Thanks to Redevelopment
What would you do? On Sept. 29th, the MTA broke ground on the 8.5-mile Expo Light Rail Transit Line ending in Culver City at Washington and National. The city leadership, with community involvement, is finishing its Washington/National Specific Plan. This will call for the kind of mixed use development consistent with urban transportation hubs throughout the world. The area has been part of a Redevelopment Project for probably over 25 years. It gave the city the power to assemble many small ownerships, including the Surfas site, into one parcel. Wouldn’t you also invite developers and individuals to offer their best ideas? Wouldn’t you select the best plan and financial resources to finish the project? This isn’t a grand un-American conspiracy to take private property. This is good government for the betterment of the community. If Prop. 90 existed, this dynamic would not happen.
Look Who Else Opposes 90
Within the last couple of days, Gov. Schwarzenegger has taken a position against Prop. 90. "Rebuilding our schools, roads, levees and housing is a critical priority of my administration," writes Schwarzenegger in an op-ed piece released in the San Francisco Chronicle. "Unfortunately, Prop. 90 also includes language that would make rebuilding our system or public infrastructure prohibitively expensive. When agencies must acquire property to build vital public works projects, current law provides for just compensation based on fair market value of the property. Prop. 90 makes changes to this system that would require inflated payments, at taxpayer expense. For these reasons, while I can sympathize with the intent of those who support Prop. 90, I have no choice but to oppose this initiative.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to this dangerous and costly proposition.
Studying Prospective Changes
Here are some specific provisions of Prop. 90 that would amend these sections of the California Constitution. The bold-faced notes are mine.
Section 19(a)(1): Private property can only be taken or damaged for a stated public use. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
Section 19(a)(2): Property acquired by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the government and must be utilized only for the stated public purpose. The property may be leased to other parties for the public use project.
Section 19(a)(3): If the property ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner shall have the right to reacquire the property from the government for fair market value.
Section 19(b)(1): Narrows the meaning of public use. Prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though those uses may serve otherwise legitimate purposes.
Section 19(b)(2): Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of property taken by eminent domain from one private party to another private party unless it is a government- approved transfer for public use purposes. The government has the burden to prove public use.
Section 19(b)(4): In Eminent Domain actions, the government must submit appraisals to the property owners. The property owners are entitled to a separate and distinct determination by a jury as to whether the taking is really for a public use. (Trial attorneys will love this one.)
Section 19(b)(5): If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken. (If a single-family house is on a parcel that can be developed into a multiple story building, the city would not pay the value of the house, but value of a possible multi-story building. This would be true if the house had no plans to build such a building and the structure could only be built if the homeowner assembled other parcels.)
Section 19(b)(8): “Damage” to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Exempts laws passed for the protection of public health and safety. (This is the all-out attack on government’s role in maintaining and enhancing the quality of our life and what could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.)
What Others Are Saying
The following are some comments from No-on- Prop. 90, http://noprop90.com/.
Prop. 90’s far-reaching provisions allow virtually anyone to sue, claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of his property or business — no matter how far-fetched the claim. These new "pay to protect" provisions mean taxpayers pay, or state and local governments would be unable to enact even the most basic protections of our environment and quality of life.
Urban limit lines and other growth control measures could arguably diminish the possible future value of property and therefore require compensation under Prop. 90. Even routine land-use and general plan updates, or local project approvals, could be subject to Prop. 90’s payout provisions. For example, if a developer claims a property could hold more homes than a local government will allow to be built, the developer could sue. Taxpayers would be on the hook for the value of the property at the denser level, even though the community could not handle or did not want such a development.
Noise ordinances, laws establishing hours of operation for bars and nightclubs, design guidelines and historic preservation ordinances all would be much more difficult — or too costly — to enact because Prop. 90 would require payouts to property owners or businesses who could claim an "economic loss" for these basic quality of life issues.
Prop. 90 also redefines "just compensation." It would require new and unreasonable payouts whenever government agencies acquire property for public works. If local governments can’t afford to pay the inflated costs, citizens lose out on much needed community projects that would otherwise enhance the community’s standard of living.
Bill Feldman is a longtime Culver City broker/developer.
