Subscribe to RSS Feed Subscribe to Comments RSS Feed Subscribe ATOM Feed


California High Speed Rail Project: Relocation Considerations for Displaced Businesses, Farms and Non-Profits

The California High Speed Rail project has been slowly, but surely, picking up its pace of property acquisition in the Central Valley. So far, the State Public Works Board has adopted 192 resolutions of necessity declaring the CHSRA’s intent to file eminent domain actions in court to acquire properties.  Last month alone, CHSRA approved resolutions of necessity for 16 more parcels and approval was pending for 14 more parcels. This month, the State Public Works Board considered the adoption of resolutions for 23 more parcels.

Although CHSRA has a long way to go in acquiring the bulk of the land it requires in the Central Valley, many Central Valley residents and businesses are currently facing acquisition and relocation, and are entitled to seek compensation for both. For acquisition of commercial property, including farms and nonprofit organizations, owners may be challenged with relocating their businesses, including equipment and personal property connected to the functionality of the business.

In an effort to aid in the process of relocation CHSRA has created two programs for businesses, farms and nonprofit organizations. The first program, the Relocation Advisory Assistance Program, is to aid commercial property owners in finding suitable replacements for their property. The second program, the Relocation Payments Program, is intended to aid in getting commercial property owners reimbursement for certain costs such as moving and related expenses, reestablishment expenses, and in lieu payments.

The relocation program may pay for actual reasonable moving expenses and related expenses, with limitations, that can include:

  • transportation of personal property
  • packing and unpacking
  • disconnecting and reconnecting personal property related to the operation of the business
  • temporary storage
  • expenses related to finding a replacement location
  • license, permits and fees required for the replacement location
  • some professional services used in the relocation process

However, difficulties can arise for commercial business owners who have equipment or other personal property which is complicated or impossible to either move or replace. In a recent article in Right of Way magazine, relocation expert Darryl Root explained the importance of understanding the regulatory authority of the Code of Federal Regulation part 24 which governs Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition programs. CRF §24.301(g)(3) reads:

Eligible actual moving expenses. Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling relocated household appliances and other personal property. For businesses, farms or nonprofit organizations this includes machinery, equipment, substitute personal property, and connections to utilities available within the building; it also includes modifications to the personal property, including those mandated by Federal, State or local law, code or ordinance, necessary to adapt it to the replacement structure, the replacement site, or the utilities at the replacement site, and modifications necessary to adapt the utilities at the replacement site to the personal property.

Root emphasizes that relocation professionals should be attentive to appraisals that include the value of equipment or other personal property as part of the real property. Some personal property, however, does not add overall value to real property and it may be a disservice to the business owner to include the personal property as part of the real estate value. It should be noted that this may not apply to properties where the highest and best use of that property is the existing business. In these situations Root states that the fair market value of the property may properly include the personal property as part of the real property. Therefore, if the displaced business sells its property to the displacing agency with the determination that the highest and best use of the property is the existing business, and personal property is included as part of the real property appraisal, then some relocation payments may not require to be paid to the displacee.

Root suggests that it is important to speak to a relocation professional to understand all of the consequences, regulations and financial impacts of relocating a business and personal property related to the operation of the business. We’ll take it a step further. The various items of compensation to which property or business owners are entitled in acquisitions under threat of eminent domain are complex and interrelated. It is a potential minefield, and trying to deal with CHSRA (or any other government agency threatening eminent domain for that matter) without full knowledge and understanding of the laws and regulations governing such acquisitions can put owners in the position of potentially leaving tens of thousands an even hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table. At California Eminent Domain Law Group, we are experts in understanding these laws and regulations, and putting them to work for owners rather than against them, to maximize the overall compensation to which property and business owners are entitled. We can be reached for a free initial consultation at (559) 697-6779, or see our website at

Proposition 13: Property Tax Roll-Over in Eminent Domain Cases, 8/20/14

In 1978, California’s Proposition 13 created security for home owners by limiting property taxes to one percent of the property’s value with a maximum two percent increase for inflation of the property value in a year. The property tax is reassessed when the property is being sold or if certain improvements on the property increase the property’s value.

