 |
| Welcome! | About Us | Archived Articles | References & Research | Links |
Recent Entries
Sad News for SCA15
Update on SCA-15 from Senator McClintock Your land is their land -- Part 3 New Section The eminent domain debate: Californians losing homes, businesses to development A's send mixed signals to San Jose about stadium A New (London) Low DO WE NEED (MORE) REDEVELOPMENT IN OAKLAND? Property rights leaders to meet CRR Discusses Eminent Domain On KSFO
Archives
January 2006
November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004
Syndicate News
Contact Info
|
:: RETURN TO FRONTPAGE NEWS ::
| September 2005 »
August 30, 2005Sad News for SCA15Just back from Sacramento with sad news... SCA 15 was defeated by the judiciary committee (3-2). It will not go to the Senate or Assembly. Senators Morrow & Ackerman voted for it, Kuehl, Cedillo and Escutia Now the only alternative is the initiative process. Senator McClintock is working on this. 598,000 signatures will need to be collected. Get your walking Thanks to all who came in support, and those of you who wrote and called.
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 08:49 PM
August 27, 2005Update on SCA-15 from Senator McClintock Members of the Judiciary Committee (contact information is listed below) will now have the power to send SCA 15 straight to the floor of the Senate. I am counting on you to light up their phones, faxes and email boxes and convey two simple messages: 1. Give SCA 15 a full and fair hearing and pass it on to the full Senate! 2. Do not accept weak substitutes while claiming there are no abuses in The redevelopment forces are pushing other bills to derail our efforts on SCA 15 – one of them being the “Two-year Moratorium,” which says to homeowners: “We won’t seize your house today, just freeze your assets for two years and then take it!” With your help and persistence, however, we can send SCA 15 to the floor. As always, I am deeply grateful for your support and dedication. The battle to protect property rights from government abuse is far from being won, but I could not be more honored to have you by my side. Sincerely,
Senate Judiciary Committee:
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 03:53 AM
August 26, 2005Your land is their land -- Part 3 Debra J. Saunders WHEN he first ran for Oakland Mayor in 1997, Jerry Brown painted a picture of the city he would like Oaktown to become. Brown's We the People Web site posted "Oakland Ecopolis: a Plan for a Green Plan" -- presented a new vision for Oakland. Under Brown, Oakland would not clamor for "mere economic growth," which causes environmental degradation. If elected, Brown would promote green jobs -- for artisans, gardeners, sailboat craftsmen. "A baby smiles and a flower grows," read the plan. Scratch that. Make it: A baby smiles, a flower grows, and city officials try to evict local artisans. I visited the Fifth Avenue artisans enclave on the city's waterfront. Amid the funky homes and work spaces, where antique boats are restored and the giant baseball glove at SBC Park was made, resident and vintage-car restorer Terry Sanders pointed out an 1890 oyster dredge perched next to a one-story building. "Rumor has it, Jack London worked on it," said Sanders. "J. W. rescued it." J. W. is J. W. Silveira, who owns the property. He must be some landlord to have inspired such tenant loyalty. When the Oakland City Council voted to exercise eminent domain on the Silveira property in order to clear the area for private housing development in 2001, 40-year tenant Charlie Weber fought back. Said Weber: "We all spoke at the meetings. They (the city) had their mind made up. They knew what they wanted." So Weber paid out of his own pocket to hire a lawyer, John Thorpe. Weber's lawsuit yielded the rare victory against City Hall -- not because of the questionable principle of a city taking land from a private owner to accommodate a private developer, but largely because Oakland failed to notify Fifth Avenue tenants of its plans. In short, Weber won on a technicality. He remains concerned that Oakland will go after his slice of heaven again. It doesn't help that, after the 2004 settlement (which took Fifth Avenue out of the redevelopment area) was reached, Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente told the Oakland Tribune he believes the city can go after the Fifth Avenue property again. For Jerry Brown's part, the mayor is not enjoying the media spotlight on Oakland's eminent-domain abuses. He sent me a DVD of blighted property seized by the city under eminent domain. It looked filthy, neglected, foul-smelling and downright hazardous to human health -- bully for Oakland for taking it. On the phone yesterday, Brown noted that the residents at Fifth Avenue are tenants with no property rights and added, as the housing project improves the area, that Fifth Avenue's value will spike and "it would take a very monastic owner" to not sell and reap a fat profit. That said, it is still wrong for a city to take one taxpayer's unblighted property in order to give it to a richer entity. Revelli Tires, about which I have written, wasn't blighted. Yet Oakland seized that property and the adjacent Autohouse to accommodate a housing project -- and then seized a parking lot a block away to accommodate a bigger Sears auto center. City politicians have been treating properties that taxpayers have worked hard to attain as if they were Monopoly cards. I asked John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, why it is OK for a city to take land from a taxpayer in order to hand it over to another private concern. He had read my columns on Revelli Tires and answered, "I keep in mind that what is going there is 770 units of housing. I hate to see any small-business person have to relocate and move to another location, but by the same token, I'm very concerned about affordable housing