Eminent domain case draws further review

By Daniel Wolowiczdanielw@theacorn.com

State Sens. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) and Dean Florez (D-Shafter) joined with other top-ranking California lawmakers recently to introduce a state constitutional amendment that would limit California’s power to seize private property under the powers of eminent domain.

The amendment was prompted by last month’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision that upheld the authority of city officials in New London, Conn., to demolish a number of homes in a blue-collar neighborhood for economic redevelopment.

New London city officials plan to build a corporate headquarters for drug-maker Pfizer along with upscale housing, offices and a new hotel. They hope the new construction will generate much-needed tax revenue for the economically depressed area.

“That decision breaks the social compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain,” McClintock said at a news conference. “It may now literally take the house of a person it doesn’t like and give it to a person that it does like. Stripped of all the sophistries and euphemisms, this is what it comes down to.”

McClintock and Florez presented the measure with 45 coauthors, including endorsements from four Democrats.

What makes the Kelo v. City of New London decision noteworthy is that it confirms a 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.

The amendment would require that land in California seized by the government cannot be sold to a private developer and must be utilized for public use only. In addition, if the property is taken via eminent domain, the government must sell back the property if it’s no longer used for the reason it was acquired.

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

In an e-mail press release, John F. Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, wrote, “This legislation is in reaction to . . . a decision that has been widely misreported as having created new law or expanded local government powers when the court simply confirmed existing law and reaffirmed 50 years of previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue. It did not affect California law or practice.”

McClintock disagreed with Shirey.

“That’s hogwash,” the senator said. “If that’s true, why are they opposing my legislation?”

McClintock said the threat of city officials abusing eminent domain in California is very real. He also said current state law is insufficient in protecting private homeowners because it does not clearly define what constitutes a blighted area, which makes it “too easy” for city officials to give seized property to a private developer.

“There are 6,000 public agencies in California that now have the power to seize your home, pay you pennies on the dollar for it, and then give it to somebody else for their own personal gain and profit.”

Once the Senate returns from its recess later this summer, McClintock and Florez will have three days to acquire the twothirds vote needed to get the measure on the ballot for the special election in November.

If they are unable to do so, the senators have a month to gather the votes for the June ballot.