Legislation comes in response to U.S. Supreme Court decision
that has been criticized as a threat to private property rights
Gilroy – Two California legislators have proposed a two-year ban on the power of local governments to seize private property and hand it over to other private interests promising new jobs or tax revenues.
State assembly members Simón Salinas (D-Salinas) and Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) have jointly authored a bill that would ban the use of eminent domain for such purposes while state authorities look for potential abuses in the past. The bill would require the California Research Bureau to document all eminent domain proceedings in the last decade that involved government seizure of private land for use by other private entities.
“We wanted to take some time to look at how eminent domain is being used here by redevelopment agencies and local governments,” Salinas said. “We want to see if there is any potential for abuse and how to prevent such abuse.”
The legislation comes in response to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision that many have criticized as an unprecedented threat to private property rights. In this summer’s Kelo v. New London decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London followed Connecticut law when it took private property using eminent domain procedures and handed it over to New London Development Corporation, a private entity controlled by the city government.
The court ruled public use could encompass economic development, even private development, so long as it serves a public purpose.
Previously, the use of eminent domain had been restricted to the taking of private property for public use, like building roads and sewers or for the redevelopment of blighted areas.
Salinas has followed the Supreme Court’s decision closely and says that what happened in Connecticut will not necessarily happen in California. But, he wants to make sure there is a problem with the current law before proposing legislative changes.
If the study proposed by his bill shows that eminent domain has been abused, Salinas said he would work to ensure such practices are stopped.
On the other hand, if the study shows eminent domain is not being misused and private land owners are not in jeopardy, further legislation would be pointless, he said.
Gilroy has used eminent domain sparingly in the past, generally to seize small portions of property to widen roads and walkways. City officials may invoke the power to seize land for the future arts center, slated to open in 2008 off Seventh and Monterey streets. That project, however, represents a traditional use of seizing private land for public use, as the arts center will remain city-owned property.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage supported the Salinas-Mullion bill, saying he doesn’t “agree with taking private property from one private entity and giving it to another.”
He added, however, that if the study does not turn up abuse, “there’s no need for new laws. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
The bill, SB 1026, passed Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday and will move to the Appropriations Committee. Salinas said the bill may be changed slightly based on the recommendations of the Judiciary Committee. He said landowners need not worry what will happen while the bill wends its way through the assembly.
“The issue has been raised and everybody is watching,” Salinas said. “(Landowners) can rest assured, that type of abuse will be prevented.”
Salinas believes the rights of landowners must be balanced with the needs of the community in which they reside.
“It’s a balancing act,” Salinas said. “As an elected official you have to balance the interests of both.”
To follow the status of SB 1026, visit the state’s legislative information Web site at www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
By Brett Rowland Staff Writer. Staff writer Serdar Tumgoren contributed to this story.
