Welcome

Eminent Domain Reforms Imminent

By Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate)

This summer marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London decision, which ignited a nationwide debate focusing on government abuses of eminent domain. 

While California law only allows the use of eminent domain to convey property to a private party for the purpose of eradicating blight, nonetheless California voters have become much more attune and negative to any use of eminent domain – even legitimate uses.

That’s why I have joined with the League of California Cities and a broad coalition of counties, homeowner groups, small business organizations, environmentalists, labor and public safety officials and introduced a package of strong new eminent domain reforms.

Without question the "eminent domain" issue and related reform measures have dominated the city agenda since the Kelo decision was handed down just over two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. In California, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) is championing the state legislatures efforts of local governments seeking greater protections for property owners. The following article, written for Californiacitynews.org, represents the Assemblyman's thoughts on legislation he's authored (ACA 8).

As always, your comments are encouraged.
- Mike Madrid

Eminent Domain Reforms Imminent

By Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate)

This summer marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London decision, which ignited a nationwide debate focusing on government abuses of eminent domain. 

While California law only allows the use of eminent domain to convey property to a private party for the purpose of eradicating blight, nonetheless California voters have become much more attune and negative to any use of eminent domain – even legitimate uses.

That’s why I have joined with the League of California Cities and a broad coalition of counties, homeowner groups, small business organizations, environmentalists, labor and public safety officials and introduced a package of strong new eminent domain reforms.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 and Assembly Bill 887 strike directly at the heart of the Kelo decision and give California homeowners and small businesses unprecedented new protections against the use of eminent domain for private development.

ACA 8 would constitutionally prohibit the use of eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home, townhome or condo if the purpose is to transfer that property to a private developer.  ACA 8 protects the sanctity of homeownership by placing these strong new protections into our state constitution.

I believe that small business owners also deserve added protections from eminent domain. ACA 8 and AB 887 would work in tandem to tilt the scales back in favor of small businesses when it comes to the use of eminent domain for redevelopment.

ACA 8 gives small business owners the first right to participate in a new development plan before eminent domain can be used to eliminate blight. Even if the government’s actions are for the good of a community -- to revitalize a rundown, blighted neighborhood, for example – I believe a small business owner should first be given the opportunity to join in the revitalization.  ACA 8 locks this guarantee into our constitution.

If the small business does not participate in the revitalization plan, AB 887 substantially increases the amount of money the government is required to pay to relocate, or buyout, the business. This includes paying for the fair market value of the property, as well as enhanced relocation and reestablishment expenses. These expenses include paying for any increase in their rent or mortgage costs for up to three years. 

If the small business cannot relocate and instead must be bought out, this measure requires them to be compensated for the fair market value of their property, plus 125% of the value of the business. Clearly, this is a generous standard, but one I believe is fair for the smallest of California’s entrepreneurs.

I recognize that this package goes further than many local government officials would like. However, any reform must be meaningful and provide strong protections to pass the smell test with the legislature and the voters.

If we do not act now to provide voters with honest eminent domain reforms, then we will continue to be vulnerable to dishonest reforms – like the recently failed Proposition 90 – which uses the eminent domain issue as a stalking horse to enact a much more extreme anti-government agenda. My package contains strong protections, but will continue to allow for the use of eminent domain to revitalize the most downtrodden, rundown neighborhoods in need of redevelopment.

Two thirds of the legislature must act to place the constitutional measure on the ballot. I am hopeful that I will be joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give the voters the chance to put these strong new protections into law.

Two years after the controversial Kelo decision, it’s time to give California homeowners and small businesses the strongest protections our government can provide.