In 1982, Proposition 3 was passed to protect those who are forced to purchase a replacement property when their property has been taken through the process of eminent domain. By freezing the base value of the property tax, those who are inclined to replace their property are ensured that the property tax they used to pay for their condemned house is rolled over to their new property.

The recent issued case of Olive Lane Industrial Park, LLC v. County of San Diego, heard in the California Fourth District Court of Appeals, dealt with the interpretation of Prop 3 and 13. In this case, Olive Lane lost its industrial park to the County of San Diego through the process of eminent domain. It eventually purchased a replacement property and asked for the County Tax assessor to transfer the property base value of the previously owned land. The tax assessor denied their petition on the basis that the 4-year statute of limitations under the state tax code had expired. Although the purchase of the new property occurred before the statute of limitations expired, Olive Lane had not requested the transfer of the base value for the property until five and a half years after the eminent domain process concluded.

The court noted that the state tax code was unclear in cases like Olive Lane where a property is purchased before the statute of limitations expires but the petition for base value transfer is made after the statute of limitation passes. The court turned to Proposition 3 to help answer the matter. Proposition 3, which now is incorporated in the article XIIA of the California Constitution, does not specify time period in which to initiate or complete a transfer request. Therefore, the court held that the statute of limitations is non-mandatory; the purpose of Proposition 3 was to treat eminent domain cases as outside a typical purchase of property.

The court also noted that the statutory purpose of the proposition was to allow those whose property has been taken through eminent domain to maintain the same base value for their new property, upholding an important constitutional right.

By: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, the managing partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit

Pre-Condemnation Entry: Procedure Can Be Unconstitutional, 4/25/14

The Third Appellate District Court of Appeals has ruled that pre-condemnation entry on to the property an agency is seeking to condemn may be unconstitutional. If upheld, it will ultimately create significant obstacles for agencies to overcome in attempts to progress with eminent domain actions.
Historically, California law entitled agencies to enter properties “to make photographs, studies, surveys, examinations, tests, soundings, borings, samplings, or appraisals.” The pre-condemnation entry statutes were enacted in 1976 and have allowed agencies to obtain a court order allowing testing of the property prior to condemnation.

The case that turned the tables, Property Reserve, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of San Joaquin County, challenged the agency’s entry stating that the testing and investigations planned by the agency constituted a taking. In this case, the State of California was seeking to construct a tunnel to transport water. In order to do so the State needed to conduct specific environmental and geological testing. Such testing included drilling myriad borings up to 200 feet deep on the properties and inspecting the properties over a one year period. The property owners argued that they were entitled to just compensation for the investigations because they constituted a taking. The State of California petitioned for an order for entry but the courts ruled that the proposed geological investigations and environmental testing constituted a taking which compensation must be provided to the property owners. The court evaluated the environmental testing based on four criteria:

(1) Degree to which the invasion is intended;
(2) The character of the invasions;
(3) The amount of time the invasions will last;
(4) The invasions’ economic impact on the landowners and interference with their distinct investment-backed expectations.

All in all, the Appellate court held that pre-condemnation entry without just compensation may be unconstitutional. If upheld or allowed to stand, the decision will allow invasive testing on property only through an eminent domain action to allow testing or after the property is condemned. Given what is at stake, it would seem reasonable for the California Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court’s decision.

If the Supreme Court denies review or upholds the decision, this will create great obstacles for agencies to overcome; it may also have a negative impact for property owners. Property owners may see increases in the cost and the time it takes to defend against eminent domain actions instead of simply defending against entry before a decision is made to acquire the property. It must be noted that the decision does not preclude voluntary agreement between public agencies and property owners to allow the agency access to the owner’s property. However, there may be some additional procedural hurdles to seeking such agreements.

The court decision did leave a significant unanswered question as to where the line is to be drawn between an invasive entry and one which is not a significant invasion. The court did not offer any clear answer; it simply suggested that the Legislature can modify the right-of-entry statutes to insure the Constitutional rights of property owners.

If the Supreme Court does not grant review or efforts to depublish the Appellate decision fail, the next step will most likely take place in the Legislature. Stay tuned as this progresses.

Eminent Domain Appeal Denied: Sacramento On Track For Kings’ New Arena, 4/21/14

After months of deliberation, negotiation and court appearances, the city of Sacramento won its appeal for possession of the former Macy’s building. The last piece of the puzzle completes the needed land for the new $448 million Kings arena scheduled to open in 2016.

