AgdaPkt 2007-11-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 2 'Eminent Domain' Continued from Page 1... CPOFPA, a so-called "eminent domain reform" measure was analyzed by attorneys with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP, a Sacramento law firm that provides legal counsel to the Eminent Domain Reform Now Coalition, in which the League of California Cities participates. The analysis identifies in great detail the secretive and deceptive way the authors of CPOFPA set out to hide broad restrictions on zoning and other land use and environmental regulations, the ability of public entities to acquire property for public water supply facilities, and city and county affordable housing and rent control programs. The analysis closes with this conclusion: "Without a doubt, the CPOFPA is even more deceptive and draconian than Proposition 90 (emphasis added). With the exception of the rent control feature, the regulatory prohibitions concerning land use decisions and the prohibition against the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of property for the consumption of natural resources are hidden in the definition of private use. But the impact is nonetheless dramatic. Those obscure provisions are the only reference in the initiative to any form of "regulation" or prohibition against taking property for the "consumption of natural resources." Because of the prohibitory nature of the regulatory and eminent domain provisions, the initiative appears to be designed to shut down much of what government does to protect the public health, safety and welfare through the control of land use and the provision of water. If there is any doubt on that point, the initiative Constitutional amendment provides the express right to seek injunctive relief against any action that violates its terms." On Sept. 26, the League board of directors voted overwhelmingly to oppose CPOFPA and to support gathering signatures to qualify the Homeowners Protection Act for the June 2008 ballot. The Homeowners Protection Act (HPA) provides constitutional protection for homeowners from the use of eminent domain to acquire single-family homes for transfer to private developers. HPA is a direct and honest response to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and it contains no hidden, deceptive provisions. Recent polling by the Eminent . Domain Reform Now Coalition suggests HPA will be overwhelmingly supported by voters, while the fate of CPOFPA is more troubled because of its stealth agenda that does not concern eminent domain, such as invalidatinQ rent control, zoning, environmental regulations, and inclusionary housing programs. How You Can Get Involved City officials that want to help gather signatures in their private time for the Homeowners Protection Act are urged to contact their League Regional Public Affairs Manager. Copies of the legal opinion on CPOFPA are being sent to city attorneys and are available to other city officials upon request. Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager (look yours up at www.cacities.orqlleqresource~) or city attorney for a copy. 'Sign-Veto' Continued from Page 1... Below is a general roundup on the issue areas the League was working on in 2007. For a summary on specific bills, see "Legislative Session: How Cities Fared on Priority Bills" on Page 4. For detailed descriptions of the bills (including League letters), look up the measures at www.cacities.orq/billsearcf!. Land Use The League was extremely pleased that the Governor vetoed AB 414 (Jones) as the legislation' would have imposed restrictions on how cities plan for housing on non-residential zoned property. On the other hand, the League was disappointed with the Governor's veto of AB 1542 (Evans) 2