"The Kelo Decision: Investigating Takings of Homes and other Private Property " - Judiciary Committe Text

You may find the complete text of the September 20th hearing at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1612.

Lawmaker cautions against eminent domain in rebuilding/Maxine Waters sees threat to poor blacks in New Orleans

Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington -- Rep. Maxine Waters, a Los Angeles Democrat, warned Tuesday against using government's power of eminent domain to redevelop New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina concentrated its devastation on largely poor African American neighborhoods.

"We have to watch the redevelopment in New Orleans for a lot of reasons, and one of them is to make sure that the shadow government of the rich and the powerful does not end up abusing eminent domain to take property that belongs to poor people in order to get them out of the city," Waters said.

Waters' comments came after the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on legislation to cut off federal funding for cities that use eminent domain to condemn private property for economic redevelopment, including such private uses as shopping malls, hotels and condominiums.

Congress is searching for ways to blunt the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in June in Kelo vs. New London, Conn., which held that governments can condemn private property if the project serves a "public purpose."

The decision created a public uproar and a rare alliance of conservative and liberal lawmakers, many of them minorities, concerned about government incursions on private property.

They want to roll back what they consider a misreading of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of "private property for public use without just compensation."

Traditionally, public use has meant condemning land for public schools or highways, but in recent decades has expanded to include clearing "blighted" neighborhoods or redeveloping commercial areas.

Two downtown Oakland property owners, John Revelli, who owned a tire shop
that had been in business since his father opened it in 1949, and his neighbor Tony Fung, owner of Autohouse, were forced by the city of Oakland to vacate their properties July 1, days after the June 23 Kelo decision, to make way for a city-subsidized apartment complex.

"We had one week to move all our equipment and vacate our property," which is prime commercial real estate a block from the 19th Street BART Station, Revelli said. "It was a horrible day. I wouldn't want anyone else to go through this."

Since the 1950s, African American communities have been targeted for "urban renewal" projects so many times that the redevelopment efforts came to be known as "black removal," said Hilary O. Shelton, director of the Washington office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Minority and poor communities are affected more often by eminent domain and have less ability to fight back politically or legally, Shelton said. The recent Supreme Court decision "to allow the government or its designee to take property simply by asserting that it can put the property to a higher use will systematically sanction transfers from those with less resources to those with more," Shelton said.

Jose Mendoza, owner of San Jose Men's Wear in the Tropicana Shopping Center in East San Jose that is made up of Latino and Asian businesses, said he won an eminent domain case in 2003 against the city's redevelopment agency, which wanted to build a new shopping center on the site. Mendoza said he had already lost two properties, one in Salinas and one in downtown San Jose, through condemnation.

"When they came here, I was very, very, very upset," Mendoza, 68, said. "I said not the third time. And we fought until we beat them."

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill by conservative Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, co-sponsored by liberal California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, that would limit the power of eminent domain "for public use," and ban its use for private economic development.

The bill would apply to the federal government, but also discourage cities and states by blocking federal funds for any private economic redevelopment that uses eminent domain. Many such projects use federal money.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former mayor of San Francisco, has expressed reservations about the Kelo decision but has not signed on to any bill. There are several other efforts in the Senate and House -- where Waters has teamed with conservative Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of Tracy -- to limit eminent domain.

"This issue is very dear to my heart," said Waters, who has fought condemnations for years in Los Angeles neighborhoods. "The taking of private property for private use is in my estimation unconstitutional, unAmerican and is not to be tolerated."

Susette Kelo, the nurse who was the lead plaintiff in the now famous case, testified that she bought a waterfront Victorian cottage in 1997 in New London, Conn. It was "a beautiful little place I could afford on my salary. I spent every spare moment fixing it up and creating the kind of home I always dreamed of."

She said she received an eviction notice from the city five years ago "to make way for a luxury hotel, upscale condos and other private developments," which the city said would bring in more tax revenue and jobs. Connecticut's governor recently suspended the evictions of Kelo and her neighbors while the state Legislature considers changing its rules.

"I'm not going anywhere," Kelo said after the hearing. Asked about the notoriety her case has created, she replied, "I'm really a very simple person. I wanted to keep my home."

Eddie Perez, mayor of Hartford, Conn., speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities, said the issue has been distorted by "frenzied rhetoric and misinformation." If used properly, he said, eminent domain "helps cities create jobs, grow business and strengthen neighborhoods."

