The Fourth District Court of Appeal has blocked the City of Anaheim's attempt to build a surface parking lot on a property adjacent to two new hotels rather than a parking structure, as was implied in a conditional use permit the city approved in 1999.
Technically, the appellate court affirmed a trial judge's ruling that the city was estopped (a legal term essentially meaning prohibited) from enacting a subsequent conditional use permit ï¿½ applying to the city's own property, not the hotel developer's property ï¿½ that called for a surface lot rather than a parking garage and deviating from the city's own Resort Development Standards, which the hotel developer's own project had to meet.
The case involves a complicated arrangement in which Intercontinental Hotel Group had agreed to a smaller, redesigned project because of the city's plans to build an overpass over I-15 along Gene Autry Way that better connects Disneyland with Anaheim Stadium and other destinations east of the freeway. The overpass, which opened in 2012, takes up part of the hotel developer's property and also part of an adjacent property. >>read more
A proposal to use eminent domain to ward off foreclosures in two cities in San Bernardino County has been slammed almost unanimously by both Wall Street and federal regulators. The most powerful dissenter was Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who said on August 7 that he would resist any effort by local governments to "take" homes owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two agencies under his supervision; those agencies buy the majority of US home loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities.
One of the many key features of 1978's Proposition 13 was the rolling back of the taxes, and limiting annual increases. A change in ownership was treated as a triggering event for purposes of establishing property valuation, and in turn, the recalculated property tax liability. Duea v. County of San Diego clarifies as aspect of how, and when, tax liability may be recalculated.
Since Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement a few weeks ago, he has been hailed - and reviled - as the Court's "great liberal voice" of the past couple of decades. But especially in land use, Stevens' legacy rests with not only his ardent support of government regulatory power, but also his skill in mustering five votes, on a pretty conservative court, in favor of aggressive use of land use regulation.
A state appellate court has issued a ruling in an eminent domain case that could have expensive ramifications for government agencies. The court ruled that a business owner isn't required to have a written lease in order to seek compensation for lost goodwill resulting from a government taking of property.
The City of Stockton had no right to take private property on which it later built a minor league baseball stadium, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. "This is a case of ‘condemn first, decide what to do with the property later," Justice Kathleen Butz wrote for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel.
An appellate court has declined to allow additional compensation in an eminent domain case to San Francisco landowners who argued that they should be made whole for the expected revenue on an approved but unbuilt mixed-use project on their land.
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.
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.