform eminent domain
abuse in 2007.
December 18, 2006 - An Armona family fights
to keep their 4th generation farm from being seized through
eminent domain by their local Community Service
District. When asked about the District's authority to seize
property, Marko Mlikotin, president of The Alliance, remarks,
"When it comes to a public agency's ability to seize
private property, their power is absolute."
November 26, 2006 – Steven Greenhut, Orange
County Register columnist, identifies CalTrans
as “biggest” and “nastiest slumlord.”
November 24, 2006 – After the close defeat of
Proposition 90, The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association submits new ballot measure to protect private property rights.
November 17, 2006 – The narrowly defeated Prop.
90 sends a message that California voters still demand eminent
domain reform.
November 13, 2006 – Election results – In a response to The U.S. Supreme Court’s
2005 Kelo decision, voters in nine states pass eminent domain
reforms with overwhelming support.
November 8, 2006 – While Proposition 90 was
defeated by special interest groups who benefit from the
status quo, efforts are underway to qualify another ballot
measure for the 2008 election.
November 1, 2006 – Schwarzenegger rejects homeowner
pleas to support Prop. 90. In a released statement, he pledges
to reform eminent domain abuse and states, “…I
am committed to working with the Legislature to do even
more.”
October 16, 2006 –
Read Part 2 of the Orange County Register’s
continuing report on Cal-Trans’ property seizures.
October 15, 2006 – Read the Orange County
Register’s investigative report on how Cal-Trans
has seized homes for freeways and roads never built!
October 15, 2006 – Stockton area Reclamation
District 348, under fire for its use of eminent
domain, loses legal case to deny public records to residents.
October 3, 2006 – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signs eminent domain bills into law. Real reform or not?
October 2, 2006 – Profile of Abuse – A
group of Santa Rosa small business owners
have sued their city, alleging fraud and abuse. The city
has plans to level their thriving businesses for a mall
and parking lot.
September 28, 2006 - Hollywood's
“luggage king” refused to pack his bags and
beats eminent domain effort. See how he won!
September 28, 2006 – Find out what Moorpark
residents are doing to fight efforts to seize over 500 homes,
businesses and churches by eminent domain!
September 21, 2006 – The Alliance asks Governor
to veto phony reform bills.
September 19, 2006 - “Yes on Prop 9O”
announced that “Proposition 90, known as the Protect
Our Homes Initiative, is getting 61.3 percent of the vote
in a new independent statewide survey…”
September 18, 2006 - Fearing that passage of Proposition
90 in November will drive up the cost of seizing private
property from unwilling sellers, is local government speeding
up efforts to seize private property from unwilling sellers?
September 15, 2006 – Capital Press/Agriculture
Weekly says, “It's not only unfortunate,
it is flat wrong, that the property owner should have to
pay the county's legal fees for a legal battle that never
should have been launched.”
September 7, 2006 – Finally, Yolo County
abandons its taking of Conaway Ranch!
August 2, 2006 – The Sacramento Bee
reports, “Perhaps the most intriguing example of cross-party
solidarity this year is Proposition 90, which would make
it more difficult for local and state governments to seize
private property through eminent domain and require governments
to compensate property owners for any "substantial
economic losses" from land use restrictions.”
July 18, 2006 – Today, the Alliance issued a
statement condemning a San Joaquin reclamation district’s
attack on private property rights and its failure to comply
with State law.
July 12, 2006 – Local property owners allege
Reclamation District 348 (Thorton, near Stockton) abused
its use of eminent domain and threatens property rights.
Alliance calls on levee agency for public records.
September 1, 2006 – The Orange County Register
endorses Prop. 90 and says, “California residents
have a wonderful opportunity on Election Day to restore
some semblance of property rights in a state that, for years,
has been frighteningly hostile to private property.”
August 27, 2006 – The Davis Enterprise
Reports that Yolo County’s use of eminent domain to
seize the Conaway Ranch is a “big issue” facing
candidates running for the 3rd District Supervisor.
June 26, 2006 – The San Francisco Chronicle
reports on the eminent domain initiative, “Michael
Berger, a Los Angles eminent domain lawyer who backs the
California initiative, said society as a whole ought to
bear the cost of preservation and economic development;
government shouldn't be able to saddle individual property
owners with that burden. 'They've been doing it on the cheap
for years,' he said."