Perez said restricting the use of eminent domain "is going to make it harder for those communities to put these plans together." Citing New York's Lincoln Center and Baltimore's Inner Harbor developments, Perez said "New Orleans and Louisiana will not be able to develop" if eminent domain powers are restricted.

Dan Walters: Eminent domain bills are stalled - except one for casino tribe

By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, September 16, 2005

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that governments could seize homes and other property to facilitate private development projects, it touched off a political firestorm throughout the nation - including California - and fueled demands for new barriers to misuse of governmental "eminent domain" powers.
California's version of the debate centered on the aggressive use of eminent domain - or the threat to use it - by city redevelopment agencies to assemble land for hotels, auto malls, big box retailers and other projects.

Although California law says that redevelopment powers can be invoked only to combat "blight," local officials have been quite creative in their application of the term. And when the Supreme Court declared that "there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purposes," it seemingly validated those aggressive redevelopment efforts.

The resistance to aggressive misuse of eminent domain is one of those rare issues that cross usually stark ideological lines. Conservative property rights advocates and liberal activists for the poor are equally concerned about seizing homes and small businesses and bulldozing them on behalf of politically favored developers.

It's a little known fact, for example, that Delores Huerta, a much-venerated leader of the United Farm Workers union, originally became involved in social and political causes by resisting a redevelopment project that destroyed an entire neighborhood of working-class homes and businesses on the edge of downtown Stockton.

Tom McClintock, a Republican state senator from Thousand Oaks and a leading conservative political figure, took up the eminent domain crusade in the Legislature after the Supreme Court's ruling, saying that it "breaks the social compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize property of ordinary citizens for private gain." He and others introduced bills, including constitutional amendments, to restrict such seizures to purely public projects.

Predictably, local government and redevelopment officials reacted with alarm that eminent domain could be severely restricted. The California Redevelopment Association and other advocates geared up to kill the measures and in the closing days of the legislative session, Democratic leaders ginned up a strategy to cool off the anti-eminent domain fervor. They unveiled legislation that would place a two-year moratorium on the seizure of private homes (but not commercial property), and authorize a study of the practice, thus giving their members a chance, or so it seemed, to side with the anti-eminent domain sentiment without doing any real damage to redevelopment agencies.

Quietly, however, the moratorium bills were themselves put on the shelf as the session ended - with Democrats blaming Republicans. "With every vote, they tried to derail this prudent response," said Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, who carried one of the moratorium bills.

Kehoe's finger-pointing, however, was more than a little disingenuous since the stalled bills required only simple majority votes and thus needed no Republicans to go along. Clearly, this was a Democratic action, not a Republican one, perhaps just a feint to pretend to do something about eminent domain without actually doing anything to upset the apple cart.

Ironically, the only eminent domain-related bill to reach Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk was a measure that allows the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, which operates the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County, to join a joint powers consortium with local governments and the University of California to manage the 17,300-acre Conaway Ranch. While the county would purchase the land - or acquire it through eminent domain - the Rumsey Band has agreed to help finance the transaction.

Whether the tribe's interest in the Conaway Ranch is just an _expression of civic involvement, or it has some other, more commercial interest is yet to be discovered. But allowing a casino-owning tribe to even indirectly participate in an eminent domain action sets a potentially worrisome precedent.

Redevelopment Expansion Proposal for North Oakland

September 13, 2005

Dear Neighbor:

Last spring, city staff brought forward a proposal to expand the North Oakland Redevelopment area to include new areas west of Telegraph Avenue. At my urging, over the last several months, staff has brought this idea to community meetings around North Oakland to get input.

I have heard from a lot of people about the Redevelopment proposal, both at community meetings and here in the office. The response to the proposal has been mixed. Many people are excited about the potential for increased economic development in their neighborhoods, particularly along commercial corridors. Many others are concerned about the impact of redevelopment on the General Fund and fearful about the potential for abuse of redevelopment powers.

I have felt all along that to be successful redevelopment expansion would require broad community support. We have had significant community participation in the discussion about redevelopment and a lively debate but no consensus about moving forward. I therefore have concluded that the current proposal does not have the kind of support that it would need to be successful. I have requested City Staff to withdraw their proposal for expansion of the redevelopment area.

Thank you to everyone who participated in community meetings and enlivened this discussion.

