CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW BLOG

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Governor Brown’s plan to abolish redevelopment agencies followed by the recent California Supreme Court decision to do just that is having a profound effect on planned redevelopment projects.

An article in the Sacramento Business Journal last week entitled, “Rancho Cordova won’t buy property through eminent domain,” explains how the city is now abandoning a project they have been planning for years.  The article states that not only will a current eminent domain lawsuit be dropped, but Rancho Cordova’s redevelopment agency will also be “forced to sell two other parcels that it had previously acquired for redevelopment,” related to the same project.

Cities and other government agencies will inevitably attempt some workarounds in order to enhance and improve their areas.  For Rancho Cordova, “the city’s leaders said they will continue to improve Folsom Boulevard through grants and other funding.”

Metro’s Gold Line Construction Authority is another agency scrambling to keep a project moving forward in the midst of last week’s decision.  The Pasadena Star News reported in their article, “Monrovia, Gold Line officials continue attempts to execute land deal for maintenance yard,” that Gold Line and City of Monrovia officials are trying to understand what to do about their previously negotiated deal.  For a planned maintenance yard to be built in Monrovia, the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority had negotiated a deal to purchase 14 acres of Monrovia Redevelopment Agency-owned land for $41.6 million.  In anticipation of last week’s ruling, the Authority recently voted to condemn the land in order to keep the project on schedule.  Under the eminent domain proceedings, the land could be purchased for $17.3 million.  The City of Monrovia stands to lose millions of dollars if the eminent domain proceeding moves forward rather than the previously negotiated deal.

Per the Pasadena Star News article, Monrovia officials are “working with lobbyists to draft potential legislation that would carve out the project from the new redevelopment rules.”

Stay tuned…

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

A new article in the Victorville Daily Press about a large difference in opinion of value caught our attention this week.  The city of Victorville and the First Assembly of God church have been negotiating for three years about the La Mesa/Nisqualli interchange project and how it will affect the church operations.

The article, “Church, city have $7.5M difference of opinion” talks about the problems involved and discusses both sides of the issue.

Per the article, the project will cause the church to lose about 3 percent of their property which includes 56 parking spaces.  The church was offered “$560,000 last spring based on a real property appraisal, but the offer has since been lowered to $436,000 in light of a small redesign and recent property value declines,” according to the Victorville Daily Press.

The church’s attorney, however, claims the total damages to the property are valued at $8 million.  As we explain in our “California Eminent Domain Handbook,” a property owner is not required to accept the condemning agency’s offer.  Instead, the property owner may make a counter-offer, or may assert a higher value for his or her property once the eminent domain action is filed in court.  Property owners, tenants and business owners often 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 in the eminent domain proceeding.  This is, of course, not always the case.

In this circumstance, the difference of opinion is $7.5 million.  City Manager Doug Robertson states in the article that “the City has rejected their demand for over $8 million as compensation for these 56 parking spaces, which comprise less than one half acre of land.”

The church’s pastor Josh Gerbracht explains “it’s not just the land they’re taking, but it’s the overall impact on access, traffic, parking spots, future building, the visual impacts…”

A mediation is scheduled between the two parties for January.  If a settlement is not reached, a jury will determine just compensation in a February trial.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Caltrans is moving forward with a widening project on the 5 freeway from the 605 to the Orange County line – a project which has been in the works for many years.  An article in the Downey Patriot, “Caltrans plans to widen 5 freeway” discusses some of the impacts the project will have on property and business owners in the surrounding areas.

As discussed in the article, 440 parcels will be impacted by the widening in the cities of Downey, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada and Cerritos.  Caltrans project manager Emad Gorgy explains that “the goal of the project is to mitigate the bottleneck along the I-5 corridor and push the carpool lane towards Downtown Los Angeles.”  They will “divide the corridor into six sections and the existing lanes will be expanded to 10 lanes across.”

We have been informed that Caltrans has already begun the process of acquiring property for this project.  It is likely they will use the power of eminent domain as they did for the Carmenita Interchange project.