June 20, 2006 - The Alliance endorses the “Protect
Our Home” ballot measure. “Special
interest groups opposed to providing homeowner protections
have stymied efforts to reform eminent domain abuse,”
said Jim Nielsen, Alliance Chairman and former State Senator.
“It is now time for voters to exercise their power
at the ballot box.”
June 6, 2006 – Hold on to your wallets Yolo County
taxpayers. The cost of seizing Conaway Ranch is sky rocketing.
The Bee reports, “Yolo County has
the legal right to buy Conaway Ranch, but a Monday court
ruling may mean it has to pay tens of millions of dollars
more than officials say it is worth.”
May 28, 2006 – The City of Hercules is using eminent
domain to prevent the building of a Wal-Mart. A Contra
Costa Times editorial says, “It is dishonest
for the city to play upon misinformed criticisms of Wal-Mart
and even worse to use the power of eminent domain against
the retailer.” What do you think?
May 18, 2006 – The San Francisco Chronicle
reports, “Property rights activists in Napa County
say their June ballot initiative seems reasonable: If the
county approves new laws or regulations that lower a property's
value, the county should pay the owner's losses.”
May 17, 2006– The Ventura County Star
reports, “If you were too young or not around back
then and you're tired of hearing old-timers talk about California's
great political earthquake of 1978, maybe it's time to strap
down the water heater. There's a new rumbling along the
state's (eminent domain) ballot-initiative fault line that,
before it's over, could mimic the Proposition 13 quake of
'78.”
May 17, 2006 – The Orange County Register
offers early support for the “Protect Our
Homes” ballot measure. The Register says, “Protect
Our Homes offers the best chance to do what its title suggests:
protect homeowners from tax-seeking city officials' abuse
of eminent domain.”
May 17, 2006 – The Sacramento Bee
reports, “The battle over Conaway Ranch's future,
flood control and growth are the issues at the forefront
as 3rd District voters in Yolo County decide June 6 who
should represent them on the Board of Supervisors.”
May 15, 2006 – The Flashreport,
a political news website, reports, “Today, the Protect
Our Homes Coalition will announce that they are turning
in over a million signatures in County Registrar offices
all around the state, virtually assuring that this important
measure to protect Californians from eminent domain abuse
will appear on the November ballot.”
May 10, 2006 - The OC Register reports,
"Moves in Orange County are a microcosm of action at
the state and national levels. In California, 11 statehouse
bills and two initiatives have been circulated. Forty-seven
other states have taken up the issue, and 13 federal bills
have been introduced.”
May 8, 2006 – As stated in an Orange
County Register editorial, “As the Conaway
Ranch situation shows, America has reached the point where
governments can take property for any reason, which is far
removed from what the founders envisioned — i.e.,
the use of eminent domain only for necessary public projects….
It shows the degree to which governments perceive themselves
as economic central planners, rather than agencies that
set some ground rules and enforce people's rights.”
May 4, 2006 – According to Timothy Sandefur,
at the Pacific Legal Foundation, “California
is one of the nation's leading abusers of eminent domain.
Between 1998 and 2003, the state seized 233 properties and
sold or leased it to private developers. California's laws
define terms such as "blight" so vaguely that
bureaucrats can seize virtually any property they wish in
the service of powerful developers.”
May 2, 2006 - The Alliance joins 53 organizations
throughout the U.S. calling for federal protections against
eminent domain abuse. Contact U.S. Senators Dianne
Feinstein and Barbara
Boxer today.
April 25, 2006 - State Legislature defeats Senator
McClintock’s eminent domain legislation. Reformists
are now left with no alternative but to qualify state ballot
measures that protect property owners.
April 6, 2006 – A Wall Street Journal
column states what many know already: eminent domain is
not needed to “revitalize” communities. “The
area is developing quickly, without controversy and without
a single piece of property taken by eminent domain. Early
signs point to an enormous success. 'Too often, I hear my
colleagues in local government . . . say that Kelo-type
eminent domain and redevelopment policies are their only
tools to revitalize cities,' Mr. Pringle (Anaheim Mayor)
recently said. 'I have a simple message . . . Visit the
Platinum Triangle.'"
