tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22677693.post116261645121517028..comments2013-11-22T18:34:25.664-08:00Comments on San Ramon Talks: Vote Yes On Proposition 90San Ramonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18230453679344836393noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22677693.post-1163184411657490772006-11-10T10:46:00.000-08:002006-11-10T10:46:00.000-08:00The following is quoted directly out of the Califo...The following is quoted directly out of the <A HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1" REL="nofollow">California Constitution</A><BR/><BR/>CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION<BR/>ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS<BR/><BR/>"SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation."<BR/><BR/>The main difference between what is in the California Constitution now and the newer language was this one added sentence: "Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use."<BR/><BR/>In essence it was the same added language but specifically said no to private party takings and damages. Maybe the language in subsequent areas could have clarified that general zoning changes were not ruled as damages even though (my reading of it) was specifically addressing the zoning changes involved with eminent domain takeovers.<BR/><BR/>This just goes to show that the writing of laws need to be as tight as possible in order to leave out any ambiguities.<BR/><BR/>As our California Constitution is currently written in this area, there are a lot of ambiguities, because the argument could be made by a Lawyer that since the California Constitution already says, "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation," which infers that private property may not be taken or damaged for private use. However, I suspect that since it does not specifically say, "private property may <B>not</B> be taken or damaged for private use," that other Lawyers have interpreted this to mean that cities can use it for private property gain. This has opened the spigot for cities to have Eminent Domain on their books as a tool for Redevelopment Zones to use in a "last case resort"<BR/><BR/>However, as we have said before, having an eminent domain hammer over a redevelopment zone imposes a very aggressive stance against any owner of property in the redevelopment zones. Plus, redevelopment zones can be expanded or include other areas of the community. Intimidation is definitely a force, in which an aggressive developer comes in to the city and proposes a major change for the property. With visions of dollar signs in the head of City Council Members (an increased tax base for the city), is it any wonder why most property owners really have an aversion to having Eminent Domain on the books? Likewise, as the city tries to meet their low cost housing goals, the pressure is on for them to really forget the rights of the individual property owners and do what will <B>Net</B> them the most value. If that means having Eminent Domain on the books, then the city will take advantage of this by having it as Council Member David E. Hudson, stated, "Eminent Domain is just another tool in our quiver, we do not intend to use it." That was the reason that the City Council passed Eminent Domain for private gain to be a tool in their quiver.<BR/><BR/>Market forces are steered by laws, zoning, and other ordinances. Eminent Domain on the books of San Ramon steers market forces. Once again we have the case of the "law of unintended consequences."San Ramonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230453679344836393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22677693.post-1163109800159966022006-11-09T14:03:00.000-08:002006-11-09T14:03:00.000-08:00Bob, you mention that you would be for a propositi...Bob, you mention that you would be for a proposition "If it trully 'protects' landowners from eminent domain abuses." The question really comes down to what is viewed as an abuse of eminent domain.<BR/><BR/>Eminent domain was supposed to be relegated to that which was for public works purposes or "use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings." Source <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia Eminent Domain</A><BR/><BR/>With the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, this changed the landscape for cities to go after private property to be handed over to other private developers. The vote was extremely close on this issue.<BR/><BR/>Bush signed an executive order about this very issue. On June 23, 2006, President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken." See source above.<BR/><BR/>So the question really comes down to what is Eminent Domain Abuse?San Ramonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230453679344836393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22677693.post-1163031994559374942006-11-08T16:26:00.000-08:002006-11-08T16:26:00.000-08:00Bob, another interesting point that you bring up i...Bob, another interesting point that you bring up is about the owners of San Ramon Golf club suing the city for "restricting the use of the golf course to only open space."<BR/><BR/>First off, any entity could sue another for whatever reason. Second, it could be argued that the city did in fact give a "legal entitlement" window of opportunity for the owners to do something different with the Golf Course when the city changed the Golf Courses to Commercial Recreation. Then just a short while later placed a "Golf Course" only zone in place.<BR/><BR/>Had the city left the Golf Courses zoned under "Parks," which by the way included Golf Courses, the land use would never have been in question. Now the City Council may have opened the door for the owner to claim that this is too restrictive and could sue the City under some type of legal entitlements or "Best Use" argument.<BR/><BR/>If either San Ramon Golf Courses were sold during this time, the owners/new owners could claim they bought it with the understanding of being able to develop it another way. In essence, they could have a legal entitlement to develop it the way it was zoned to begin with.San Ramonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230453679344836393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22677693.post-1163030750748684222006-11-08T16:05:00.000-08:002006-11-08T16:05:00.000-08:00That was in a section of the code that was describ...That was in a section of the code that was describing the taking of property for the purpose of public works projects. It was under the section of the California Constitution related to Eminent Domain. The words that were before the numbered points were: "(b) For purposes of applying this section:" Referencing section: "SEC 3. Section. 19 of Article I of the California Constitution"<BR/><BR/>Anyways, the point is moot. Proposition 90 did not pass. In fact it was a very close call. It just goes to show that many people are upset with the fact that government can take property for private use.<BR/><BR/>I suspect there will be another proposition on the ballot in the future that tightens up the language to prevent the government from taking private land for private use.San Ramonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230453679344836393noreply@blogger.com