AgdaPkt 2006-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page 22 EMINENT DOMAIN from page 6 ....................................... . Makes legal challenges of redevelop- ment plans easier. The statute of limitations on an action challenging a redevelopment plan would be increased from 60 to 90 days. The Attomey General and various state agencies would be given the right to intervene in an action challenging the adoption of a redevelopment plan after the otherwise applicable time limits have expired. . Makes referendum of redevelopment plans easier. The time for submitting a referendum petition on an ordinance adopting or amending a redevelopment plan would be increased from 30 to 90 days. . Prohibits indemnity agreements. Agen- cies would be prohibited from requiring developers or project proponents from indemnifying the agency and the local govemment from the costs of defending lawsuits challenging the adoption, amendment or implementation of a redevelopment plan. This could expose the general fund of cities or counties with limited financial resources to potentially ruinous costs of defending meritless lawsuits from project opponents. . Treatment of antiquated subdivisions. The bill would eliminate: (1) the presence of anti- quated subdivisions as a stand-alone condition justifying a determination of blight and (2) the anti- quated subdivision exception to the requirement that redevelopment projects be predominantly urbanized. (CRA will not oppose this provision.) 581210 (Torlakson). The chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, a former chair of the Senate Local Govemment Committee. is carrying this bill, which will amend sections of the eminent domain law, which are applicable to all public agen- cies that use the power of eminent domain. There are a few provisions that relate more specifically to redevelopment agencies. The following is a brief summary of the major features of the bill: . "Private-to-private land transfers." The eminent domain law would be amended to provide that a public use does not include the taking of property in order to transfer it to a non-govemmental entity for the purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenues, except as specifically provided under the Community Redevelopment Law. This provision of the bill responds to the holding in the Kelo case while at the same time preserving the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies. . Stengthened Protections for Property Owners. The provisions of the eminent domain law dealing with orders for pre-judgment possession would be amended to make it easier for a property owner to obtain a stay of an order of prejudgment possession. This would be a problem where immediate possession of the property is critical. . Condemning Agency Pays Appraisal Costs. Condemning authorities would be required to pay the cost of the property owner's appraisal of their property, regardless of financial need. . Agencies penalized for below-market value offers. If the court detennines fair market value is greater than the public agency's last offer, the public agency would be required to pay twice the difference between the final offer and the market value. This would penalize agencies that take a responsible, conservative approach to the expendi- ture of public funds. It would encourage public agencies to make offers well in excess of fair market value in order to avoid the risk of this penalty, result- ing in a windfall to a few property owners at taxpayer expense. . Increased financial penalties If eminent domain proceedings halted. VVhere an eminent domain action is abandoned, dismissed for any reason, or there is a judgment that the public entity cannot acquire the property, the public agency would be required to pay three times the amount of all damages proximately caused by the proceeding. Cunent law requires payment of damages proxi- mately caused by the proceeding. The bill would create a penalty for abandoning eminent domain actions where, for example, a jury award of just compensation made the project financially infea- sible. Visit the League's Official Website-www.cacities.org Continued on Page 8 PRIORITY FOCUS. PAGE 7 February 3, 2006 - Issue 15