Very Truly Yours,

Jane Brunner
Vice Mayor
Councilmember, District 1

Sale of car site to Mossy averts forced seizure

By Tanya Sierra
STAFF WRITER

September 14, 2005

NATIONAL CITY – A last-minute deal between Mossy Nissan and the owners of the property it leases was announced last night, just before National City officials were to vote on whether to invoke eminent domain to force a sale.

Without help from the city's Community Development Commission, Mossy Nissan will buy the 4 ½ acres it has leased from the Daily family since 1982 for $7.95 million and will finish out its lease, which has less than two years left.

"We've been a good neighbor for 23 years and we'll be here for a long time," Peter Mossy told the City Council, which also acts as the CDC board of directors.

Mossy Nissan had threatened to leave the lucrative Mile of Cars location if it could not acquire the Daily property, and asked the city to help it do so. In March, its real estate representative said it would pay no more than $7 million for the Daily parcel.

With the possibility looming that Mossy would leave National City, taking at least $1 million in annual property and sales taxes with it, CDC staff members began the eminent-domain process, which shook the public.

The Daily family believed it was wrapping up negotiations with Mossy Nissan when it received a letter from the CDC, which began the condemnation process.

Believing Mossy was working both sides – the Daily family and the city – for a lower price, the Dailys hired an attorney to take on the eminent-domain process.

"I'm pleased the parties could come to a meeting of the minds without involvement from the CDC," Daily attorney Anna F. Roppo said.

Lawrence Daily, the family spokesman, said the family made concessions worth about $3.5 million but was satisfied because ultimately a government entity was not forcing them to sell.

"We're trying to make the best of a bad situation," he said.

In the past, National City did well using eminent domain to erase bars and accompanying crime to clear a site for an education center on National City Boulevard.

In this case, however, many residents thought the city was meddling in a private matter and spoke out at council meetings.

Mayor Nick Inzunza, who has had an aggressive agenda for revitalizing the city in a relatively short time, said, "This is not an attempt to overuse our authority."

Property must be considered blighted in order for the city to seize it through eminent domain. In simple terms, law defines blight as property that is not economically viable and includes deteriorating physical conditions.

Even though Roppo knew about the last-minute agreement before the eminent-domain hearing began, she said, as a matter of principle, it was important to make a meticulous presentation objecting to the city's involvement and its description of the property as blighted.

City leaders said they are just as relieved not to have to engage in eminent domain.

"We're glad (the two) sides were able to come to an agreement," Vice Mayor Ron Morrison said. "We realize how sensitive the issue of eminent domain is."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050914/news_6m14mossy.html

Blight? Yeah right

National City badly abuses land-seizure law

Union Tribune Editorial
September 9, 2005

The city of San Diego, with its much-admired downtown ballpark and Horton Plaza projects, has long been the poster child for the wise use of eminent domain: the right of government to seize private property, with just compensation, for what it deems public benefit. But after two outrageous stories in two weeks, a pair of local government bodies may find themselves held up as poster children for eminent domain's misuse – and deservedly.

First came a report on the San Diego Model School Development Agency's push to seize and demolish 188 homes in the thriving City Heights neighborhood to build up to 509 town houses, condos and apartments more to its liking. The 30-acre site is far from the decaying neighborhood normally targeted in redevelopment, but blithe agency bureaucrats from the Soviet school of central planning – knowing they could call the area "blighted" if they chose – didn't care.

Then came yesterday's jaw-dropping story about National City's plan to use its powers of eminent domain to force the Daily family to sell a parcel the family leases to the Mossy family for one of its thriving car dealerships. After the two sides couldn't agree on a sales price, Mossy representatives made plain they would move their Nissan dealership – and the $1 million in annual sales and property taxes it generates for National City – unless the city helped close the deal. The City Council promptly caved in to Mossy's unsavory hardball tactics and, in its role as the city redevelopment board, began looking into seizing the land – after a mysterious epiphany in which members suddenly realized the site suffered from a heretofore undetected case of "visual blight."

Meanwhile, a Union-Tribune public records request proved that most of the council and a top city official had lied in claiming ignorance about the months of maneuvering over the Daily parcel.

What a sordid trifecta for National City's leaders: a simultaneous display of malfeasance, dishonesty and abuse of power. Yes, they should continue working to keep Mossy Nissan in town – but with a sense of shame over what they've already done and without more ugly threats to the Dailys.

