Eminent Domain Report

As originally reported by Robert Thomas at inversecondemnation.com, a petition for certiorari was filed asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address "[w]hat category of takings are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, and when is the risk of undetected favoritism so acute that an exercise of eminent domain can be presumed invalid?"  While Justice Kennedy brought this issue to the national stage when he raised the possibility of such conduct in a recent concurrence, as of today, and likely tomorrow, the question remains unanswered. 

In Kelo v. City of New ...

The battle continues over redevelopment in California.  Yesterday, the Attorney General filed an "Informal Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate."  The document is 20 pages long, with a 4-page list of Legal Authorities, so it really isn't very "informal"; still, that's what she called it.

Not surprisingly, Attorney General Kamala Harris takes the positions that:

1. AB1X 26 and AB1X 27 are constitutional, and
2. The CRA has not justified a stay in their enforcement. 

The Attorney General does not challenge the CRA's decision to file its lawsuit directly in the California Supreme ...

While Governor Brown's push to eliminate redevelopment agencies seemed to drag on forever, California's redevelopment agencies were not so slow to act once the long-contemplated ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 became law.  On Monday, the redevelopment agencies filed suit directly in the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn the recent enactments.

The redevelopment agencies are represented by the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities.  San Jose and Union City also joined in the lawsuit claiming they will face elimination since they cannot make the ...

When dealing with regulatory takings claims, we've covered in the past the maze of procedural landmines that await a property owner.  We've once gone so far as to describe it as resembling "Alice's trip through Wonderland, with the parties falling in and out of state and then federal court (instead of a rabbit hole) based on procedural and substantive rules that often seem as logical as the Mad Hatter's recitals at the Tea Party."  Could one of those major obstacles disappear, allowing land owners a more direct shot at a regulatory takings claim in federal court?  The US Supreme Court could ...

For months, we've been reporting on the impending death of California's redevelopment agencies.  Even we had started to feel like the "boy who cried wolf" as we reported on iterations of the Governor's budget plan that didn't come to fruition. 

But this time, it's real.  Along with an overall budget package, this week the Governor signed into law ABX1 26 and ABX1 27.  ABX1 26 eliminates redevelopment agencies in California.  ABX1 27 provides a means of survival if the agencies will pay the state, collectively, $1.7 billion next year (the savings the Governor claims ABX1 26 would generate by ...

When last we posted on the topic (see Days that Make Being an Eminent Domain Attorney Exciting: More Redevelopment Developments), the bills that would end redevelopment in California as we know it, AB 26x and AB 27x, had been passed by both the Assembly and Senate, but were left hanging when the Governor vetoed the main budget bills.  It was unclear what life, if any, these budget trailer bills had absent a budget.  The Legislature therefore simply held them without forwarding them to the Governor for his signature.  They have remained in a state of procedural and legal limbo for ...

It's not often we go an entire week without a blog post, but last week was a bit hectic on our end.  Here's a few California eminent domain and infrastructure updates from throughout the week:

• San Bernardino Eminent Domain:  In its article "IVDA approves eminent domain for Tippecanoe widening," The Riverside Press-Enterprise is reporting that the Inland Valley Development Agency has authorized moving forward with eminent domain to acquire 461 square feet of property in San Bernardino near the north east corner of Tippecanoe and Central Avenue as part of a street widening effort ...

We're trying to keep on top of the developments over the future of redevelopment in California, but by the time we can get something drafted and posted, the story has already changed.  Here's a quick recap of what we know (and what we don't):

• Back in January, Governor Brown announced plans to eliminate California's redevelopment agencies as part of his plan to fix California's budget woes. 
• After several heated legislative sessions, bills to accomplish the Governor's proposal repeatedly fell a single vote short in the Assembly.
• In the aftermath of the failure to pass the Governor's plan ...

Yesterday, after heated floor debates, both the Senate and Assembly passed the two-bill package to end redevelopment as we know if.  In the Senate, the two bills each eked out the requisite 21 votes, with the final tally being 21-15. In the assembly the bills passed with the more comfortable margins of 51-23 for AB 26x and 47-28 for AB 27x.

Interestingly, these bills did not pass on party line votes, with some Democrats voting no and some Republicans urging a yes vote. A heated confrontation occurred when Assemblymen Don Wagner, R-Irvine compared provisions which compel redevelopment ...

It has been rumored for some time that a two bill strategy to eliminate redevelopment has been in the works.  Bill #1 would eliminate redevelopment agencies as of a specific date and bill #2 would exempt any redevelopment agency from elimination if it makes specified payments for the state. 

The text of those bills has now been released.  As predicted, Bill #1 (SB 14x / AB 26x) would, immediately upon enactment, suspend most agency activities including the issuance of new bonds, entering into new contracts, acquiring or disposing of properties, or taking other actions beyond the ...