Cities and Counties don't need to wait for State legislation to change eminent domain rules.

Eminent domain is a hot topic in Santa Clarita these days, with business in the downtown Newhall area being threatened with eminent domain proceedings if they don’t willingly "sell" their properties to the City of Santa Clarita for the Old Town Newhall Revitalization Project.

Federal laws on eminent domain are very broad, allowing government entities to take private properties for virtually any use, including taking property from one private owner and giving it to another to develop for profit. California has attempted to pass several bills to modify this Federal provision, but so far there have been very few that passed, and those that did had virtually no impact.

In light of this, many areas are taking this to a more local level. Bear in mind that in some cases eminent domain cannot be avoided altogether, such as when critical roads, railroads and airports are being built. The outcry is against Cities taking private properties for "redevelopment" purposes, which usually means that the properties are turned over to private developers to build for profit.

The Old Town Newhall "library project" falls somewhere in between, since it is supposed to be part commercial and part library, although there is much doubt as to whether the library will actually become a reality. The library portion of this project makes it a "public use" project, meaning that eminent domain proceedings will be much easier than with a transfer for 100% private development uses. If the library is not built, then this project will be 100% private development after all.

Here are some examples of California’s local legislation regarding eminent domain:

• Anaheim: Adopted a policy prohibiting the city from taking land for economic development in 2006.
• Chula Vista: May only use eminent domain for public uses, and must hold seized property for ten years before selling it. Measure passed in 2006.
• Dana Point: 84% of voters voted “yes” on a measure prohibiting eminent domain for private economic development in 2006.
• Encinitas: Passed an ordinance in 2005 that would require a 2/3 majority on a public ballot for every taking of private property for private redevelopment.
• Newport Beach: The City Council unanimously approved a law banning the use of eminent domain for private development in 2006.
• Orange County: Passed a measure to prohibit use of its eminent domain power to take land for private economic development in 2006.
• Porterville: Passed a resolution in 2005 prohibiting the use of eminent domain against private property owners for economic development purposes.
• Riverside: A new law passed in 2007 prohibits the agency from seizing any owner-occupied single-family residence through eminent domain unless the house is encumbered with a lien stemming from a code violation, has been unoccupied or boarded up for more than a year, or has become a public nuisance.
• San Bernardino: Private-to-private transfers of seized property are now prohibited as of 2007.
• Siskiyou County: Passed an ordinance in 2005 that restricts the use of eminent domain for private economic development.
• Simi Valley: The City Council approved a resolution that prohibits the use of eminent domain against residential properties for private development in 2006.
• San Diego County: Prohibited from taking “non-blighted” owner-occupied residences for economic development purposes as of 2005. Unfortunately, business owners and renters in San Diego County are still at risk.

Note that all of these actions are very recent (mostly 2006 and 2007) and on a very local level. So an area like the City of Santa Clarita could pass its own eminent domain rules, regardless of what the State of California or Los Angeles County are doing. Read more on eminent domain issues at the Castle Coalition.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.