Laserfiche WebLink
9,� i� <br /> �or►Rt ar <br /> :�� ��°, <br /> i ��""' f <br /> h � <br /> ♦ � �' <br /> �� s�N'� <br /> Treatment of Property Owners in Redwood City <br /> Redevelopment Project <br /> Issue <br /> Did the Redwood City Redevelopment Agency give fair and equitable treatment to the <br /> property owners who were evicted by the Retail/Cinema Complex development project? <br /> Background <br /> The use of eminent domain in redevelopment projects has long been an emotionally and <br /> politically charged issue. Private property is the very foundation of our free society. Our <br /> United States Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that "nor shall private property <br /> be taken for public use, without just compensation." Governmental entities, such as <br /> redevelopment agencies, should always exercise caution in eminent domain proceedings <br /> and should err on the side of fairness with their citizens in such proceedings. At the same <br /> time, well-planned redevelopment projects on properties acquired in a fair and legal <br /> manner can serve well the needs of the public. <br /> The treatment of property owners in eminent domain cases is covered in California <br /> Government Code Section 7260.5(b): "This chapter establishes a uniform policy for fair <br /> and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct result of programs or projects <br /> undertaken by a public entity. The primary purpose of this chapter is to ensure that these <br /> persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs and projects <br /> designed for the benefit of the puUlic as a whole and to minimize the hardship of <br /> displacement of these persons." <br /> In 2003, the Redwood City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) condemned a set of parcels to <br /> allow a private developer to build a privately owned development project known as the <br /> Retail/Cinema Complex on the site. The focus of the Grand Jury investigation was not in <br /> the complex details of the condemnation, which resulted in a winning lawsuit by one of <br /> the property owners, but rather in the reported insensitive treatment by the RDA of the <br /> property owners who were displaced. The Grand Jury wanted to ascertain whether these <br /> property owners had "suffered disproportionate injuries" in the course of the eminent <br /> domain negotiations. <br /> 3 <br />