April 6, 2006 – The Family Water Alliance
released a public opinion survey that shows strong opposition
to Yolo County’s efforts to seize the Conaway Ranch
from its unwilling sellers. The eminent domain actions taken
by Yolo County to seize the Conaway Ranch are opposed by
71% of county voters. The survey also found that voters
overwhelmingly (88%) disapproved of the Supreme Court decision
in the Kelo v. New London ruling. If strong opposition exists
in even the liberal bastion of Yolo County, eminent domain
reform is truly a bipartisan issue.
April 1, 2006 - Yolo County, Conaway Ranch Update
– Environmentalists want to ride their bikes through
rice fields, Supervisor McGowan wants “limited development,”
and we still don’t know what the tribe wants in return
for its multi-million dollar loan to Yolo County. All this
demonstrates that public ownership, subject to the whims
of special interest groups, threatens Conaway Ranch’s
farming future. What do you think?
March 29, 2006 – Yolo County has justified its
use of eminent domain to save Conaway Ranch from development.
Now, a letter reveals the county’s secret plan to
develop the ranch for profit!
March 28, 2006 – In today’s Sacramento
Bee, columnist Daniel Weintraub quotes reform advocate
Senator Tom McClintock, “'Most people instinctively
realize that if a government agency by its own actions reduces
the value of your property, that they ought to pay you for
the damage they have done. ... The cost should not be borne
by the property owner.'” What do you think?
March 27, 2006 – The Castle Coalition
announces, “In poll after poll conducted since the
U.S. Supreme Court’s eminent domain ruling last summer,
the public is almost unanimously opposed to government using
eminent domain to seize private property for private development.
Rarely is the public so united across the political spectrum.”
March 26, 2006 – Orange County Register
columnist Steven Greenhut says, “But petition-gatherers
are on the streets hawking the Protect Our Homes initiative,
which already has $1.5 million in backing, from the New
York-based group the Fund for Democracy. The honorary state
chairwoman is Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel.
Republicans who support property rights should jump on this
campaign, but so should Democrats.” To learn more
about the Protect Our Homes Initiative, visit www.protectourhomes2006.com.
March 22, 2006 - The Long Beach Press Telegraph
reported, “Redevelopment opponents have secured enough
funding to help qualify a measure for the November ballot
that would restrict and redefine the use of eminent domain
in California, it was learned Tuesday.”
March 22, 2006 – Veteran political strategist
Dan Schnur writes in FlashReport, “But
protecting property owners against the intrusion of local
government is ideologically consistent with the populist/reformer
image that he rode to the governor's office in 2003. We
haven't seen much of Arnold the Outsider lately.”
If you think the Governor should join our reform efforts,
email the Governor.
April 13, 2006 - The State Supreme Court declines to hear
Conaway Ranch case for now! Write
a letter to the editor urging reform today.
April 6, 2006 - ACTION ALERT! Senator
Tom McClintock’s constitutional amendment (SCA 20)
to reform eminent domain abuse will be heard Tuesday, April
25th, in the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Unlike last
year, we cannot allow the legislature to kill yet another
reform bill intended to correct the injustice of the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London ruling -- making
it lawful for government to profit by sizing private property
from unwilling sellers and selling to another!
Rumor is the committee intends to kill SCA 20 with little
to no public or media attention.
Only you can stop the Judiciary Committee from killing
the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act of 2006
(SCA 20) from suffering yet another defeat. Join us!
WHEN: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 (Note date change!)
WHERE: State Capitol, Senate Judiciary Committee, Rm. 112
TIME: 1:30pm
April 6, 2006 – The Capitol Weekly
features a great column on former State Senator and Alliance
Chairman Jim Nielsen.
March 17, 2006 – The Sacramento Business
Journal reports that the Conaway Ranch is worth
more than $500 million! The paper reports, “If the
landowners can keep the ranch and market conditions are
right, the land may bring them (ranch owners) $500 million
-- more than eight times the $60 million they paid in 2004,
according to calculations by industry observers.”
Can Yolo taxpayers afford this price tag? We want to hear
from you.
March 9, 2005 – The Alliance
writes in a letter to State Legislators, “We are asking
you and other members of the State Legislature to take the
“Hands off my Home” pledge – a pledge
to protect Californians against eminent domain abuse.”
