Eminent domain

The City of Baldwin Park is pressing forward with an extremely ambitious redevelopment project that would convert the present downtown area of mostly single story commercial structures and modest houses into a very high-density, mixed-use district adjacent to a Metrolink station. However, the city’s extensive planning and a deal with a developer may be for naught if state voters approve eminent domain restrictions that will appear on the June ballot.

» read more | add to cart

I hate to be repetitious, but sometimes in the column-writing business it’s inevitable.

Eighteen months ago, I wrote that the debate over Proposition 90 came down to two unfortunately simpleminded campaign slogans – “protect our homes” or “taxpayer trap.” The latter won, but not by much. So now we’ve got Proposition 98 on the June ballot – a watered-down and slightly sideways version of Proposition 90. And for good measure we’ve got Proposition 99 – a countermeasure put forth by local government organizations that would restrict eminent domain, but only in the case of owner-occupied single-family homes.

» read more | add to cart

A hypothetical or speculative use of property is not a proper basis for determining damages caused by a city’s temporary construction easement, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel overturned a jury’s decision to award a Fremont homeowner $195,000 in temporary severance damages. The First District ruled that the trial court judge improperly permitted the jury to consider compensation for hypothetical — rather than actual — injuries. » read more | add to cart

The California Supreme Court has depublished an eminent domain case from San Diego County on the question of when to value property taken by the government. » read more | add to cart

Court have issued four recent court decisions regarding eminent domain that suggest that acquiring property through eminent domain is an increasingly costly prospect for the government. None of the four decisions addressed whether the government had the right to take the property in question. Rather, the cases dealt with procedure and valuation. » read more | add to cart

An initiative that would prevent the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and ban local rent control laws has qualified for the June ballot. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation are the primary proponents. In addition, a competing, more limited measure that would prohibit the taking of owner-occupied, single-family houses for economic development has also qualified for the same June ballot.

» read more | add to cart

A San Diego merchant who has become one of the state’s leading fighters against eminent domain has not only lost his appeal of a trial court decision upholding the taking of his shop, but he has also lost a $9 million award of compensation and attorneys’ fees. » read more | add to cart

With the politicking already under way, another confusing campaign over eminent domain restrictions is likely to confront voters next year. » read more | add to cart

An eminent domain action’s impact on the future development of the remaining private property — which needs rezoning for development — may be considered by a jury that is determining the fair market value of the taking, the state Supreme Court has ruled. » read more | add to cart

The Coastal Commission has rejected Pebble Beach Company’s Del Monte Forest plan in Monterey County, Placer County Board of Supervisors remove thier panning commissioner after published controversy, a superior court judge rejects San Francisco referendum petitions, Napa County begins processing an application for the largest project in county history, and Oregonians will vote on a takings ballot measure. » read more | add to cart