If anything will sustain the public backlash seen in California to a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld local governments' right to use eminent domain solely for economic reasons, it is just the sort of official imperiousness seen in these two cases.

What's more, these stories also help demolish the claim of California redevelopment officials that state law – which requires a finding of "blight" before a property can be seized – made impossible the abuse seen elsewhere. But when blight means whatever an ambitious bureaucrat or the local car dealer wants it to, that's no protection at all.

No wonder state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, is confident his push for an initiative to sharply limit eminent domain will make the ballot and win. He doesn't even have to buy ads. All he has to do is sit back and watch the oblivious redevelopment bullies keep making his case for him – one crazy "blight" designation at a time.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050909/news_lz1ed9top.html

Showdown looms over eminent domain power

Timothy Roberts
Published: September 12, 2005
Silicon Valley Business Journal

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency is gearing up for a battle next year over the use of eminent domain in private developments.

The redevelopment agency, the largest in California, is concerned about a series of legislative attempts and two proposed constitutional amendments that would limit or even take away its power to take property and sell it to a private developer.

The legislative efforts have all bogged down in the last weeks of the legislative session that was expected to end as early as Sept. 8. But more than one of the four bills is expected to return next year.

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency says it rarely undertakes eminent domain proceedings, but that it needs that power to negotiate deals.

"Having it as a tool of last resort makes it clear that you are serious," says Patty Deignan, chief deputy general counsel for the redevelopment agency. "It gets people to listen to you."

Among the properties that the agency is attempting to buy now are the 14 acres south of Diridon Station to be used for affordable housing -- or a baseball stadium.

The use of eminent domain, the power of government to take property for roads, and dams and other public projects often stirs controversy. More controversial still are cases in which cities and redevelopment agencies take property in order to spur economic development.

After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latter use of eminent domain in a New London, Conn., case in June, California legislators jumped into the fray.

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, proposed a constitutional amendment that would prevent government from taking land and giving it to a developer for a private development.

Under McClintock's proposed amendment, the government entity that took the land would have to occupy it. It couldn't be turned over to an office or retail developer.

Mr. McClintock called the proposal "The Homeowner and Property Protection Act."

Another constitutional amendment filed by Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, would prohibit the taking of owner-occupied property for private use. And two other bills would declare a two-year moratorium on taking property for private use and call for a study of the use of eminent domain.

The McClintock amendment was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The other proposals were set aside for further study until next year. Mr. McClintock says he will reintroduce his proposal next year.

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency is gathering facts for a historic review of its own use of eminent domain so that it can testify against enactment of the limitations, Ms. Deignan says.

In announcing his proposal in July, Mr. McClintock said the Supreme Court decision "breaks the social compact that gives government its legitimacy. ... It used to be that if a widow didn't want to sell her home to a developer, she didn't have to. ... The government was there to protect her. Now government has become the thug."

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, a co-author of the McClintock bill, says the U.S. Supreme Court "made it easier for government to take property away from private citizens. That should be harder, not easier."

He says if the Legislature won't pass the constitutional amendment, he would support putting it on the ballot.

John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, calls the constitutional amendment "a nuclear bomb."

"This is a whole lot about politics and not much about policy," says Mr. Shirey. The association represents the state's redevelopment agencies.

The U.S. Supreme Court case (Kelo v. City of New London) had no impact on California, Mr. Shirey says. Here, as in most states, a condemnation cannot take place unless the government agency can show that the area to be taken is blighted.

"We have strong laws in California that strike a balance between redevelopment and property rights," he says.

The California Redevelopment Association was joined in its opposition to the bills by the California League of Cities.

The Santa Clara County Supervisors, however, sent a letter in support of one of the bills. Signed by Supervisor Liz Kniss the letter says the power of eminent domain should be used sparingly.

The county supervisors have often been at odds with the City of San Jose over its use of the redevelopment agency, which siphons off property tax revenue that the county says would otherwise go to schools and health care.

State Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, preferred less drastic means of limiting the use of eminent domain that a constitutional amendment. She coauthored two bills that would call for a moratorium and further study.

"Eminent domain has proven to be an important tool to address blight," she said in a statement to the Business Journal. "However, we need to ensure that government takes a balanced approach when it uses this very powerful tool."