To better understand the eminent domain process, visit our website to read our “California Eminent Domain Handbook.” In the handbook, we provide a breakdown of the steps involved when the government wants to acquire property by eminent domain, as well as general information regarding property and business owners’ rights when faced with eminent domain.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The California Water Commission voted Wednesday to begin eminent domain proceedings, affecting 20 landowners.  According to The Record’s article “Vote clears state to seek eminent domain for drilling on delta properties,” the Commission is allowing the State Department of Water Resources to acquire permanent easements for drilling purposes from landowners in Sacramento County.

According to the State, the drilling is necessary to help choose the best route for a new tunnel which would move Sacramento River water through the delta to other counties.  While the easements are only about 16 square feet, the landowners have objected to the takings, specifically because they don’t know exactly where the drilling will take place.  The properties are mostly farmland and property owners fear it may affect their wells and irrigation lines.

The State claims the drill holes will be “about the size of a softball” and will be “filled with grout and abandoned” once their work is completed.

There are 46 landowners affected by this delta project and, as reported by The Record, only two have settled.

Eminent domain is the power of local, state or federal government agencies to take private property for “public use” so long as the government pays “just compensation.”  The government can exercise its power of eminent domain even if the owner does not wish to sell his or her property.

To learn more about eminent domain, check out our California Eminent Domain Handbook by clicking here.

Comments(0)

California Eminent Domain Law Group has launched a new firm website at www.eminentdomainlaw.net.

The new website features updated case results, highlighting the successful results obtained for our property and business owner clients.

The site also includes our informative California Eminent Domain Handbook.  The handbook is designed for property and business owners whose properties and/or businesses are being taken from them by the government through the power of eminent domain.

The site features videos from our Managing Partner, A.J. Hazarabedian, discussing frequently asked questions about eminent domain law, including: What is eminent domain?, Do I have to accept the government’s offer, or can I try to get a higher price?, What is “just compensation”?, Are business losses compensated?, and Why do I need an attorney?.

We are excited about the launch of our new site!  Check it out at www.eminentdomainlaw.net.

Comments(0)

A.J. Hazarabedian, Managing Partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC, will be speaking at the 44th Annual Litigation Seminar on November 10, 2011.

Glendale, CA – October 25, 2011 – California Eminent Domain Law Group’s A.J. Hazarabedian will be speaking at the 44th Annual Litigation Seminar, presented by the Southern California Appraisal Institute.

The seminar will be held at the Kyoto Grand Hotel & Gardens in Downtown Los Angeles on November 10, 2011.  A.J. will be speaking about “Motions in Limine/Trial Strategies, Avoiding Pitfalls in Valuation Information.”

A.J. Hazarabedian is the founder of California Eminent Domain Law Group and is the firm’s most experienced eminent domain trial attorney.  The vast majority of his over twenty years of experience has been almost exclusively in eminent domain, inverse condemnation and appellate litigation.  Mr. Hazarabedian has successfully handled hundreds of eminent domain matters for property owners, business owners and public agencies, having taken a substantial number of cases to successful verdict and numerous others to successful settlements.

Martindale-Hubbell recognizes Mr. Hazarabedian as an AV® Rated attorney, the highest rating available to any individual lawyer.  Mr. Hazarabedian has also been named to Southern California Super Lawyers in the field of eminent domain for three years in a row.

To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, please visit http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutAJH.php.

About California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC

California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC is a boutique eminent domain law firm serving all of California from our main offices in the Los Angeles area, as well as offices in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley.  The firm has received an AV® Rating – the highest possible rating – for legal and ethical standards by Martindale-Hubbell.  The attorneys at California Eminent Domain Law Group are California’s premier eminent domain lawyers, with extensive experience in all facets of eminent domain law.  For more information, visit www.caledlaw.com.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project in the city of Goleta will require eminent domain; this according to Noozhawk’s article “Attorney Says Vote on Eminent Domain Puts Goleta Council ‘On a Road to Litigation.’”

At the August 16th City Council meeting, councilmembers adopted a “Resolution of Necessity” to acquire the necessary parcels by eminent domain.

A “Resolution of Necessity” is the government agency’s formal decision to acquire property by eminent domain.  It must be adopted before the condemning agency can commence an eminent domain action in court.

The project, per the city’s website, will include “the removal and replacement of both the existing concrete flood control channel from Hollister Avenue to the Twins Screen Drive-in property and the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge over San Jose Creek.”

