AgdaPkt 2006-07-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9A f 7 Page 8 REDEVELOPMENT rom page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The recent amendments return the ability of fees," which is current practice. (Note: In current agencies to aggregate the housing set-aside law, when a court determines that the public among project areas and remove the burdensome entity's offer was unreasonable and defendant's time-keeping requirements regarding housing fund demand was not, the public entity is responsible administrative costs. for the defendant's costs including litigation ex- penses.) AS 2922 was not heard in the Senate Judiciary . Following a notice of condemnation or an Committee during the last week of June, as offer to purchase "under a threat of eminent expected, and has been reset for a hearing on domain, n this bill requires the public entity to pay August 8. (Note: It was granted a rule waiver for the independent appraisal of the property by a making that possible since the bill wilf miss the licensed appraiser. Another proposed amendment legislative deadline for being heard in its policy will cap the appraisal cost at $5,000. committee.) . Prohibits an officer who is also a member of the governing body of an organization that has In the meantime, the League and CRA have an interest in, or to which the public agency may worked with Assemblymember Dave Jones and transfer an interest in, property that the public the bill's sponsors to achieve a compromise on agency may acQltire bY eminent domain. from AS 2922 that addresses affordable housing voting on any matter affecting that organization. without weakening redevelopment. As a result, CRA has removed its opposition to the bill. A provision in the bill that required an amend- ment to a redevelopment plan extending the time sa 1210 (Torlakson). This bill would revise limitation on exercising the power of eminent provisions relating to settlement offers when a domain to include findings of substantial remaining redevelopment agency is acquiring property as blight was deleted. part of a redevelopment plan. The League has been opposed to the measure, although the sa 63 (Kehoe) (Redevelopment Eminent League board of directors is expected to recon- Domain procedures). The League has a sider its position in light of recent amendments. "Watch" position on this bill. CRA's position is CRA is no longer opposed (although it is continu- "Neutral. n ing to work on technical problems in the bill). The bill passed the Assembly Housing & Commu- The Assembly Local Government Committee amended S8 53 to codify the finding in the recent nity Development Committee and the Assembly "Blue" court case, which concluded that agencies Judiciary Committee last week. It was amended must make new findings of blight to extend the again on June 15 and currently, its provisions do use of eminent domain past the initial 12-year the following: authorization in plans. . Makes it more time-consuming and difficult S8 53 was further amended to restore the 12- for agencies to obtain orders of prejudgment year time frame to use eminent domain and to possession. An exception is provided for public clarify that agencies must have a plan on how they utilities which are allowed an accelerated process intend to use eminent domain within the project in the event of an emergency situation. (Note: area. eRA has removed its opposition to the bill. It Discussions continue on broadening this erner- has been referred to Assembly Appropriations gency exception to cover more public agencies.) Committee. . Adds a definition for litigation expenses, which are .reasonable attorney's fees and costs, sa 1650 (Kehoe) (Eminent Domain, including reasonable expert witness and appraiser Change of use, lease back rights). Both the League and the CRA have a "Watch" position on Continued on Page 9 PAGE 8 . PRIORITY FOCUS VIsit the league's OffIcial Website..www.cacities.org July 7, 2006 . Issue #27 --