Review of San Diego County’s Eminent Domain Policy Ordered

 Print Article

The ruling, the county supervisors said Tuesday, represents a clarion call for local government to move to protect property owners
By Mark Walker

North County Times, Escondido, Calif.

RISMEDIA, July 28 ? (KRT) ? Saying they want to guard against any abuses in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, San Diego, Calif., County supervisors have ordered an immediate review of the county’s eminent domain policies.

The supervisors’ unanimous vote Tuesday calls for revising the county’s policies, if necessary, to limit use of the property-taking tactic.

Eminent domain is the government’s power to seize private property for public purposes in exchange for paying the owner fair market value.

Last month, the Supreme Court touched off a firestorm of criticism when it ruled 5-4 to allow the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with eminent domain against homeowners whose property is being sought for a commercial development.

The Connecticut city argued that its need for enhanced revenues in an economically depressed area outweighed the rights of the homeowners. The court’s ruling effectively expanded the power of local governments to seize property for urban revitalization efforts.

Until last month’s high court ruling, eminent domain has largely been restricted to public works project such as roads and bridges. Property rights groups view the New London case as a dangerous extension of the legal principle.

The ruling, the county supervisors said Tuesday, represents a clarion call for local government to move to protect property owners. The city of Encinitas was the first local government in this region to make such a move when its City Council on July 13 ordered creation of an ordinance that would limit use of eminent domain.

“A majority of the Supreme Court has forgotten why we said goodbye to old London and King George,” said Valley Center Supervisor Bill Horn, who sponsored the resolution calling for the review. “Guarding against government abuse is critical for us.”

Agreed, said Supervisor Ron Roberts.

“The situation we have now is one in which good people can be put in a situation where they lose their home,” Roberts said. “We place a high value on property rights, but still we need to guard against any future abuse.”

Supervisor Dianne Jacob joined the chorus, saying the ruling “tramples on the rights to private property owners.”

The chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors, Pam Slater-Price, also decried the decision, but pointed out that California law provides greater protections to property owners in such cases.

State law requires that property seized for commercial development must first be designated as blighted, a finding that wasn’t required in the New London case.

The county has limited its use of eminent domain to road extensions, drainage improvements and similar public works measures, said John Kross, deputy director of real estate services for the county’s Department of General Services.

Each year, the county typically requires the acquisition of several hundred pieces of property to foster those kinds of projects.

In the last two years, the county has had 33 projects involving 232 parcels that it needed to obtain, Kross said. Only seven condemnation resolutions involving 43 parcels have resulted. Of the 43, 20 have been settled, Kross said, adding that the remaining 23 have not yet reached the stage of court action.

In the Supreme Court case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion that “public use” can include efforts to renew decaying neighborhoods and create jobs in an economically depressed city such as New London, which has been reeling since the closure of a Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Stevens wrote that “promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.”

Encinitas City Council members aren’t so sure of that. As were the county supervisors, the council members were all in agreement when they directed the city attorney to write a new municipal law restricting eminent domain.

Some council members also renewed concerns about a proposed redevelopment agency to help finance a $30 million drainage system and other projects in Leucadia because of its powers to exercise eminent domain.

In recent years, the coastal city has used eminent domain eight times, five to expand streets.

In Escondido, the Palomar Pomerado Health has plans to build a $531 million facility in a business park that most council members want reserved as space for the high-tech jobs it was intended to create.

Council members have suggested Palomar Pomerado build at a city’s public works yard and several acres around it, something that would require using eminent domain.

At the federal level, the House of Representatives has approved a bill that would not allow using any federal funds for the New London project, and the Senate is poised to adopt language that also would restrict use of eminent domain.

In a related development, a broadside aimed at Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who sided with the majority in the New London case, has been gaining increasing momentum.

Freestar Media LLC is organizing an effort to convince a town in New Hampshire where Souter owns land to condemn it and hand it over to developers to construct a hotel, which would create jobs and raise town revenue.

The group has dubbed the project in the town of Weare the Lost Liberty Hotel and its eatery the Just Desserts Cafe.

Copyright ? 2005, North County Times, Escondido, Calif.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

RISMedia welcomes your questions and comments. Send your e-mail to:
editorial@rismedia.com

Not a real estate professional? » From buying & selling to home improvement, click here for all things real estate.

Sunday, March 21, 2010