But the battle for the ex-Macy’s building remains fierce. The City made an offer to the owners of the building, CalPERS and some mortgage certificate holders, for $4.35 million for the property. However, the ex-Macy’s owners believed the property is worth more than $10 million.

The disagreements during negotiations led the City to file an eminent domain lawsuit in January of this year. CalPERS was not against the City’s plans to acquire the property. However, the certificate holders were objecting to the plan. Their attorney, George Speir, raised the issue that the owners were not given a proper chance to object to the taking. He also argued that the City had incorrectly handled the eminent domain lawsuit. Ultimately, those arguments failed with the court holding that they City could proceed and the owners’ remedy was to challenge the amount of the compensation.

As the scheduled opening of the arena is in 2016, the Kings are wasting no time. The Kings future arena will be underway soon as demolitions begin in June. Sticking to a strict timeline, the NBA has stated that should the construction of the arena go beyond 2017, they have the right to buy the Kings from the City and move them out of town. Although Sacramento has acquired the property for the $448 million arena, it will be paid for by the Kings. The Kings have already spent $36 million on the Downtown Plaza for the rest of the needed property for the arena.

“Just compensation” for the property will be determined in trial and will include expert testimony on appraisal of the property. Meanwhile, the City still needs to complete its environmental review, create a financing package and develop an agreement with the Kings in regards to payment and development of the new arena. The development agreement will be introduced to the City Council late April or early May. The City has also indicated that it will be contributing a $258 million subsidy towards the project. Stay tuned for more updates on the new Sacramento King’s arena.

Author: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, please visit

Kelo, Landmark Eminent Domain Case: The Aftermath, 4/1/14

Nine years have passed since the controversial 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the eminent domain case of Kelo v. City of New London. What the advocates for economic development argued, fought for and supported has resulted in a 90 acre vacant wasteland where the homes of 7 small town residents once flourished.

Seizing the private property of the 7 Fort Trumbull residents would allow the City of New London to turn the property over to private developers to build luxury apartments, office buildings, retail space, restaurants and many more recreational hot spots. Pfizer, a leading pharmaceutical company, was also on board with the intent to build a research facility to generate new jobs and tax revenue for New London. The City seemed ecstatic about saving their “distressed municipality” which faced high rates of unemployment and economic decline and the Supreme Court ate up their sob story. To the Supreme Court, the idea of economic rejuvenation apparently outweighed the cost of the owners’ property rights and all American’s Constitutional liberties.

The 7 residents, including Susette Kelo, argued that taking private property and turning it over to a private company such as Pfizer “does not qualify as… public use.” However, the Supreme Court held otherwise stating that “the City’s development plan was not adopted ‘to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.’”

The Supreme Court, agreeing with the trial court, concluded that the City was rebuilding for growth and prosperity to benefit its citizens and that Pfizer “was not ‘the primary motivation or effect of this development plan’; instead, ‘the primary motivation … was to take advantage of Pfizer’s presence.’”

Pfizer was offered an 80-percent, 10-year property tax abatement for a $300 million research facility which the Supreme Court did not find suspicious.

So the residents were forced to take the compensation for the parcels they called home and the City was allowed to acquire the properties to turn them over to the developers to build their Pfizer project. If only this was a happily-ever-after story. Today the lots of those residents are filled with overgrown grass instead of high-rise buildings and upscale pedestrian “riverwalks.” In 2009, Pfizer backed out of its plan to build the research facility and redevelopment plans seized just as abruptly as they began.

The waters were a little murky; what does it matter? Possibly, those murky waters would have been forgotten if there was some type of redevelopment and economic growth in Fort Trumbull. But there wasn’t. The whole plan turned to nothing and the Supreme Court’s decision spiraled into a disaster. It shocked and scared many because it set precedent for private companies to take interest of citizen owned lands for their own economic interests. It caused many states, including California, to pass laws banning or restricting use of eminent domain for the purposes of economic rejuvenation. Indeed, in the wake of the backlash at Kelo, California did away with redevelopment agencies altogether.

