Gilroy
– A Supreme Court case involving the use of eminent domain could
tie the hands of Gilroy and other cities looking to seize private
property in the future, but it appears unlikely the case will
affect the city’s efforts to obtain land for its proposed arts
center.
Gilroy – A Supreme Court case involving the use of eminent domain could tie the hands of Gilroy and other cities looking to seize private property in the future, but it appears unlikely the case will affect the city’s efforts to obtain land for its proposed arts center.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in the case of Susette Kelo versus the City of New London, Conn. The Kelo case has grown from an economic development deal struck between Pfizer and New London leaders, who are eager to generate new jobs and much-needed tax revenues. The pharmaceutical giant agreed to build a new facility nearby, if the city seized land occupied by Kelo and her neighbors and handed it over to a private developer to build condos, a hotel, an office building for biotech companies and other projects to compliment the Pfizer facility.
“This case is about instances where the city takes property from one set of private owners simply to hand it over to another set of private owners in the hopes that it will generate increased taxes and jobs,” said Lisa Knepper, communications director for Institute for Justice, the nonprofit advocacy group that has filed the lawsuit on behalf of Kelo and her neighbors. “We believe that these kinds of abuses are clearly beyond what constitutes a public use.”
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.
Earlier this month, Gilroy officials moved forward with seizing nearly two acres of property needed for a future arts center, off Seventh Street between Eigleberry and Monterey streets.
“The process that we’re utilizing should be reserved for the needs of the community, not the wants of the community,” argued Craig Gartman, the lone city council member who voted against using eminent domain. He said a government should only use the legal procedure, which amounts to a forced sale, when the city needs “roadways, waterwell sites – things where you say we have to use this land, where there is no other site the city can use.”
A citizen committee recommended three locations for an arts center, including the vacant Cannery site now slated for an apartment complex and retail stores, but officials ultimately settled on the Seventh Street site, across from the Caltrain station.
Alan Viarengo, a 40-year resident and self-described property rights advocate, called the city’s tactics “completely inappropriate. Every city councilman who is supporting this should have his land taken from him and given chump change for it.”
He said the city should only seize land when “there’s an absolute need, like for a road or sewage.”
Gilroy has used eminent domain sparingly in the past. The few cases in recent years that actually reached a courtroom involved instances in which the city required private property to expand roadways.
Local governments across the country used eminent domain more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002 to seize private property, according to an April 2003 study by the Institute for Justice.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments could seize private land for purposes of “urban renewal.” The Institute for Justice has called the Kelo suit the most important case in 50 years, one in which “the rights of all home and business owners hang in the balance.”
While the outcome will clearly affect the ability of all local governments to use eminent domain in the future, it appears unlikely a decision will have bearing on the arts center.
The Kelo case involves a city taking land from one private party and handing it to another private party, justified on the grounds that such a land grab benefits the public. The Gilroy case is more traditional insofar as the city will remain the owner of the land and simply lease the facility to a nonprofit organization for the public’s benefit.
“This is a completely different scenario,” Gartman said. “You have private citizens who, it appears, do not want to sell their land. And you have a public agency that wants to buy it for the community’s benefit.”
Even Gartman cast the local situation less as an epic struggle over property rights than about money.
The Oyao family has so far turned down the city’s offer of $310,000, plus $50,000 in relocation benefits, for two homes on .2 acres of land along Seventh Street. Their property lies directly on the spot slated for the arts center auditorium. Property owner Loi Dong has rejected the city’s offer of $97,000 for his boarded up Chinese food restaurant, at 7347 Monterey St. His own appraiser has valued the property, slated for an art gallery and garden, at more than $300,000. The city has also failed to reach a settlement with Marko Gera, who owns two storefronts on Monterey Street and the bulk of vacant land along Eigleberry Street, which will provide parking for the arts center.
Gartman felt the city bungled the entire process by tipping its hand too early and announcing the Seventh Street site as its only choice.
“We negotiate from a losing position at that point because they know we want that land,” Gartman said. “If I were the landowner, I would want to be the last one at the table, because the city has to buy that land … We made a decision on a location in public, so those landowners know and can say, ‘Gee, you want my land – it’s going to cost a lot of money.’ ”
