Mayor Sam (that's ex-Mayor Sam Yorty) has a blog in his name called Mayor Sam's Sister City - Home of Los Angeles Politics that's well worth a quick read. He's no longer with us (he died in 1998), but his spirit lives on in this politically-oriented blog. In a post by Zuma Dogg, he's aptly renamed the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) the "Community Robbers Agency" and clearly doesn't agree with the pending eminent domain actions in the City of Los Angeles. According to Zuma Dogg, "Y'all need to register at a medical marijuana co-op to get the good stuff so y'all won't trip on your eminent greed and corruption." In an attempt to get a boatload of people to show up at a recent City of Los Angeles meeting regarding eminent domain issues, Zuma Dogg had this to say: "GET YOUR AZZ DOWN TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THOSE COMMUNITY ROBBING, CULTURAL GENTRIFYING, IN CAHOOTS WITH THE SHADIEST OF SHADIEWS, NON-LOAN REPAYING, COMMUNITY ROBBING A**HOLES (CRA) TAKING YOUR HOMES FOR THEIR UN-NECESSARY, HIGH PROFIT, SCHEMES."
Hmmm... seems he doesn't agree with the City's approach to eminent domain, huh? The issue that he's attacking is the use of eminent domain that is being proposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, Senate Bill 53 (approved by the Governor in September 2006) in the City of Los Angeles. Per SB 53, "The bill would require a redevelopment agency to find, based on substantial evidence, that significant blight remains in the project area and cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain before amending a redevelopment plan to extend the time limitation for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings to acquire property within the project area." SB 53 also mandates that "A legislative body that adopted a final redevelopment plan before January 1, 2007, shall adopt an ordinance on or before July 1, 2007, that contains a description of the agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain. The plan may prohibit the agency from acquiring by eminent domain specified types of real property, including, but not limited to, owner-occupied residences, single-family residences, or any residential property. The plan may prohibit the agency from acquiring by eminent domain real property in specified locations within the project area."
So here we are back again on the subject on the definition of "blight" as associated with eminent domain actions. And of course nobody wants to define the word "blight", since left undefined it keeps the door wide open for potential abuse by the "Community Robbers Agency".
Note that SB 53 requires an ordinance to be adopted by July 1, 2007 by all legislative bodies with redevelopment plans adopted before January 1, 2007, stating the agency's program to acquire property by eminent domain. What is the City of Santa Clarita doing about this? Waiting til the last minute to discuss this issue, or hoping to slip it in under the covers to there won't be a huge public outcry on this hot-button issue? Seems there should be some public discussion on this in the Santa Clarita area, just as there was in the City of Los Angeles. Apparently the City of Santa Clarita did a quite effective end-around with eminent domain lawyers seeking information on the Old Town Newhall redevelopment plans this week, chasing them from desk to desk and ultimately delivering nothing to these frustrated legal eagles. Of course much of this stuff is online and easily downloaded, but nobody thought to tell them that. Also interesting to note is that these out-of-area legal eagles had full awareness of City Councilmember (and prior Santa Clarita Mayor) Laurene Weste's land holdings in the Old Town Newhall Revitalization Area... Is it possible that Zuma Dogg's comment about "eminent greed and corruption" is alive and well in the City of Santa Clarita as well? | 