in California." Shirey noted the greater good in building denser homes closer to the city than "single-family homes on quarter acre lots in Tracy for people who work in the Bay Area." He added, "Doesn't it make more sense of have 770 units of housing in downtown Oakland, instead of those being units in the periphery?" And: "Sometimes one good outweighs another good." Perhaps true, but that doesn't give Oakland politicians free rein to trample on the rights of law-abiding taxpayers whom they are supposed to represent. Especially when one "good" -- tony condos that pay higher taxes - - enrichs city coffers more than funky artist digs ever will. Weber's attorney Thorpe wondered: "Do the citizens benefit or do outsiders benefit? It's almost always outsiders." I've talked to redevelopment folks, and they are truly baffled at the public rage that erupted after the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision in June that upheld the frequent practice of redevelopment projects using eminent domain, not for public projects, but to grab land for private development. It bothers them that critics portray them as "evil," I mention to Weber and Sanders. To which Sanders replied, "They are evil." They, after all, went after his home.
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 02:05 PM
August 22, 2005New SectionThe Coalition Web Team has updated the website with a new section on community involvement, including downloads for education, resolutions, contacts, sample letters and more. Please visit our "Get Involved!" section in the About Us section, or by clicking here.
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 11:32 PM
The eminent domain debate: Californians losing homes, businesses to developmentBy Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer Some experts say it can't happen in California, but the homeowners' nightmare spotlighted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision already is happening here in one city after another. State laws restricting these land grabs to blighted urban property are porous and hard to enforce. Ask the people who live in the Naglee Park section of San Jose Under the city's Strong Neighborhoods Initiative Redevelopment Project, Naglee Park and about 20 other downtown areas have been declared blighted and, therefore, potential targets for the wrecking ball. Forget the million-dollar home values in this lovingly tended section of Victorians and Craftsman bungalows. Forget the value of neighbors who know each others' kids and dogs. An auto mall or big-box store would have tax value for a redevelopment agency. Or, as seems more likely in the case of Naglee Park, a high-density housing complex. "As downtown grows, there is a clear and a stated desire by the city to have much denser housing in the downtown area," says neighborhood association president Beth Shafran-Mukai. Although the city denies any present intention to bulldoze Naglee Park, the Supreme Court ruling has heightened anxieties. It "undermines established neighborhoods and takes the power away from people who are working themselves and with their neighborhoods to create a vital community," says Shafran-Mukai. The decision - now simply referred to as "Kelo" - was announced June 23 in the case of New London, Conn. homeowner Susette Kelo. The struggling coastal city condemned her tidy Victorian to make room for a waterfront complex that promises tax revenue and jobs, and the Supreme Court upheld the condemnation. Ruling 5-4, the court said government agencies may take private land in viable neighborhoods as part of an "integrated development plan" - and then sell the land to other private parties. The opinion said judges normally must defer to a city's determination of what will benefit the public, such as New London's finding that it needs "a program of economic rejuvenation." The ruling was based on the 5th Amendment but not the 5th Amendment envisioned by the framers. The traditional purpose of the constitutional provision was to enable road building and other public works projects. The genesis was an ancient power known as eminent domain - the power of the sovereign to appropriate property. The 5th Amendment says only that private land may be taken for "public use" upon payment of "just compensation." Through statutes and judicial interpretations over the past half century, though, modern eminent domain includes the right to take property if the taking serves a public purpose, such as redevelopment, regardless of the ultimate ownership. It also includes the right to take viable property where necessary for the effective redevelopment of a larger area. In other words, "public use" has come to mean "public benefit," which can mean almost anything. The transformation has paved the way for privately owned enterprises such as hotels and chain stores to replace homes and small businesses in many cities. Because of the legal precedents, eminent domain experts weren't surprised at the Kelo decision. Yet Kelo touched a public nerve like no previous case, says McGeorge School of Law professor John Sprankling, because it relates to "the special place that our home has occupied in our social and legal culture." Widely quoted was a dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, warning that "any home" now can be replaced "with a shopping mall." The majority opinion seems narrower. It was based on an unusual Connecticut law, one that California doesn't have. Connecticut permits property to be taken for the sole purpose of economic development. In California, as the Kelo opinion pointed out, redevelopment can be used only to eliminate blight. Court precedents here also say property can't be declared blighted just because there's a better potential use for it. Some experts downplay Kelo's significance in California for those reasons. Others disagree, saying change is inevitable because of the