Schools push way into land deal

Sharon Simonson
Published: September 12, 2005
Silicon Valley Business Journal

Regional educators -- from kindergarten to community college -- say they are being forced to elbow their way to the land-planning table for Coyote Valley after feeling cut off from the process for months and as though their interests were not a concern.

Gavilan Community College District President Steve Kinsella says he made multiple attempts to persuade the city of San Jose to integrate Gavilan into discussions about Coyote Valley but was unsuccessful, finally leading him to go it alone. The college is now operating outside the city's land-planning process, negotiating to buy 80 acres for a new 10,000-student campus in the heart of the proposed new mega neighborhood. The site is owned in part by Sobrato Development Cos. of Cupertino.

The college is not subject to city zoning requirements and has the power of eminent domain, so Mr. Kinsella has the capacity to pursue his own course, though he says he is trying to keep the city's perspectives in mind.

"The problem is they never planned on us from the beginning," Mr. Kinsella says.

But, "they're talking about adding thousands of people to the Gavilan service area," he says, "and we have to have a site there."

A chief aide to Mayor Ron Gonzales denies that the city has acted insensitively. The city was not aware that Gavilan was interested in locating in Coyote Valley until long after the regional land-planning effort began, says Joe Guerra.

"No one to my knowledge had any idea about Gavilan's plans before they approached us a year or so ago," Mr. Guerra says. "We immediately had a great meeting with them and told them to tell us what they were looking for."

The college deal, if consummated, complicates already difficult land-planning efforts in Coyote Valley. Even without the campus, Coyote had an extraordinarily tight development profile, with city officials attempting to squeeze 50,000 jobs and 24,000 homes onto five square miles. That space also must house all public infrastructure, including elaborate and land-intensive water detention systems to deal with regional flooding.

To accommodate the new campus and still maintain the 50,000-job promise, Coyote Valley land planners have had to re-jigger proposed development to create sites for more commercial space adequate for nearly 6,000 jobs, for instance.

"It's a tremendous puzzle to get it all to fit in, and if you lose land for schools or parks, that means you have to intensify what's left, which means that we have to start stacking people higher and denser and the fewer single-family detached homes that can be built," says Roger Shanks, a senior planner for the Dahlin Group, the consultant to the city of San Jose for Coyote Valley's land-planning.

About a quarter of the homes in Coyote now are expected to be detached, he says, but even those will be high-density with little or no yard.

Even the schools are feeling the pinch.

At 80 acres, the new Gavilan campus would be 20 acres smaller than the state prefers for community college campuses, a situation Mr. Kinsella says will invite a lot of questions from the state.

Meanwhile, the city has begun intense negotiations with the Morgan Hill School District to hammer out plans for the 12 or 13 new schools that Coyote Valley will need. Those talks also come after what Morgan Hill Deputy Superintendent Bonnie Tognazzini describes as a rocky start.

"Initially I was very concerned. I felt like we were chasing a train," she says. "They don't want to give up any land at all because they want it for development, and that's been part of the trouble."

With roughly 9,000 school-aged children expected out of Coyote and only 8,500 kids attending Morgan Hill Unified schools now, the new development has the potential to overwhelm the existing district. "That doubling makes it even more critical to get it right," she says.

The city also wanted a strong say in how schools in the district are configured, preferring fewer, larger campuses to the district's desire for more, smaller schools. The city also favored far lower projected student generation rates for the next 30 years compared to the school district's expectations.

But in the past several months, relations between the district and the city have improved, Ms. Tognazzini says. The two have managed to find common ground regarding elementary and junior high schools.

As with the community college, some proposed school-site sizes are below state preferences, though it's a hurdle that can be overcome.

"There is a (state) small-school site policy for urban settings, so you can get acreage pared down significantly, but if you have a small-school site, we would want to know how the district is going to deliver things like physical education," says Dave Hawke, a field representative with the school facilities planning division of the California Department of Education who earlier this summer spoke to Coyote Valley planners.

"Everyone needs to face that the bottom line is to get the kids educated," he adds.

Still, Ms. Tognazzini says lots of negotiating remains to be done on other issues.

Unsettled between the city and the school district is the question of high schools in the region -- whether there will be one or two -- and how large the high school or schools will be. A recent memorandum to the Coyote Valley Task Force from city of San Jose staff says that school campuses are being designed to allow for shared community use of their playing fields when kids are not in class. But Ms. Tognazzini says that statement should not be read to mean that the school district has agreed to such a plan.