March 8, 2006 – Alliance Chairman Jim Nielsen
writes in the Woodland Democrat, “A
private property rights rebellion is blooming across the
land. Recent events confirm the growing momentum of citizen's
outrage at government seizures of property.”
March 5, 2006 - Alliance Board Member Dudley Holman
writes in the Daily Democrat, “The
taking of Conaway Ranch has been reported as case of eminent
domain abuse by leading state and local newspapers -- for
it is not every day that gambling profits are used by government
to seize private property.”
March 1, 2006: In a Davis Enterprise
article, entitled “Conaway cost slammed,” it
was reported, “Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting
was marked by at-times angry exchanges about the mounting
legal costs - creeping close to $2 million - of acquiring
the Conaway Ranch.” Write
a letter to the editor urging Yolo County Supervisors
to abandon their use of eminent domain to seize the Conaway
Ranch.
March 1, 2006: The Orange County Register
reports, “Just as a wave of ballot measures are gaining
steam throughout the state to restrict local government's
ability to take property away from homeowners, the Orange
County Board of Supervisors has jumped into the fray.”
What is your local government doing to protect your
property rights? Have they introduced a ballot measure like
Orange County?
February 28, 2006: The Wall Street Journal
reports, “Believe it or not, the Supreme Court's decision
in Kelo v. City of New London may yet unite red and blue
America in at least one common cause. The 5-4 ruling, handed
down last June, gives government more or less unlimited
power to seize private property.” Find
out what California legislators are doing to protect your
property rights.
February 22, 2006: The Appeal-Democrat reports,
“Representatives from Yuba and Sutter counties said
supervisors support private property rights. The Yuba County
board has already voiced its support. Sutter County Supervisor
Dennis Nelson said his board will soon sign a resolution
in favor of McClintock's and LaMalfa's bills.” According
to speakers, Yolo County’s use of eminent domain against
the Conaway Ranch spurred support for a statewide ballot
measure to prevent eminent domain abuse.
February 22, 2006: The San Diego Union Tribune
reports, “Council members handed a victory
to an activist group yesterday by voting unanimously to
place an eminent domain measure on the June ballot. Proposed
by Chula Vistans for Private Property Protection, the measure
would curb the city's power of eminent domain.” Contact
your local city council and board of supervisors and urge
them pass a local ordinance protecting your private property
rights, too.
February 21, 2006: Columnist John Broder writes
in the NY Times, “There are six proposed laws and
five constitutional amendments before the California Legislature,
as well as several proposed citizen initiatives to curb
the eminent domain power. The bills are supported by, among
others, the California Farm Bureau Federation, which fears
that the Kelo ruling will empower cities to gobble up more
farmland to build subdivisions and strip malls.”
February 6, 2006: Hooray, Democrats also endorse
curbs on eminent domain! But, why is it that all eminent
domain abuse bills were killed by the Democratic led State
Legislature? Abuse strikes Republicans and Democrats alike,
so real bi-partisan reform is needed. We
want to hear from you.
The San Francisco Examiner
reported: "The California Democratic Party has adopted
a resolution opposing the use of eminent domain for redevelopment
purposes, thanks in large part to the leadership of two
local politicians.
"The resolution, presented by Daly City Councilwoman
and county Democratic Central Committee member Judith Christensen,
along with fellow Central Committee member and Jefferson
Elementery School District Board member Annette Hipona,
received wide support from the party’s executive board
at a weekend conference at the end of January."
February 5, 2006: Demonstrating that ordinary
citizens can unite and effectively protest their government’s
unwarranted use of eminent domain, the San Francisco
Chronicle quoted a Yolo County Supervisor stating that
there has been a political cost to using gambling profits
to seize the Conaway Ranch. The Chronicle writes:"'I've
got some news for you,' countered McGowan, 'after going
through this, it is highly unlikely I will ever do this
again.' The political fallout has been no picnic."
Write your state legislators
today and urge them to support Senator McClintock’s
eminent domain reform bill.
The San Francisco Chronicle
writes: "Conaway Ranchis a 17,300-acre spread north
of Davis. On property that sidles up to I-5 and provides
a fine view of the Sacramento skyline, owners grow rice
and alfalfa, boast rights to 50,000 acre-feet of water and
extract natural gas. The gray sky and Sierra runoff are
home to countless birds -- ducks, egrets and hawks -- some
of which the owners hunt.
