Eminent Domain Report

We're taking our show on the road!  In case you missed our webinar on the California Supreme Court's decision in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, or if you just want to see our fantastic presentation skills in person (not sure what's wrong with you, but ok...), we hope you'll join us at the International Right of Way Association Chapter 57's monthly luncheon on January 11, 2012. 

IRWA Chapter 57's monthly luncheons typically begin at 11:30 a.m., and they take place at Canyon Crest Country Club at 975 Country Club Drive, Riverside, California.  Here's the ...

We're gearing up for our webinar tomorrow on the Supreme Court's decision last week upholding ABX1 26, but striking down ABX1 27.  I will be moderating a panel that will include my colleagues Gale Connor, Brad Kuhn, Jeff Stava and Jennifer Capitolo.  

We'll also be joined for additional commentary by former California Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman and former Los Angeles County Counsel Bill Pellman. 

We're going to spend about an hour talking about the law and how it will be implemented.  We'll also take questions - and even do our best to answer them.  If you already ...

Yesterday, we reported briefly on the Supreme Court’s decision in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos.  As many of you undoubtedly know by now, the outcome was the nightmare redevelopment agencies feared most, but that many (including us) had forecast after listening to oral argument last month. 

The Court upheld ABX1 26, allowing the dissolution of California’s redevelopment agencies to proceed, but struck down ABX1 27, the voluntary buy back program that would have allowed redevelopment to continue.  In particular:

• The Court had little difficulty upholding ABX1 ...

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, the case challenging ABX1 26 and ABX1 27.  In a decision foreshadowed by the tone of last month's oral argument, the Court upheld ABX1 26, but struck down ABX1 27 as a violation of California's Proposition 22:

• "Assembly Bill 1X 26, the dissolution measure, is a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state Constitution."
• "A different conclusion is required with respect to Assembly Bill 1X 27, the measure conditioning further ...

It's Christmas Eve Eve here in Southern California.  Our chances for a white Christmas seem small; as I look out my window, I see bright sunshine and know the temperature is in the 70s.  Still, it's easy to see that the holiday season is in full swing.

If you are in need of some last minute shopping ideas and don't know what to get the eminent domain practitioner on your gift list, there are some great choices to be found.

Perhaps the most all-inclusive option comes to us through the Institute for Justice.  Its "Rally in a Box" comes complete with stickers, posters, signs, and six ...

Yesterday, we wrote about the Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente decision.  For more information on the decision, see the following:

• Man Bites Dog! California Property Owner Wins Regulatory Taking Case in the California Court of Appeal, a blog post by Gideon Kanner on Gideon's Trumpet;
• Either Reverse Your Unconstitutional Spot Zoning, Or Pay. Your Choice, by Robert Thomas on his inversecondemnation.com blog; and
• Eminent Domain: Winning Owner In Inverse Condemnation Battle Cannot Recoup Fees By Attorney Owner Or Reap A Fee Multiplier Request, a piece in ...

Last April, we reported on a bizarre case arising out of the City of San Clemente's attempt to down zone a piece of property.  The trial court had concluded that the down zoning constituted a taking and ordered the City to rescind a decision supported by that down zoning.  The City had denied an application to develop the property because the application did not conform to the current general plan and zoning ordinance (the City seems to have sidestepped the fact that the development applications included applications to amend the general plan and zoning). 

In addition to a writ of mandate ...

The debate over the extensions of some of the Bush-era tax cuts have been making national news for some time.  It's splattered all over the newspaper and has its own running commentary on the political talk shows. 

But today, there's a different twist for those of us who deal with eminent domain.  Congress is debating the extension of the payroll taxes yet again, but this time, a major eminent domain issue is wrapped up in the fray.

Specifically, Republicans in Congress had said they planned to couple the extension of the tax cuts with a requirement to fast-track approval of a ...

One of the peculiarities with California's eminent domain law lies with the way it addresses situations in which an agency makes a deposit of probable compensation in a case in which one or more of the defendants raise a right-to-take challenge. 

The issue came to a head yet again, with the California Supreme Court holding that a lender's withdrawal of a condemnation deposit does not result in a waiver of the property owner's right to take challenge.  The decision, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transpiration Authority v. Alameda Produce Market (November 14, 2011), chronicles the long ...

Before a public agency can exercise the power of eminent domain, it must adopt a resolution of necessity making certain findings in support of the taking of property.  The resolution defines the scope of the agency's acquisition, and the agency is typically prevented from contradicting the terms of the resolution in the eminent domain action.

There is a delicate balancing-act in drafting the scope of the taking in the resolution.  If the scope is too narrow, the agency may ultimately need to go back and acquire additional rights or property.  On the other hand, if the scope is too broad, it ...