While the city is only seeking portions of private properties for the project, the attorney for the property owners suggests that the city acquire the parcels on the east side of the channel in their entirety.  He argues this “would allow the construction equipment, vehicles and materials to be on site and accessible as needed, instead of affecting properties on both sides of the channel.”

As often occurs on properties potentially affected by eminent domain, the attorney points out that “eminent domain has already caused a major tenant to leave the property in anticipation of the difficulties that might happen as a result of the city’s activities.”

The article indicates Community Services Director Steve Wagner is hoping to continue negotiating with property owners, but adopting the Resolution of Necessity aids in the timing of the project.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

A thrift mart in Cathedral City is facing eminent domain to make way for future downtown development, reports The Desert Sun.  Angel 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.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Some property owners in Petaluma, CA are blaming Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (“SMART”) for their property going into foreclosure.

Since 2005, as reported in the Press-Democrat article, “SMART, land owners at odds over Petaluma site,” SMART has discussed using the 6.5 acre site owned by Patti and Clinton Gow and Robin and Larry Drew as a potential station location.

To this day, however, a formal decision has not been made as to whether or not the site will indeed be acquired.  It is this uncertainty, the article claims, that has put the Gow’s and Drew’s property in jeopardy.

According to the property owners, not knowing if the property will one day be acquired has caused them to lose “more than half of their commercial tenants” as well as “development deals for the property.”  The owners and their lawyer contend that this has caused a loss of income which has resulted in the property going into foreclosure.

The property owners’ attorney is quoted in the article, stating “for [SMART] to not work with the owners and then try to pick [the property] up for a fraction of its fair value isn’t right.”  He believes the agency is acting “unreasonably” and “can be liable for damages.”

On the other side of the issue, Sonoma County Supervisor Valerie Brown, who is also chair of the SMART board, disagrees with the property owners’ claims.  She believes the agency has “acted reasonably” and “didn’t cause the property owners’ financial troubles.”  She goes further to say that the 6.5 acre site “wasn’t even in [their] picture,” and that although the plan was “put in place a long time ago…it wasn’t something [they] were actively thinking about until this foreclosure came up.”

Per the article, the property owners’ attorney is currently “exploring legal options” for his clients.

Our Take: Our take on this is that the issues being faced by the Gows and Drews are relatively common, but serious.  It is unfortunately not unusual for public agencies to announce tentative project plans, deny development applications by the owner in light of the agency’s tentative plans, and then not take definitive action towards the proposed project for years.  In the meantime, what are the owners to do?  Business tenants become aware of the plans, and acting as reasonable business people wanting security, they do not renew leases and they move.  The owners then face difficulty in re-leasing the property.  The property declines as a result, and then years later attempt to purchase the property at fire sale prices.

Fortunately, however, owners do have some possible remedies.  If the agency does move forward with eminent domain, the owner is entitled to have his property valued free of project influence – i.e., as though the project was never announced.  If the agency does not move forward with eminent domain, the owner might attempt an inverse condemnation action based on unreasonable precondemnation conduct.  Agencies are permitted to engage in reasonable planning activities for a reasonable period of time.  They are not, however, permitted to engage in unreasonable conduct or unreasonably delay following an announcement of intention to condemn.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The Calleguas Water District is considering using eminent domain to acquire an easement on two properties in Camarillo.  The easements are needed for a pipeline project which, according to the Ventura County Star article, will help bring much needed water to Simi Valley, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Camarillo.

The article, “Water district may invoke eminent domain on Lewis Road to finish pipeline,” quotes Eric Bergh, resources manager for the District, who says they have been having a hard time finding the legal owner of one of the properties and negotiations have “stalled” with the other property owner.

The article indicates that if the District continues to have trouble negotiating an agreement by the end of the month, they will consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity.  As discussed in our California Eminent Domain Handbook, a Resolution of Necessity is the government agency’s formal decision to acquire property by eminent domain.  As touched on in the article by Susan Mulligan, a Director at the District, the Calleguas Water District will have to find that the pipeline project is necessary, that the property they seek to acquire for the project is necessary, that the project is located in such a way as to offer the greatest public benefit with the lease private detriment, and that an offer to purchase the property has been made (or the offer was not made because the owner could not be located after a diligent search).

The District will consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity at their July 5, 2011 meeting if an agreement is not made before then.

Comments(0)