Cities Accused of Accelerating Eminent Domain Actions

0

As cities face the prospect of losing the power to give developers private property seized through eminent domain, some people are charging that municipalities are speeding up condemnation proceedings in case a November initiative containing the restrictions passes.


The claim is that cities may be spooked by public support of Proposition 90, which would limit the government’s power of eminent domain only to “projects of public use” such as schools and roads. If passed, the state initiative is designed to go into effect immediately and is supposed to apply to eminent domain proceedings not yet completed.


“The smart agencies and cities are getting their condemnation actions on the record, doing resolution of necessity hearings, and getting offer letters done,” said redevelopment expert Larry Kosmont, president of Kosmont Cos., an Encino-based development services company. “The idea is to document a case as being as far down the road as possible so it applies under the old rules as opposed to the new rules.”


The measure would radically change the way redevelopment projects are undertaken in California. State law has long allowed cities to use their eminent domain powers to take land from private property owners and give it to private developers for projects such as shopping centers and housing.


A recent survey conducted by the Field Poll indicates that a plurality of voters backs the proposition, put on the ballot by property rights advocates. Other states, including Idaho, Montana and Arizona have similar measures on the fall ballot. Locally, at least one private property owner facing a land seizure is charging that his municipality has sped up condemnation proceeding against him.


Les Surfas, owner of Surfas Inc., a restaurant supply and gourmet food store, claims Culver City is making a quick grab at three of his properties that serve as his warehouse operations before the November election a charge the city denies.


Meanwhile, local city and redevelopment officials, as well as statewide redevelopment interests, say there is no way that cities could accelerate eminent domain proceedings, even if they wanted to.


“Lawyers have said to me that for anybody who is not near the end of their eminent domain transaction it would be fruitless to try to speed something up because there is simply not enough time under the procedures that must be followed,” said John Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, which represents redevelopment agencies across the state.


In Culver City, the municipality has plans for a private developer to build a mixed-use project on a nearly 2-acre site at Washington Boulevard and National Boulevard that includes Surfas’ 24,300-square-foot parcel.


Surfas operates his retail store across the street from the warehouse, and even though the store is not targeted, he said he could be forced to leave the city if the warehouse is taken because there is no viable replacement nearby. As part of the eminent domain process, the city’s redevelopment agency is required to look for an alternative site.


“I believe a lot of this is being ramrodded through because of (Proposition) 90,” said Surfas, who added that the city has only shown him one piece of for-sale property and he found it unsuitable. He acknowledges the city also has tried to show him property he can lease, but he doesn’t want it. Surfas said he feels the city is “pushing to get it done.”


Kellee Fritzal, economic development administrator for the city’s redevelopment agency, acknowledged that Culver City has used eminent domain four times this year more than it had in the preceding eight years combined, when it was used twice.


But she said that is simply a function of the fact the city is attempting to redevelop the “triangle area” where Surfas has his business and warehouse. “I don’t think there has been any rush, I don’t feel rushed,” Fritzal said. “I’m not working 80 hours a week trying to get things done before (the proposition) passes if it does. Am I concerned? Yes. But not about this project. I am concerned about projects down the line.”


Whatever the merits of Surfas’ case, others say that they have heard of cities moving condemnation proceedings along at a faster pace. “I have heard it both ways that cities are either expediting the process, which quite frankly is very challenging, and that cities have postponed their eminent domain proceedings to see the outcome in November,” said Marko Mlikotin, executive director of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, which supports the initiative.

No posts to display