In the end, all that is left are the memories of the once flourishing Fort Trumbull. Although there were no high-rise luxury apartments or gourmet restaurants, the residents of Fort Trumbull were happy with their home town. They fought a hard battle to save what was theirs; they pursued their rights to life, liberty and property. However, where there is no security for rights to property there is, consequently, no liberty.

On a somewhat brighter note for the future, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia later predicted that the decision in Kelo would be overturned. He reportedly stated, “My court has, by my lights, made many mistakes of law…but it has made very few mistakes of political judgment, of estimating how far… it could stretch beyond the text of the Constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance. Dred Scott was one mistake…Roe v. Wade was another… And Kelo, I think, was a third.”

Author: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, please visit

Rancho Cucamonga Moves Forward with Eminent Domain for New Shelby Place North Road, 7/12/12

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The city of Rancho Cucamonga began eminent domain proceedings to acquire a private dirt road from the Viramontez family, as reported by the Daily Bulletin.  The city plans on widening the road to 210 feet by 30 feet from Base Line to “connect the already developed Shelby Place, south of Base Line.”

According to the article, “Rancho Cucamonga proceeding with eminent domain for road,” the city offered $14,000 for the rights to the road and the Viramontez family made a counter-offer of $30,500, based on an appraisal obtained by the family’s hired appraiser.

Plans call for widening and paving the road, which as stated by the city’s director of engineering, Mark Steuer, would “provide better access to the subdivision tract, enhance traffic flow and provide access to public safety.”

For the Viramontez family, this private road has sentimental value as they have owned the land since the early 1940s and currently live on a 2.7 acre parcel near Baseline Road and Shelby Place.

It is important to note that a property owner is not required to accept the condemning agency’s offer. Instead, the property owner may make a counter-offer, as the Viramontez family did in this case, or may assert a higher value for his or her property if and when an eminent domain action is filed in court.

Often times property owners, tenants and business owners receive higher, and in some cases much higher, compensation than the amount of the condemning agency’s offer by asserting a claim for greater compensation.  An experienced eminent domain attorney should be contacted to evaluate each case on its own merits and assist in determining the appropriate course of action to the particular case.

At this point, if the City of Rancho Cucamonga rejects the Viramontez family’s counter-offer, the Viramontez family and the City will have to fight it out in the Superior Court – a prospect which given the relatively limited amounts involved, will probably not make much sense for either side.

Modesto Considers Using Eminent Domain for Pelandale Freeway Project, 5/23/12

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The City of Modesto will consider acquiring properties by eminent domain for the Pelandale Avenue freeway interchange project at tonight’s city council meeting.  According to the Modesto Bee’s article, “Modesto considers seizing sites for Pelandale freeway project,” the City has been negotiating with affected property and business owners since March, yet an agreement has been made with only one of the eight parcels required for the project.

The Pelandale Avenue project plans to “replace an inadequate three-lane span with a seven-lane crossing at a better angle for traffic, with new southbound ramps,” as reported by the Modesto Bee.  The interchange was not built for the amount of traffic it now receives due to the popular businesses in the area.

A few businesses will be affected by this project, including a Quik Stop gas station and convenience store, Dolphin Spas & Stoves, as well as a vacant commercial property.  Temporary construction easements for up to one year are needed from neighboring properties, of which one has agreed to an offer of $4,800.

Under California’s Eminent Domain law, the government is required to pay the “fair market value” of the property.  The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by the seller, being willing to sell under no particular or urgent necessity for doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.

This is a bit different from the definition of market value used in the marketplace.  Put simply, owners in eminent domain proceedings are entitled to the “highest” price that might reasonably be expected.  This is determined by appraisal opinion, and the government’s and owners’ appraisers often differ substantially in their opinions of what the “highest” price should be.  The owners involved in this project are apparently dissatisfied with the City’s appraisals, so the City’s options are to either agree to pay the owners an amount that satisfies the owners, force the sales through eminent domain, or drop the project.

If the City decides to pursue eminent domain after tonight’s council meeting, these matters will then move into the hands of the Superior Court, and the owners will be entitled to a jury trial to determine the amount of compensation.  Stay tuned…

Cathedral City May Use Eminent Domain to Acquire Angel View Thrift Mart, 8/22/11

By A.J. Hazarabedian

A thrift mart in Cathedral City is facing eminent domain to make way for future downtown development, reports The Desert SunAngel View Thrift Mart has been operating at the East Palm Canyon Drive location since before the city was incorporated.  And now, if the city gets their way, the store will be forced to relocate.

