Senate & Assembly Committee Joint Interim Hearing on Redevelopment & Blight. Weingart City Heights Library, S.D.

Good afternoon honorable members at this joint session. I am Larry Gilbert, Orange County Co-chairman of Californians United for Redevelopment Education. Please check out our 45 minute video on Eminent Domain on our web site. www.califcurehome.com

Having attended college during the riots in Newark, New Jersey I know what blight looks like. Abandoned and burned out buildings and cars, high crime, high unemployment, rampant prostitution on major streets, etc. You get the picture. Now let's fast forward to the California Promise, also known as Mission Viejo where I currently reside. In 1992 we received an award for excellence from the prestigious Urban Land Institute which stated that "Mission Viejo stands as one of the most successful American new towns ever realized." That same year we declared our award winning city a slum, placing roughly half of our commercial zone, including our trauma hospital and community college, into an RDA project area. The photos on these exhibits were taken by me in 1996.
The question to each of you. Which of these areas is truly blighted?

AB 1290 describes conditions of blight. "Areas lacking proper utilization to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical AND economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment." Case in point. The renovation and expansion of the Mission Viejo Mall by Simon Property Group, the largest mall owners in America, whose pockets are much deeper than the city of Mission Viejo. Our city council, functioning as the RDA, authorized up to $85 million of Bonded indebtedness on their behalf. Simon stated that they needed our corporate welfare to satisfy a specific return on investment for their REIT eight months AFTER the renovation was underway. Where was the RDA project oversight? I visited Sacramento to challenge the legality of this project. In reviewing the facts Deputy Attorney General Marsha Bedwell stated that "while the timing and progress of the project may cast some doubt on the findings of blight, the statute makes judicial review of their adequacy extremely difficult."
As to public participation. As we did not have the right to vote on this debt we took League of Cities lobbyist Ken Emannuel's challenge and in three election cycles removed that council including a sitting mayor and mayor pro tem.

In his book entitled "Subsidizing Redevelopment in CA" Michael Dardia stated that Blight conditions need to be aligned with the goal(s) of redevelopment and should be more precise. With the financial incentive of tax increment revenues, blight conditions cannot remain in the eye of the beholder if redevelopment efforts are meant to target the most serious cases of blight. This means they must be more like the quantitative criteria used to determine eligibility for enterprise zones in some states. Criteria such as poverty rate of at least 20% of the population, 20% population loss in recent years, x percentage of the buildings or assessed value abandoned, y percentage of property taxes in arrears, or the crime rate z times the state average. If the redevelopment subsidies are to be targeted, blight must be judged more on an absolute than a relative basis.

Thank you for listening.

Larry Gilbert, O.C. Co-chairman Californians United for Redevelopment Education (CURE)
28302 San Marcos, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
email lgpwr@aol.com

PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT MOST OF BERKELEY LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO "TAKING" BY EMINENT DOMAIN

By Laurie Bright with Pat Devaney
Sept-Oct. 2005 issue of the CNA Newsletter--Council of Neighborhood Associations, Berkeley, CA

A Smart Growth "how to" handbook distributed to the faithful last year and paid for by the Bank of America confided that "due to fragmented land ownership around most (transit) stations, and the inherent risk for potential developers in taking on such sites, it is often necessary for local redevelopment agencies to assist in the acquisition and assembling of land through eminent domain."

Several State legislators, including Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, are quietly advancing several "Transit Village" (that's "Smart Growth" or redevelopment, euphemistically speaking) bills that would, if enacted, effectively eliminate informed public participation in decisions to establish new "Transit Village" Redevelopment project areas throughout Berkeley; make an absence of high-density, high-rise housing developments a "blighting condition under California Redevelopment Law"; and give the City absolute powers of "eminent domain" over large areas of Berkeley.

AB 691 (Loni Hancock)- This bill would enable cities to convert existing redevelopment plans and area specific plans to "Transit Village" plans with virtually no public participation in the establishment of such new "Transit Village" areas. Such areas would, from the onset, possess all the "drop dead" powers of eminent domain associated with redevelopment, but without redevelopment's bad odor.

The analysis of Hancock's AB 691 distributed by the State said, with remarkable perspicacity, "The bill lets local officials practice a bit of planning alchemy, converting existing plans into golden opportunities," golden, that is, for developers with entree to City Hall.

SB 5211 (Torlakson)--Changes the definition of blight to include "the lack of high density housing in a Transit Village." Torlakson says, any area that is predominantly owner-occupied single family, low density in character is, per se, "blighting."

