AgdaPkt 2005-09-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

¿/1; - /5 EMINENT DOMAIN from page 6 ....................................... committee, with little prior notice. The committee first took testimony on all the measures. All the members then had an opportunity to comment on the use of eminent domain in California and whether, based upon the testimony received, they believed there was a need to strengthen California laws governing the use of eminent domain. In presenting AB 1162, Assemblymember Mullin argued that his proposal for a temporary and focused moratorium combined with a study to gather the facts, was a reasonable alternative to the sweeping ban on all eminent domain actions where the public agency did not own and control the property. Mullin also strongly cautioned the committee to reject the emotional arguments of property rights advocates for a ban on the taking of private prop- erty for public uses, when that public use benefits other private parties. He described the essential role eminent domain played in revitalizing South San Francisco during his tenure as a city councilmember. He argued that the committee should not pass a measure such as SCA 15 because it will limit the ability of local governments to build much-needed affordable housing and restore the economic health of their communities. A number of committee members also ques- tioned whether or not a moratorium was neces- sary, given that a number of land use experts have opined that the Kelo decision did not change California law, which contains numerous provi- sions more stringent that those used in the Con- necticut decision. League Presses for Crucial Amendments. Neither the League nor CRA formally opposed AB 1162, but both organizations pointed out problems with the bill, not the least of which is that it will delay or kill some redevelopment projects in the state. Responding in part to these arguments, the committee passed the measure with the under- standing that the that it would be amended to narrow the application of the moratorium so that it would apply only to the use of eminent domain involving single family, owner-occupied homes. Other amendments will clarify the issues that should be addressed in the study to be under- taken by the Legislative Research Bureau during the two-year period that the moratorium is in effect. Assembly Passes SB 1026 (Kehoe). The Assembly Judiciary Committee also acted on eminent domain on September 1, passing SB 1026 on a vote of 6-2. The measure was taken up one day after a rule waiver was granted on the floor of the Assembly that allowed the Assembly Rules Committee to meet off the floor to pass the measure on to the policy committee. The plan appears to be for SB 1026 to contain language identical to AB 1162, and to move both bills. AB 1162 is expected to heard next week in Senate Appropriations; SB 1026 is slated for a hearing next week in Assembly Housing and Community Development and then Appropriations. Assemblymember Salinas is a co-author of AB 1162, and Senator Kehoe and Assemblymember Evans are principal co-authors. Assemblymembers Mullin and Salinas have similarly signed on to SB 1026 as principal co- authors. Mullin Exercises Leadership on Eminent Domain. City officials should thank Assemblymember Mullin for his thoughtful leader- ship on this critical issue. He has worked hard and very effectively to develop an approach that is clearly intended to slow down the misinformed anti-eminent domain juggernaut that has swept through the media since the Kelo decision some eight weeks ago. The League will continue to argue that there is no demonstrated need for the moratorium, given that this and all eminent domain-related bills are a political reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which had no effect on California laws. Visit the League's Official Website -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 7