One issue is whether the San Jose parks department would acquire additional land adjacent to the schools, as it has near others in the Morgan Hill district, or would rely entirely on the district property to execute its programs. The second scenario has the potential to create problems, she says.

"The district does not want to become the de-facto parks department. I'm afraid that if the only parks land is simply the schools' area, it will be very difficult for the parks department to operate without needing almost our entire facility and that can become a battle for space," she says.

Beyond that, she says, is the even thornier issue of financing construction of the schools. Developers typically pay only a third of the costs, leaving the district to find other ways to pay for the rest. There is no estimate yet of the new schools' price tag, she says.

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/09/12/story1.html

The Legislature fails, eminently

Orange County Register
September 1, 2005
Commentary

On Tuesday, California residents concerned about the abusive use of eminent domain learned a lesson that should be no surprise to anyone: The state's Democratic-dominated Legislature isn't about to take any serious steps to rein in the power of cities to take private property to benefit private developers and chain stores.

The Senate Judiciary Committee refused to send Sen. Tom McClintock's constitutional ban on the use of eminent domain for private benefit, SCA15, to the full Senate for consideration. The only two "yes" votes came from Republicans Dick Ackerman of Irvine and Bill Morrow of Oceanside. Chairman Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, who has talked a good game about protecting property rights, abstained from the vote.

The committee did vote, 5-2, in favor of a minor effort to put a two-year moratorium on eminent domain against owner-occupied dwellings, which is little more than an attempt to forestall a political problem, then let the redevelopment industry have its way with our neighborhoods once the matter is no longer foremost on the public's mind.

Other Democrats on the committee were even more hostile to reform. Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, questioned whether this was a real problem, and added, according to published reports, "Too often we legislate by hysteria." Well, the senator, who has used overheated rhetoric to promote driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other fringe legislation, certainly knows what he's talking about there.

California redevelopment officials denied that there is any eminent- domain problem, although reports in the Register and elsewhere debunk their words. Eminent domain is used and threatened by cities on a frequent basis, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June affirming the practice has created such a strong national backlash.

Clearly, a Legislature hostile to property rights will not heed the concerns of California citizens. A signature drive will soon get started to put SCA15 on the ballot. The redevelopment officials and legislators who support the eminent domain process will learn the depth of anger and disgust at such abuses once voters have a chance to make their voices known.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/09/01/sections/commentary/commentary/article_656932.php

Open Homes

Berkeley Daily Planet
September 2
Commentary: Seeing Through the Fads of City Planning
by Jane Powell

I think that in the beginning, redevelopment was either a good idea or an act of desperation. I believe it was initially spurred by massive disinvestment in inner cities in the East. I have to laugh when I hear redevelopment people in California talking about blight and abandoned buildings; do you know that Baltimore has 40,000 empty buildings? Oakland only has 80,000 buildings altogether. In any case, the good idea or act of desperation, once it was in place, turned out to be not so good. It led to “urban renewal”—the destruction of mostly historic and intact neighborhoods deemed “blighted,” and the removal of the residents. Eventually urban renewal fell from grace and was replaced by
new planning fads like: turning your downtown into a pedestrian mall, festival marketplaces, building aquariums, gambling facilities, or the current favorite, downtown baseball stadiums, and of course, “smart growth.” Because you have to understand, planning is subject to fads, and planners like to think big. Politicians like to think big, too, because it gives them big things to point at when they run for reelection.

Smart growth is the current fad, and they can all repeat the tenets like gospel: density in the inner cities will save farmland in the Central Valley, density near transit will get people out of their cars. Let me be clear: The only connection between density in the inner cities and farmland in the Central Valley is money- money for developers. The developer spouting the Smart Growth line at the Oakland Planning Commission is exactly the same developer who is paving over farmland in Ripon. And the same developer who is making large political
contributions to the city councilmembers who also just happen to be the
board of the Redevelopment Agency.

All that aside, my primary problem with redevelopment is that historic buildings are always the first thing to go. They are always the ones that are (and I’m quoting now from the California Redevelopment Association), “aging, deteriorating, outdated and inefficient building configuration and design that does not meet current business needs, vacant, underutilized, incompatible adjacent or nearby uses of land parcels that hinder economic activity.”

You should always run screaming when any politician or city planner uses the word “underutilized.”