"Yolo County wants the land. In 2004, county supervisors
voted to seize the ranch by eminent domain. "We want
to keep it from being developed," explained Supervisor
Mike McGowan.
"The owners are fighting back, and they're media savvy.
"In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous
Kelo decision -- which supported the seizure by New London,
Conn., of taxpayers' waterfront homes so that the properties
could be handed over to private development. Americans on
the left and right were outraged at this expansive definition
of a "public use" taking."
February 5, 2006: Eminent domain abuse destroys
life savings and the livelihood of homeowners, small business
owners and family farmers. Urge state legislators to work
together in a bi-partisan fashion to bring about meaningful
reforms now. Write your
legislator today.
Daniel Weintraub in the Sacramento
Bee writes: "The California Democratic Party has
quietly thrown its weight behind a movement to stop the
government from using eminent domain to buy people's property
against their will and then handing it over to another private
owner.
"The campaign, which has been picking up steam nationwide
since a Supreme Court decision on the issue last year, is
more often associated with Republicans, who tend to be more
concerned with protecting property rights. Democrats in
the Legislature shelved legislation last summer that sought
to tighten restrictions on the use of eminent domain in
California.
"But the Democratic Party's executive board, meeting
in Manhattan Beach last month, endorsed a resolution that
put the party squarely on record opposing the use of eminent
domain for economic development or to increase tax revenue."
February 1: Chula Vistans for Private Property
Protection submitted 14,000 signatures to pass a local ordinance
to protect private property rights. You can protect
your neighborhood too by asking your local officials to
take the “Hands Off My
Home Pledge” and to sponsor a local ordinance
before their city council or board of supervisors.
The San Diego Union-Tribune
writes: "A community group has submitted about 14,000
signatures to put a measure on the June ballot that would
limit the city's eminent domain authority. Chula Vistans
for Private Property Protection, a group that began its
effort in mid-December, filed its ballot petition with the
City Clerk's Office on Monday."
January 24, 2006: Has your city or county
taken any action to curb eminent domain abuse? According
to this writer, it is not happening. Ask your local officials
to take the “Hands Off
My Home Pledge”. Email
us articles about eminent domain abuse in your community.
Steven Malanga writes in the Los
Angeles Times that: "Last June, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in its now-famous Kelo vs. New London decision, deemed
it constitutional for government to take land from private
citizens not just for use in traditional public projects
like building schools and roads but to spur economic development
projects — for instance, seizing homes in order to
clear land for a mall or a new townhouse development.
"Responding to the outcry over the decision, Justice
John Paul Stevens later said that although the Constitution
allowed land seizures for development projects, if states
wanted to ban or limit the practice, they could pass laws
restricting local government's powers.
"But that's proving easier said than done."
January 17, 2006: Read about Yolo County’s
use of gambling profits to seize a 17,000 acre ranch! Do
you agree with the local farming community that this unprecedented
action threatens California farmland – and encourages
other cities to seize more farm water to satisfy urban growth?
The Los Angeles Times
reports: "Due east of town, life unfolds on the vast
expanse of Conaway Ranch much as it has the past century.
Tractors and pickups trundle down farm roads. Geese, ducks
and egrets swarm rice fields and flood plains spreading
toward Sacramento's distant skyline.
"But the modern world is creeping toward Conaway,
with conflict swirling over the future of this huge and
venerable slice of Central Valley real estate.
"The ranch has become the subject of a courtroom clash
and a public relations battle rife with intrigue, a classic
California fight over water rights and suburban sprawl,
and government's use of eminent domain."
January 14, 2006: One year after Los Angeles
seized a private company to build an animal shelter, a city
councilman now wants to sell the land to political donors!
Outraged? Read more
and call for reform by sending a letter to the LA
Times editor.
According to the Los Angeles
Times: "A year after Los Angeles seized three acres
from a private company to construct a public building, a
city councilman wants to sell the land to another private
firm for a commercial development.
"Both companies are furniture manufacturers. But executives
with the company that would buy the land have political
connections and have made $17,600 in campaign contributions
to key city leaders.