backlash Kelo has created. The public will insist, says Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, "that officeholders reassure them that this opinion will not be a license to take homes on a large-scale basis. I don't think it ever was, frankly, as a practical matter. But as a political matter it now has to be addressed." State constitutional amendments already have been introduced to shore up homeowner protections, and officials at all levels have been voicing concern. Last month, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer jumped into the redevelopment controversy, opposing California City's designation of 15,000 vacant acres of the Mojave Desert as "urban blight" so the land could be redeveloped as an auto test track. It's "all too tempting," says Lockyer's brief, for government to take private property "simply to entice businesses to a region rather than to remedy true urban blight." Last week, the Senate Local Government Committee convened a special hearing, the first of several that are planned. The focus was on amending the state's laws to insulate Californians from Kelo-like incursions. Several prominent redevelopment lawyers, however, argue that California's laws aren't the problem. The problem, they say, is enforcement, and that may prove harder to fix. Cities play "catch me if you can, the reward being significant if they're not caught," says Bruce Tepper, a Los Angeles lawyer who has represented both property owners and redevelopment agencies in some of California's biggest cases. For the redevelopment agency, the reward is exclusive use of new property tax revenue generated in the project area. A report by Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform - a statewide organization of city council members and other elected and appointed officials - says $2.8 billion in property taxes was diverted to redevelopment agencies in 2003. The report says communities lose libraries, police and fire protection that would be supported by routine growth and assessment increases. They gain hotels, auto malls and the other big businesses that flock to redevelopment zones, often attracted by tax rebates, free land and other incentives. For the typical property owner wanting to take a redevelopment agency to court, says Pasadena lawyer Chris Sutton, the costs run to $40,000 or so "just to play." The result, he says, is that homeowners and small-business owners give in to lawyers' pressure to settle for increased compensation - and the lawyers may take up to 40 percent of the increase. "What just happened to me?" asks John Revelli, 65, still reeling from the July 1 eviction of Revelli Tire Co., an Oakland business bought by his father in 1949. The company was forced out by the Uptown Project, Oakland's plan to bring thousands of residents and "neighborhood-serving" businesses to the moribund city core. Among the properties to be demolished is a low-income residential hotel. Revelli says he planned to challenge the condemnation in court, but Kelo "blew the wind out of the sails on that one." He'll sue over the compensation, though. He won't disclose what he's been offered but says it isn't enough to relocate in today's real estate market - a common complaint among those who are forced to move. Similar suits over compensation were filed half a century ago when redevelopment arrived in downtown Sacramento. The Bee reported the displacement of thousands of residents - homeowners, renters and transients. The hundreds of demolished businesses included grocery stores, an appliance store, a florist, as well as dozens of bars and flophouses that catered to a population of farmhands and service workers. The first business to move in on the cleared land was Macy's. Its 1963 opening reportedly was the first by any major department store in a California city's downtown area in over a decade. "Sacramento and the other major cities in California faced a severe decline as a result of the growth of the suburbs and the loss of major retailing, which left downtown and followed the growth," says Joe Coomes, who was the redevelopment lawyer during negotiations for the Capital Mall Project. "Without the use of redevelopment and eminent domain to clear slum and deteriorated properties in the central cities, they would never have been able to recover." Two blocks east of Macy's the same kinds of issues are playing out today, as rival developers -some already controlling property and others hoping to displace them - advance competing plans for redeveloping the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street. And, to this day, experts are debating whether redevelopment has been good or bad overall for California. It's "a tool that is effective to remedy blight but has a lot of temptation to it," says Sacramento redevelopment lawyer Nancy Miller. A study done at the Center for Economic Development at California State University, Chico, based on 2002-03, found that redevelopment agencies had generated billions of dollars in economic activity and construction and had created 310,000 full-and part-time jobs. On the other hand, a 1998 report by the Public Policy Institute of California, comparing 114 redevelopment project areas with similar non-redevelopment areas over the course of 13 years, concluded that redevelopment was a net drain on public resources. For better or worse, redevelopment marches on. Drawing its data from news reports, mostly about court cases, the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, counted at least 223 properties condemned in California for private use and 635 others threatened between 1998 and 2002. In San Bernardino, 433 acres of homes reportedly were targeted for possible redevelopment in 2004. In San Diego, Ahmad Mesdaq was evicted in June, just 15 months after opening his trendy Gran Havana Cigar & Coffee Lounge, to make way for a hotel. Mesdaq learned of the