Officials respond to Supreme Court ruling

By Daniel Wolowiczdanielw@theacorn.com

The United States Supreme Court recently upheld the power of local governments to buy private homes and sell the property to commercial developers for economic growth.

While State Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) says the ruling strikes at the “very heart of our fundamental, personal liberties as Americans,” city officials in the Conejo Valley and surrounding area feel the decision will not become a threat to homeowners and other private property owners.

The highly-debated, 5-4 decision in the Connecticut case gives New London city officials the authority to demolish a number of homes in a blue-collar neighborhood and build a corporate headquarters for drug-maker Pfizer along with upscale housing, offices and a new hotel. Officials hope the new development will generate much-needed tax revenue for the economically depressed area.

Eminent domain, the government’s power to take private land for public use as long as just compensation is given, was established by the Fifth Amendment. Typically, eminent domain is used to build roads and schools, which may not have been possible because of the existence of a private home or business at the site.

Each state constitution has a similar law defining the government’s ability to take public land. What makes the New London ruling noteworthy is that it confirms the city’s power to take private land and rebuild on it not just for public use, but to help spur economic development in a blighted area.

According to Agoura Hills, Thousand Oaks and Westlake Village city officials, California has stricter laws than Connecticut defining what constitutes an economically blighted area. Local officials say it’s unlikely what happened in Connecticut will happen here.

Greg Ramirez, city manager for Agoura Hills, said even though the city is using its power of eminent domain to acquire “small slivers” of private property for the Kanan Road Interchange project, he doesn’t see the local city council using the same power to acquire land for broad economic development.

Amy Albano, city attorney for Thousand Oaks, said she doesn’t foresee her city using eminent domain as a tool for wholesale economic development, either.

John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, supports the court’s decision, and agrees that California law makes it much tougher for cities in the state to show blight.

“What happened in New London couldn’t be done in California without the findings of blight,” Shirey said. “And since the early ‘90s, there are much stricter laws defining what is actually meant by blight.”

The local cities say they use eminent domain only when absolutely necessary.

McClintock, however, says the ruling opens the door for city officials and real estate developers to abuse the power of eminent domain and take private homes simply for financial gain.

“The Court has now perverted that power by creating a situation where your property rights are no longer secure if a developer or corporation takes a fancy to your home,” McClintock said. “It puts the gun at the head of any homeowner who is approached by a developer seeking to take their property because right behind that offer is a real threat the government will simply seize that property for pennies on the dollar.”

McClintock is pushing for a measure to clarify California’s definition of eminent domain so that it more closely reflects the law’s original intent as stated in the Bill of Rights.

McClintock hopes his measure will be ready for the special elections ballot in November.