Changes the area of a Transit Village from "within one quarter of a mile from a transit station," to "Within not more than one quarter mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on which the transit situation is located or, parcels located in an area equal to the area encompassed by a quarter mile radius from the exterior boundary of the parcel on which the transit station is located."

AB 986 (Torrico)--Would create a regional planning agency comprising the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Bay Area Air Quality District that would have the authority to establish "regional priority transit oriented developed zones."

The primary authority of this new planning bureaucracy would be to impose a property and business tax on major transit corridors in the Bay Region and to develop specific plans for these corridors and impose them on local cities.

A project in a designated zone would be eligible for an additional 5 percent density bonus over and above any density bonus otherwise allocated.

HOW IT WORKS

The cumulative effect of those three mischievous bills taken (together with then-Assemblyman Tom bates' 1994 "Transit Village" enabling legislation), would make the greater part of Berkeley subject to condemnation and taking by the City Council in "Transit Villages" to be established by the City Council.

Here's how it works. Define the "Transit Village" eminent domain target as widely as possible, i.e., all the properties within a 1/4 ile in all directions of the three Berkeley BART stations and the West Berkeley AMTRAK station. That's most of Berkeley!

Make a single act of the City Council, after a single public hearing, sufficient to convert any area specific plan (e.g., the Downtown Plan, the West Berkeley Redevelopment Project Area, etc.) or any existing redevelopment plan into a "Transit Village."

Endow the "Transit Village" with the absolute powers of eminent domain commonly associated with redevelopment.

Woody Guthrie wrote, "This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York Island. From the redwood forest, to the Gulf Stream waters, this land was made for you and me."

As far as the Smart Growthers who infest City Council and their developer allies are concerned, those lyrics are bunk. They believe that your land is their land whenever they choose to take it, and land's highest and best use is to make a profit.

Senate bill would blunt property ruling

"More than two dozen states are considering changes to eminent domain laws to prevent the taking of land for private development. In its ruling, the high court said states are free to ban that practice."

October 19, 2005 - Sacramento Bee

Reacting to a Supreme Court ruling, the Senate on Wednesday moved to bar some federal funds from projects where people's homes are seized for private development.An amendment to the transportation, treasury and housing spending bill would prevent any money in the bill from being spent on projects that seek to use the power of eminent domain to build shopping malls or other commercial developments.

"People should not be forced out their homes at the will of any private development," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who offered the amendment. The bill is expected to pass the Senate this week.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that local governments could take homes for private development projects that generate jobs and tax revenue. The decision was widely criticized by property rights groups and drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring wealthy corporations.

Since then, Congress has considered several measures to withhold federal funds from federal, state or local projects that take private property in the name of economic development. The House has approved legislation to bar federal transportation funds from being used in such projects.

Separately, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is pushing a bill that would ban the use of any federal funds in construction projects that rely on the Supreme Court decision to seize property.

Eminent domain is typically used for public works projects that benefit entire communities, such as highways, airports or mass transit projects. The measure approved Wednesday would continue to allow federal funds to be used when property is confiscated for public use.

Bond's amendment, adopted on a voice vote, also requires the Government Accountability Office to study the use of eminent domain.

More than two dozen states are considering changes to eminent domain laws to prevent the taking of land for private development. In its ruling, the high court said states are free to ban that practice.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2820587p-11464238c.html

Conference on Redevelopment Abuse

The MORR conference is in Oakland this fall.

Saturday, October 22, 2005
8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Park Plaza Hotel
150 Hegenberger Road, Oakland
Registration Fee; $65.00

More Information and Registration Form

"U.S. Conference of Mayors" Fighting Remedial Legislation Protecting Property Owners From Eminent Domain Consequences Following Supreme Court Ruling"

(Sept. 27, 2005) -- After filing a "Friend of the Court" brief that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against property owners in a precedent-setting eminent domain case, the "U.S. Conference of Mayors," now headed by LB Mayor Beverly O'Neill, is working to defeat legislation being advanced to protect property owners in the wake of the Court ruling.

The Mayors' group, a private organization funded in part by memberships paid by taxpayers from cities including Long Beach, has issued a memo via its Executive Director urging Mayors of member cities "not to support legislation restricting state and local use of eminent domain in promoting economic development" and to lobby Congressmembers accordingly.

http://www.lbreport.com/news/sep05/emdomay.htm