hotel plan during escrow but says he didn't believe it would go forward. Now, he says, he's left with a huge cigar inventory, no income and a family to feed. He wants the hotel to build around him. "I asked them, 'Can't I have a little place?' They said, 'No, you cannot have a place. We demolish you and that's it,' " says Mesdaq, a native of Afghanistan who's suing for the right "to live my American dream." San Jose's Naglee Park residents also are hoping for a pass from the Strong Neighborhoods redevelopment project. They say they already have a strong neighborhood. They say they made a formal exemption request to the San Jose City Council about three years ago. The city hasn't acted on it. Shafran-Mukai's little nine-color Victorian with its stained glass windows and decorative woodwork is fairly typical of the neighborhood. Unmown lawns and "for sale" signs are rare. Painters and roofers are busy on almost every street. "The architecture is beautiful, but it's the people who really make Naglee Park special," says Shafran-Mukai, who also chairs Bark in the Park, the neighborhood's yearly festival for people and their dogs. Harry Mavrogenes, executive director of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, says the people of Naglee Park will be invited to participate in choosing the projects undertaken in the neighborhood. Most Strong Neighborhoods projects so far have been public facilities, and eminent domain has been used rarely if ever, he says. He also says there's been "nothing official" from the neighborhood association requesting an exemption. Timothy Sandefur, a Pacific Legal Foundation expert on eminent domain, calls San Jose "probably the most abusive" of California's cities in exceeding its legal powers. He says more than a third of the city has been declared blighted, and Mavrogenes doesn't dispute that figure. "Significantly blighted" or "substantially blighted," said the surveyors who drove through Naglee Park, rating it block by block. The survey sheet has one mark for "excessive front yard paving," two for "overgrown vegetation," and so forth. The report doesn't identify the offending properties, though it does note leaves on the tennis court at Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren's home. The consulting firm that conducted the blight survey, Keyser Marston Associates, publishes a long list of clients that includes Oakland and San Diego - as well as the cities or redevelopment agencies of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Davis, Woodland, Roseville, Lincoln and Placerville. The Bee's Claire Cooper can be reached at (415) 551-7701 or ccooper@sacbee.com.
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 07:39 PM
A's send mixed signals to San Jose about stadiumAugust 21, 2005 So, two weeks ago, Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff discloses plans for a new baseball park and it's got to have a BART station right next to it. Hmm, doesn't that sound like the downtown area right behind San Jose's Diridon Station where a future BART stop has been planned? And isn't that same area being targeted for acquisition by the redevelopment agency? And wasn't it convenient that the A's provided to the world renderings of the stadium-condo/hotel project they've proposed for a site in Oakland? A skeptic would say that made it easier for baseball zealots in San Jose to configure a parcel for the A's without violating Major League Baseball etiquette. Fifteen years ago, baseball granted the San Francisco Giants territorial rights over San Jose, essentially giving the National League team veto power over the city's ability to obtain a team. Undaunted, San Jose officials are quietly -- but unofficially -- preparing a potential site for the A's. The Aug. 16 agenda for the council's closed session shows council members discussed acquiring seven properties on South Montgomery Street as well as properties on Park Avenue and West San Fernando Street. Paul Krutko, the city's economic development chief who supports getting a team for San Jose, dispels the notion that those properties are being exclusively earmarked for a ballpark. ``I want to be clear,'' he said, ``we are pursuing the acquisitions of those properties because in our plans, that is shown as a housing site.'' County Assessor Larry Stone, a leader in the drive to land a baseball team in San Jose, looks at it differently. ``If and when the south Diridon properties are assembled and acquired, that'll send a message to Major League Baseball and to the Oakland A's and the San Francisco Giants that San Jose is serious about bringing Major League Baseball to downtown San Jose,'' he said. Stone is not dissuaded by the A's announced plans for a new Oakland park. ``Because you select a site over in Oakland, it doesn't change our posture or direction at all,'' Stone said. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12438919.htm
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 04:22 PM
A New (London) LowA refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005 Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation. The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility. The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development. Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst. And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case. The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst. "I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low." And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents. In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city. With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be. A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low." "It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another. With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says. An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge." That's one way to get out of the rain. http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 11:01 AM