No one ever tears down an ugly building from the 1970s to put in a parking lot, but the argument whenever someone wants to demolish a historic building is “It would cost too much to fix it.” On top of that is what I call “hate the building syndrome.” Most people simply cannot see beyond a bad use or bad tenants, so if a historic building was a crack house or a porn theater or a liquor store, or was allowed to run down by an uncaring owner, although it is not the building’s fault, everyone will say, “Oh yes, it’s so awful—tear it down!” And then
several thousand board feet of old growth timber will be sent splintered and useless to the landfill, and in its place will rise an overly dense building that dwarfs everything around it, built of crappy materials, that looks like hell inside of five years.

I find this particularly amusing because one of the “adverse economic conditions” listed under blight is “residential overcrowding.”

Redevelopment is not about giving homeowners low interest loans to fix up their houses. It is not about giving low interest loans to business people so they can open up bookstores or hardware stores or bakeries or shoe repair shops or other things that benefit the neighborhood. Rather, it’s about removing long time homeowners and existing businesses in order to assemble large parcels that can be turned over to developers.

And development is apparently the only business in which you can demand
a guaranteed profit, and refuse to do things you don’t want to do because they “don’t pencil out.”

Russell Baker said, “Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things.”

Half of Oakland is already IN redevelopment areas—the downtown area was recently renewed for another 30 years, because the first 30 years where we threw millions of dollars at the Warrior practice arena, the Oakland Ice Center, and everything else that was supposed to “revitalize downtown Oakland” didn’t work. Now we are prepared to spend $65 million at minimum, remove thriving small businesses through eminent domain, all in order to build a suburban-style apartment complex for the benefit of a developer from Cleveland, with no guarantee that it will revitalize downtown.

With the recent Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, no one is safe from eminent domain. Cities can take your property (or your landlord’s property) and give it to a private developer in the name of “economic development.” Oakland city officials are salivating over the possible tax increment money to be gained from annexing North Oakland to the existing redevelopment area. North Oakland is not blighted—that’s why they want it. The millions of dollars they will get from increased property taxes on houses that are selling for $600,000 to $800,000 will get sucked into the black hole of the MacArthur Transit Village or some other project that a developer is pitching to them even now, that will be a snowball rolling downhill before we even hear of it.

According to officials at the California Redevelopment Association, if Tom McClintock’s bill SCA15, the Homeowner and Property Protection Act, ever becomes law, they will be out of business. I suggest we should all do our best to make sure that happens.

Jane Powell is an Oakland preservationist.

Redevelopment Foes Challenge Oakland Project

Berkeley Daily Planet
August 28, 2005
Richard Brenneman

“Redevelopment is very simple to understand,” said Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby at Sunday’s community meeting on proposed redevelopment in Oakland. “It’s a land grab by corporate interests, big-box retailers and developers to grab land from people like you.”

“Always run screaming when you hear a politician or a developer call a property ‘underutilized,’” added Oakland preservationist Jane Powell.

“The residents of Oakland who don’t live in redevelopment districts will be picking up the tab,” said Anne Weber, a West Oakland resident.

“You have to start reading and following the issues,” said recent Oakland City Council candidate Pamela Drake, a self-described policy wonk.

Opponents of the proposed new redevelopment district in North Oakland
greeted the speakers Sunday with frequent bursts of applause. The conservative Southern California official gathered the most raucous approval.

The meeting was organized by project opponents Bob Brokl and Alfred
Crofts, along with others in the community.

One of the catalysts for Sunday’s gathering was the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which held that local governments can use eminent domain to force property owners to sell to private developers if a proposed project would benefit the public.

The court ruled that local governments needn’t make a finding of blight, the usual determination for invoking eminent domain for redevelopment, nor does it require a finding that the new project will succeed.

“Redevelopment” is the latest incarnation of what began as “urban renewal” in the late 1940s. It is a program proponents say will salvage run-down urban districts by channeling tax dollars toward projects designed to eliminate “blight.”

The district under consideration would target 800 acres of Oakland immediately south of the Berkeley border—a district many residents say is anything but blighted.

To be granted status as a redevelopment area, the City Council—sitting as the Redevelopment Agency—must make a specific finding that the area is blighted, a term so broadly defined that critics say it is basically meaningless.

Norby, a property rights traditionalist, said he sees redevelopment as a tool of the powerful using the force of the state to benefit the rich at the expense of home and small business owners.