The article, “Cathedral City plans to push Angel View move” quotes the store’s General Manager Tracy Powers stating, “[they] don’t want to stand in the way of the city accomplishing their goal [but they’re] distressed in that the city is not more forthcoming in details on what they can do for [them].”

The thrift mart was offered $750,000 for their property but Powers says he is less concerned with the money and more interested in finding a suitable place to relocate the business which will maintain the store’s revenue.

As for a possible relocation site?  The city had offered Angel View another building on East Palm Canyon Drive over a year ago.  However according to the article, Powers and the city weren’t able to come to an agreement regarding the necessary repairs the building would have required.  Now, Powers has learned that this same proposed relocation site is slated for demolition.

Where does this leave the Angel View Thrift Mart?  For now, they’ll have to wait for Cathedral City’s council meeting on September 14th when the issue is expected to be discussed.

California Farmers Fear High-Speed Rail, 1/17/11

By A.J. Hazarabedian

California farmers are once again voicing their concerns about the potential high-speed rail project which has been a hot topic recently.  A route has yet to be determined, but one of the alternatives could displace 1,900 acres of property – of which 1,460 acres is farmland.

This morning’s Sacramento Bee featured an article, “Path of high-speed rail worries California farmers,” where both the farmers and the rail authority gave their arguments for and against the project.  Some of the farmers feel they are not being heard and that the rail authority is not giving them enough answers.  The authority’s deputy executive director, Jeff Barker, recognizes their fears however, and states “the authority cannot provide more specific answers until environmental reviews are completed on the route options.”  This February a draft environmental document is expected, which should discuss alternatives and provide some explanations of the plans.

The article explains the fears of the farmers.  It indicates that not only will their crops be disrupted, but they will have more challenges getting around, as the speed of the proposed train will prevent at-grade crossings.  This would mean the farmers would have to rely on new undercrossings or overpasses which may add inconvenience.

As an eminent domain attorney, I am interested in the issue of just compensation.  With farmers, taking land often means taking crops.  Valuing these crops and the loss of future business could be tricky.  The article briefly mentions the issue of compensation, addressing farmers concerns about whether they’ll be compensated only for the value of the land acquired, or “for future lost income from permanent crops like grapes, nuts or fruit crops.”  This particular issue is a prime example of why hiring an experienced eminent domain attorney is so important.  Eminent domain is an unusual area of the law and when dealing with your property and/or business, you want someone representing you who has extensive knowledge of the specific rules of eminent domain law.

Eminent Domain Okayed in Newport Beach, 6/10/10

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Newport Beach city council members voted to adopt a resolution of necessity this week to acquire a portion of Back Bay Court Property Co.’s property on Jamboree Road.

According to the Orange County Register article, “City OKs using eminent domain on mini-mall,” the sliver of land is needed for the Jamboree Road Bridge widening over State Route 73 project.  The property is located at 3601 Jamboree Road, which is a mini-mall right off the 73 freeway.

The article states, “Newport Beach offered $452,000 for the property along Jamboree Road at the 73 freeway, a figure that also includes compensation for temporary use of additional land during construction.”

The property owner said “a fair price hasn’t yet been established but that the city’s offer is insufficient.”  The article also mentions that the attorney for the property owner claims “the widening would result in removal of shopping center signs and construction of a retaining wall, resulting in ‘significantly less visibility’ for retail tenants.”

As we discuss in our “California Eminent Domain Handbook,” often times the government only needs a portion of a particular property, much like this situation in Newport Beach.  In these cases, just compensation is determined not only by the value of the part taken, but also by the damage to the remaining property.  Such damages are called “severance damages,” i.e., damages caused by severance of the remainder from the part taken.  Severance damages is one of those areas which is highly specific to eminent domain cases.  As such, it is imperative that only an appraiser experienced in eminent domain be retained to evaluate these damages.  Experienced eminent domain counsel, such as California Eminent Domain Law Group, can and do recommend to their clients such appraisers with whom the attorneys work on a regular basis.

Next Page »

COPYRIGHT © 2010 Arthur J. Hazarabedian, Esq.