"Critics of the proposal say it's wrong for the city
to use its power of eminent domain to take property from
one business for a public purpose and then sell it to another
business.
"'It strikes me as an extraordinarily blatant abuse
of eminent domain,' said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Assn."
January 21, 2005: In response to U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Souter’s support of the Kelo v. New
London decision, a California man has begun an effort to
use eminent domain to seize the Justice’s home to
build an inn called “Lost Liberty Hotel.” Do
you support his efforts or would this just be another case
of abuse or revenge?
The Associated Press reports that: "Angered by a Supreme
Court ruling that gave local governments more power to seize
people's homes for economic development, a group of activists
is trying to get one of the court's justices evicted from
his own home.
"The group, led by a California man, wants Justice
David Souter's home seized to build an inn called the "Lost
Liberty Hotel."
"They submitted enough petition signatures only 25
were needed to bring the matter before voters in March.
This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the
central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to
rally for support."
January 16, 2006: Simi proposes eminent domain
limits -- Becerra doesn't want city to condemn property,
give it to a private developer
The Ventura
County Star reports that: "Under a proposal by Councilman
Glen Becerra, Simi Valley will not become another Riviera
Beach, where city officials plan on taking private property
and turning it over to private developers to build a yacht
harbor, condos and businesses along the waterfront.
"The plight of homeowners facing eminent domain in that
Florida city has spurred national media coverage and a Simi
Valley City councilman's desire to assure local residents
that a similar situation will never occur locally.
"Glen Becerra asked city staff to draft a policy stating
that Simi Valley would not use eminent domain to take homes
or active businesses and turn them over to a private developer."
December 31, 2005: Do you agree with the Sacramento
Bee that Yolo County and Conaway Ranch owners should reach
a compromise that requires the ranch’s farmland and
water to be preserved, but under private ownership?
A Sacramento Bee editorial
states: "Yolo is a county that has long been a planning
model for the entire region in the way it has tried to steer
the growth to its cities and preserve the lands in the unincorporated
areas for farming. But the result for the county government
is a form of self-imposed financial starvation.
"That is because the big tax-generating activities (shopping
centers, car dealerships) all gravitate to the cities more
than the county. As it looks at updating its growth strategy
- that is, its general plan - the county has both financial
and development pressures to cope with. The county must
take center stage on the agenda. The question is whether
everyone's attention will be diverted by the fate of Conaway
Ranch.
"This 17,500-acre ranch is what largely separates Woodland
from Davis along the Sacramento River. It is the single
largest ranch inside the region's urban core. The county
has long sought to buy the ranch as a way to preserve its
use as a floodway and open space and to retain its valuable
water rights locally.
"The investment partnership that owns the ranch and the
county have been in an escalating feud over its future.
A court has ruled that Yolo can buy the ranch using its
power of eminent domain, but hasn't determined yet the price.
"Yolo will have a tough time focusing on its central growth
and financial issues so long as Conaway remains such a volatile
political issue. If both sides in good faith look for solutions
that permanently preserve the ranch, this has a happy ending.
If this is an ugly fight to the finish, the legal bills
are just beginning and so is the county's trouble."
December 25, 2005: Has Yolo County gone to
far to seize a ranch that owners want to keep in farm production?
Is it appropriate for Yolo County use gambling profits to
finance a deal to seize the ranch?
The Sacramento Bee
reports that: "Yolo County politicians are known for marching
to a different beat than those on the Sacramento side of
the river. But by pursuing eminent domain against the owners
of the sprawling Conaway Ranch, they have taken 'different'
to a whole new level, stepping into territory that many
elected officials around the country strive mightily to
avoid."
December 22, 2005: Do you support Senator
McClintock’s effort to qualify a eminent domain reform
ballot measure for the 2006 general election?
Sacramento Bee Columnist
Daniel Weintraub wrote: "California conservatives are
forever searching for the next Proposition 13, the property-tax-cutting
initiative that tapped into a deep, bipartisan disgust with
government in 1978 and ushered in an era of tax reductions
and spending limits that ultimately helped pave the way
for Ronald Reagan to win the presidency.
"Have they found it in eminent domain? That long-standing
policy, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and state laws,
allows the government to force the sale of private property
for public use as long as it pays the owner fair market
value in return."
|