August 21, 2005DO WE NEED (MORE) REDEVELOPMENT IN OAKLAND?Mark Your Calendars!! The City of Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency and Councilperson Jane Brunner want to add 800 acres of North Oakland to an existing redevelopment area. Most of Oakland is ALREADY under redevelopment. The area to be added--the southern Berkeley border to MacAuthur Blvd., Telegraph Ave to the Emeryville border--is genetrifying like crazy with housing prices ranging from $500,000--$800,000 and private capital launching trendy restaurants, shops and condos. The purpose of the expansion is clearly NOT the alleviation of blight, but to capture the $385 million + in tax increment money that would otherwise go to the General Fund. The General Fund, meanwhile, is further depleted as most of Oakland is already IN redevelopment. Thus, Oakland voters are continually asked to generously support parcel taxes and bond measures for the police, fire, libraries, capital improvements, and other basic services the General Fund should provide for. Come and find out where the $385 million goes. Discuss what is to be done about redevelopment uses and abuses at this WHERE: Omni Ballroom, 4799 Shattuck Ave., the North Oakland landmark, WHEN: Sun. Aug. 28, 1:00. Free admission. Light refreshments. Please Event info: Bob Brokl/Al Crofts (510)655-3841 or broklcrofts@earthlink.net
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 08:54 AM
August 12, 2005Property rights leaders to meetSTRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING GOVERNMENT SEIZURE TO BE DISCUSSED AT SAN JOSE CONFERENCE Leading figures in the movement to limit the government's property seizure powers, which the U.S. Supreme Court bolstered in a recent ruling, will be in San Jose on Saturday to discuss efforts to help home and business owners fight back. Speakers will include state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, and Institute for Justice senior attorney Dana Berliner. McClintock is working on amending the California Constitution to limit the government's ``eminent domain'' property seizure power. Berliner is the property-rights lawyer who represented homeowners in New London, Conn., in their bid before the Supreme Court to block the city's condemnation of their property for an urban renewal project by private developers.
Reform group is host Saturday's event is hosted by the Coalition for Redevelopment Reform in San Jose. Organizers say it's important for property owners to understand how vulnerable their homes or businesses could be to takeover by government-backed developers. ``Most people would still say, `That can't happen to me, only to some dilapidated place,' '' said Loraine Wallace Rowe, a founder of the Coalition for Redevelopment Reform in San Jose, who helped lead a successful 2000 fight against seizure of 40 San Jose properties for redevelopment. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold property seizure for redevelopment in Kelo vs. City of New London. The majority argued that since governments have traditionally promoted economic development, their Fifth Amendment power to take private property for ``public use'' should not exclude private redevelopment that benefits the community with jobs and tax money. Critics, including the four dissenting justices, protested that the ruling clears the way for developers to pressure tax-starved city leaders into taking people's homes and businesses for any redevelopment scheme that promises more tax revenue and jobs. Among the critics was McClintock, who said the decision ``opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.'' Legislation in hopper McClintock introduced legislation, SCA-15, that would amend the California Constitution through a ballot measure requiring that the government either own the property it seizes through eminent domain, or guarantee the public the legal right to use it. Other speakers at Saturday's event will include Chris Norby, an Orange County supervisor and founder of Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, and Doug McNea, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association. San Jose Redevelopment Agency Director Harry Mavrogenes, who has said the Kelo decision validated local policy of using eminent domain ``as necessary but in a careful way,'' has been invited to attend, but is not a scheduled speaker. Though the Kelo decision was led by the court's more liberal justices, outcry has hardly been limited to generally conservative and libertarian property-rights advocates. Widespread protest Liberals including Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, self-described Socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and consumer advocate and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader have joined the likes of conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh in protest. Congress has moved to bar federal funding in connection with any eminent domain seizures for private economic development. Legislative moves also are under way in at least two dozen states to rein in government power to condemn and seize homes. Contact John Woolfolk at jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com or (408) 278-3410.
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 12:15 AM
August 08, 2005CRR Discusses Eminent Domain On KSFOPatti Phillips (a member of CRR's Board of Directors) will be on the on the radio tomorrow morning (Tuesday, August 9) at 7:30 am. She will be speaking with Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan. The show can be found on KSFO 560 AM. She will be discussing eminent domain and, of course, the Kelo forum coming up this Saturday You can listen to the show on the Internet at www.ksfo.com
Posted by Coalition Webbies at 02:33 PM
|