He points to the case of Wal-Mart, which has benefited to the tune of $1 billion in redevelopment projects nationally over the last two decades, including $100 million in California. Sports team owners have won massive concessions under redevelopment, he said, citing the cases of Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis in Oakland and San Diego Charges owner Alex Spanos in San Diego.

“That’s wrong, and you have to stop it,” Norby said.

Land seizures and projects benefiting big box retailers and auto malls have become commonplace, Norby said, because local governments are desperate for sales tax revenues.

“Officials say, ‘We’ve got to get Wal-Mart, otherwise Berkeley or Emeryville or Albany will get it’,” Norby explained.

Of particular concern to many who gathered in the colorful building at 4799 Shattuck Ave. Sunday afternoon was the broad criteria that can be used to declare an area “blighted,” the key finding needed to establish and redevelopment district.

“If you aren’t enjoying your property to its ‘highest use,’ then they can take it,” Norby said. “So basically, you have no property rights.”

One of those who took up the microphone Sunday was John Revelli, whose 56-year-old family-owned tire shop was seized by Oakland’s Redevelopment Agency the day after the Kelo decision.

“It had been a very successful business. We treated out customers very fairly and we thought we could continue in business till we didn’t want to,” Revelli said. “But on July 1, they forced Tony Fung and myself out of business.”

Fung owned the Autohouse, a neighboring car repair business.

“The city said they needed the property to do trenching and soil testing,” Revelli said. “I’ve now joined the ranks of the unemployed, and not by choice.”

Also at the meeting was a contingent from San Jose’s Coalition for Redevelopment Reform, which is battling redevelopment projects in that city.

“We’re here because we’re united on this issue,” said Lorraine Wallace Rowe, the group’s chair. “This is not just an Oakland problem. Redevelopment is not just a local issue. Don’t let anyone fool you.”

Rowe said that after her initial shock at the Kelo decision, she realized the ruling was a powerful tool for redevelopment opponents.

“The court said that it was up to individual states if they wanted to make changes,” she said.

Attending a symposium of the California Redevelopment Association—the umbrella organization for redevelopment districts across the state—she said she heard an organization official declare that Kelo could mean the end to redevelopment in California.

“He said that if state legislation passed banning the taking of property to give it to someone else, they would have no power,” Rowe said, referring to pending legislation by state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks.

McClintock’s bill calls for a statewide referendum on a constitutional amendments that would bar the taking of private property for the benefit of private developers.

Among those in the audience Sunday were aides to several legislators and Oakland City Councilmember and mayoral candidate Nancy J. Nadel, who said she favors redevelopment in her West Oakland District.

Speaking briefly, she said that Sunday’s meeting “is the signal to me that redevelopment is not the necessary tool in this area. ... I’m here to implement what you people want in your community,” a remark that gathered considerable applause.

Rachel Richman, aide to Assemblymember Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, said the meeting was well timed to help her boss consider the legislation. She urged the audience to fax and e-mail legislators about the legislation and to share their own experiences with eminent domain.

Also on hand but not speaking was Taina Gomez, an aide to Assemblymember Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley-Richmond.

Judiciary Committe to Revisit SCA15

The Judiciary Committee will revisit SCA15. This gives everyone another opportunity to contact the members of the Judiciary committee to let them know you expect them to support SCA15 and send it to the Senate Floor. We are hoping that the members of the Judiciary committee will be able to provide callers with the information of when and where the meeting will be held. After calling the committee members offices several times on August 29th, we were not able to find out the time and place of the meeting until the actual morning of the meeting. This makes it very difficult for those interested parties to speak before committee members.

Use the information below, August 27, to continue to contact each and every member. Phone, write, fax today!!!!!!!!!

View the Judiciary Committee Hearing On SCA15

Couldn't make it Sacramento for the hearing? Want to hear what was said? Go to www.calchannel.com/search.htm

Enter the date of the hearing 083005
This will bring up a list including the Judiciary Committee
Click on Watch
This will open Windows Media
For some reason you have to fast forward 24:42 minutes into the file before the actual video starts. You can fast forward by clicking the fast forward button (double arrows near bottom right hand corner of Windows Media window). If you click it more than once it will go up to 5x speed. The clock will tick by......when it reaches 24:42 the video will start. Click the fast forward button again to play the file. SCA 15 is not the first item being discussed.