Eminent domain can and does occur all over the state of
California and a government authority may initiate it under a variety of
circumstances. We see many instances of eminent domain brought on by
transportation projects and road improvements. Even these can vary widely by
the type and scope of the project, as well as what the overarching authority is
seeking from the property owner. A quick look at some of the projects currently
in some stage of the condemnation process gives us a snapshot of what that looks
like for Californians affected by eminent domain.
In Santa Clarita, a city about 30 miles north of Los
Angeles, an area known as Vazquez Rocks requires construction work to fix a
mangled road. The road, which was shut
down in November after it became unsafe for vehicles, connected to major
streets Bouquet Canyon Road and Sierra Highway, and was used by residents as an
alternate route. A portion of the affected area is owned by the County of Los
Angeles, while some of the land is privately owned. Apparently, shutdown didn’t
entirely prevent some people from exploring the area, causing the County of Los
Angeles to initiate the removal of pavement from road. Earlier this month Public Works began
road cleanup, in order to have as much as possible completed while eminent
domain proceedings take place.
In the Lake Tahoe region, a unique approach is being taken
by the local authorities with regard to the Highway 50 Revitalization Plan. The
Highway 50 realignment is part of a larger Community Revitalization
project which has set economic, environmental and transportation goals for the
South Lake Tahoe downtown area. The Highway 50 project includes a realignment
of a 4-lane highway and an improvement to the road currently running through an
active area that’s home to local businesses and casinos. What’s interesting
about this project is that the Tahoe
Transportation Board set forth guidelines for the handling of the project
that puts the interests of property owners and residents at the forefront, and
includes a provision that no work of any kind will begin until everything else
is in order, meaning completion of all relocation and receipt of all necessary
funding. The Tahoe Transportation board believes this move will demonstrate
their commitment to the community and that it will inspire local residents and
business to hold the transportation authority in esteem.
While public works oversees many of the projects that could
lead to the acquisition of private property, other situations may arise that
could result in a government authority considering or pursuing eminent domain.
A somewhat controversial potential use of eminent is emerging in Santa Clara
County, where the
Housing Authority could move ahead with acquiring a mobile home park, in
order to keep it functional. The owner of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo
Alto had plans to shut down the facility. The County offered to purchase the
property, but the property owner was not interested in selling. After that
route led to a dead end of the county, the housing authority decided to pursue other
channels, which may include invoking eminent domain. The subject of a typical
eminent domain lawsuit is the legal provision known as Just
Compensation, which is the right of a property owner to receive fair and
adequate payment for the land that the government acquires, and which is
carried out in a court of law. It is more rare to see an eminent domain lawsuit
that asks the court to review the legal basis for the action of a government
authority using the power of eminent domain on the land in question. There are
very specific circumstances under which the government can use eminent domain
for property acquisition, and the attorney for the property owner may argue
that purchasing the mobile park is not an appropriate use for it.
Finally, trial has begun in another interesting eminent
domain matter, this one between the City of Claremont and Golden State Water
Company (“GSW”), regarding the city taking over it’s water system. The city
invoked eminent domain to take control of the water system, claiming that it
would lead to environmental and financial benefits for residents, which
constitutes a greater public good. GSW argues that the City of Claremont is not
equipped to handle the nuances and challenges of running it’s own water
utility. Read the full article here.