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

CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW BLOG

California Project News: More Property Being Targeted for Condemnation for High Speed Rail Project

Earlier this month, the State Publics Works Board approved and adopted Resolutions of Necessity (the agency’s decision to take property by eminent domain) for 12 more properties in the San Joaquin Valley required by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”).

Parcels impacted are in Fresno, Madera, Kings, and Tulare counties. The parcels total 53 acres, but some parcels are as small as a quarter of an acre to as large as ten acres.

Since December 2013, over 270 resolutions covering about 800 acres have been adopted by the State Publics Works Board for the High Speed Rail project.

The Board has also approved site selection of 68 parcels along the rail path in the Valley – a first step before the CHSRA can formally begin to negotiate for the land. The CHSRA will attempt to negotiate the sale of these parcels, but if the owners refuse, CHSRA will almost certainly seek to acquire them through eminent domain where the owners may be forced to sell.

One of the 68 parcels is owned by the Haflich family, which has been caught in limbo wanting to sell, but waiting for the board to approve site selections so they could begin negotiating a sale price.

Properties in Downtown Fresno that are needed for the rail project have been mostly vacated and are being demolished. One such building that has been torn down is the old Paper Plus building.

Despite acquiring a large amount of land and starting construction on the project, the process of buying and acquiring land for the CHSRA has been a slow process. As of the time of this posting, it has the rights of about 300 of the required 1,277 parcels for the Merced-Bakersfield line.

Jeff Morales, the CEO of the rail authority says he does not see this slowing down the timeframe for finishing the rail project. Construction workers will work on the land that has already been acquired. Notwithstanding, Morales says a revised timeline will come out later in the fall.

The first stretch of the rail project, which is estimated to be done by 2017, has only acquired about half of the properties it needs.

Land owners have reported that the CHSRA’s agents are using pressure tactics to acquire the property and are offering lowball values that are well below fair market value. Our firm currently represents several property and business owners along the proposed rail line, and we’ve seen much the same.  Hopefully, folks who are impacted will recognize that they don’t need to just accept what CHSRA offers.  They are entitled to challenge CHSRA’s appraised values and to obtain full fair market value for their properties which are being taken.  Hiring an eminent domain attorney is generally the best way for these owners to ensure they get everything they are entitled to.

CHSRA has deflected the allegations that they are using pressure tactics and making lowball offers for properties. They have said they will make sure to train and re-train staff to make sure the process is streamlined and fair.

 

What does this mean for you?

Despite the fact that land acquisition remains slow, the rail project continues to move forward at an increasing pace. The rail authority continues to acquire more and more land through offers or eminent domain.  If you are in the proposed path of the rail, CHSRA may be knocking on your door sooner than you might think.

We’ll be continuing to follow the progress of the project on our website at www.caledlaw.com. If you are an affected property or business owner, you can learn more about your options by giving us a call at (866) EM-DOMAIN.

California Project News: California May Take 300 Farms by Eminent Domain for Delta Tunnel Project

The state of California has recently disclosed plans to acquire farmland for an unapproved waterway project that intends to divert water from parts of the Sacramento River.

The Delta Waterway Tunnel Project (also known as the “Bay Delta Conservation Plan” or “California Waterfix”) is intended to provide water from Northern California to Southern California. This project has been in the making for about 8 years. Reuters News Agency reports, “it is a pet project of Governor Jerry Brown (D-California).”

If approved, the delta project will directly impact some 300 property owners in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta areas, and could indirectly impact many more.

California officials came up with a plan to take over 300 farms and may seize them by eminent domain. Under the property acquisition plan for the project – which is marked “Confidential” and only came to light as a result of a Public Records Act request by project opponents – affected landowners will be approached for a one time offer to sell the property. If owners refuse to sell, the State will proceed to acquire the land through eminent domain and owners will be forced to make a sale.

Opponents of the Delta Tunnel Project say it will cause damage to the wildlife and cause the delta to become salty, which would make farming impossible. Many believe it is an attempt to grab land and water.

Richard Elliot, who grows cherries, pears and other crops on delta land farmed by his family since the 1860s told Associated Press, “What really shocks is we’re fighting this and we’re hoping to win. To find out they’re sitting in a room figuring out this eminent domain makes it sound like they’re going to bully us … and take what they want.”

Officials are so far defending the plan to acquire property.

“Planning for right-of-way needs, that is the key part of your normal planning process,” said Roger Patterson, assistant general manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, one of the water agencies that would benefit from the twin tunnels.

The project’s environmental review is currently in public comment period, which was set to end August 31st, but after two weeks, it was considered necessary to extend the public comment period another 60 days to October 30th.

How does this impact you?

Right now the project is still under consideration, and may or may not ultimately be approved. If it’s not approved, then you’ll have nothing to worry about. But given that this appears to be a pet project of Governor Brown – and we’ve seen how those tend to get muscled through (i.e., California High Speed Rail) – it seems there is probably a pretty strong likelihood the project will go forward.

We’ll be following the progress of the project on our website at www.caledlaw.com. In the event the project is ultimately approved, and you are an affected owner, you can learn more about your options by giving us a call at (866) EM-DOMAIN.

Rebirth of Redevelopment in California: Impairing Private Property Rights or Revitalization?

In a 63-13 vote, Assembly Bill 2, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, passed in the California State Assembly last week. The bill allows for so-called “Community Revitalization Investment Authorities” – essentially redevelopment agencies with a different title – to acquire private property through eminent domain and make it available to big developers with the intent to build grand-scale housing or commercial and retail centers.

Back in 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown shut down redevelopment agencies as part of an attempt to balance the state budget. Now, the rebirth of redevelopment agencies puts many private property advocates in fear of Kelo-style outcomes where big developers and big investing companies back out of the redevelopment plan leaving acres of land vacant and the city in debt.

Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a private property advocate, cautioned that the bill “brings back the right of governments to exercise eminent domain against some private parties in order to resell their property to other private parties.”

Alejo’s reasoning for the rebirth of redevelopment differs greatly from those who oppose it. Alejo argues that the bill is a stepping stone towards revitalization for blighted, lower income neighborhoods where development is needed. He states that when a Community Revitalization Investment Authority is created by a city, county or special district, certain prerequisite conditions must be met. First, redevelopment plans must focus on high unemployment, low income and high crime rate areas. Additionally, one of the following four criteria must also be met:

  • Unemployment is at least 3% higher that statewide median unemployment rate
  • Crime rate is 5% higher than statewide median crime rate
  • Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructures like streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks
  • Deteriorated commercial or residential structures

While this may look good on its face to some, Ahmanson argues – and we believe rightly so – that the property rights for the lower middle class and poor would be infringed while “only new and wealthy suburbs would be potentially spared from ‘redevelopment.’”

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, agrees. As one of the 13 voters against the bill she believes that while she understands her colleagues’ interest in redevelopment as an effort to counter blighted neighborhoods, she refuses to support legislation that trumps private property rights.

Alejo is persistent in arguing that the bill is needed for disadvantaged communities. Opponents argue that although disadvantaged neighborhoods need to combat such issues as blight (deteriorated residential and commercial areas), there are other avenues the State can take in order to achieve revitalization. The question is whether it is necessary to use eminent domain and leave open the possibility of eminent domain abuse.

Redevelopment Is Back in California

Back in 2011, Governor Jerry Brown abolished redevelopment agencies in California successfully gaining $1.5 billion of the redevelopment funding to close California’s budget gap. Recently, three bills have reached the Governor’s office in an attempt to revive redevelopment in California. Gov. Brown has signed two of those bills, Senate Bill 628 and Assembly Bill 229, into law while vetoing Assembly Bill 2280.

SB 628 will create what redevelopment revivalists call Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, which essentially is redevelopment on a bigger scale, without protections. Old redevelopment law required a city to deem a certain area as blighted, meaning inhabiting the area would be dangerous and against public safety. The new law under SB 628 does not require a finding of blight. Opponents to the bill argue that the new law will make eminent domain abuse much easier to get away with. EIFD also will change the threshold for voter approval from two-thirds to only 55%, a lowered threshold from standard infrastructure finance districts. Furthermore, opponents fear that the new law will give city officials the right to take private property from downtown areas which will decrease or eliminate low-income housing. The new law, unlike the standard IFD, does not require cities to set aside funding for low-income housing.

AB 229 is another form of redevelopment law that targets the revitalization of old military bases. Known as the Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing District (IRFD), this bill can issue 30 years of debt with a 2/3 voter approval in the district. Opponents argue that the IRFD is granting city officials great power over private property, unrestricted power of eminent domain and the ability to fund private party projects with state tax money.

The only bill vetoed by Brown was AB 2280. This bill, known as Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA), would allow local governments to create CRIA in areas of the city facing disadvantages for funding community specified activities. It would also have revived tax-increment financing which sets aside 25% for affordable, low-income housing. Brown’s veto message stated that, if approved, the bill would “unnecessarily vest this new program in redevelopment law.” However, he did also mention his desire to work with the bill writers to come to a possible consensus on tax-increment financing for disadvantage areas.

Regardless of opposition, redevelopment appears to be back with little or no restrictions on the power to take private property by city and state officials. When the passed bills were showcased, their focus was funding for upgrading roads, sewer pipes, and levees. But it will be interesting to see how far the new law will stretch the definition of “infrastructure.”

 

By: A.J. Hazarabedian

To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, the managing partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutAJH.php

Studio City Residents and Community Groups Seek to Stop Property Owner’s Redevelopment Plains: Open Space vs. Condos

Open Space vs. Condos

Proposed development of a portion of the privately-owned 17 acre Weddington Golf and Tennis, located on the banks of the Los Angeles River in Studio City, is a hot topic of debate between Studio City residents and the Weddington owners. The public golf and tennis facilities have been a neighborhood gem for many years providing rare open space within the densely developed neighborhood.

In 2008, the Weddingtons submitted a development proposal to the City of Los Angeles for a 200-unit senior housing condominium complex where the tennis courts are presently located. The proposed development would include six four-story buildings and 635 parking spaces. In July, a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project was issued for review and comment. Currently, the Weddingtons are preparing for the development by lobbying for necessary development approvals, including a requested change in zoning from agricultural to multi-family residential.

While the Weddingtons seek to develop part of their property, and generate income, local residents want the property to remain as open space.

This debate brings to light the often conflicting interests of the public and a private property owner.

The Community’s Perspective

The surrounding community would prefer that the Weddington Golf & Tennis facilities remain as open space available to the public. Although it is private property, opponents of development argue Weddington Golf & Tennis is a community amenity similar to public parks and designated open spaces. As it has been there for many years, the property has become an established community fixture. Now, the community has a vested interest in its future and views the property as a key feature of the community.

Because the property has become like a public park, some argue that the simple answer is for the City to simply purchase it and permanently establish it as a public park.  This, however, would come at a substantial cost: Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents the area and is opposed to the project, has attempted to find funding for the City to buy the land from the Weddingtons, possibly resorting to the use of eminent domain. So far, his attempts to secure the $20 to $30 million necessary to purchase the land have failed. Unless the Weddingtons are willing to donate the land, or accept a steep discount, this scenario does not appear likely.

Since the community is opposed to development of the site, can the City simply prevent the Weddingtons from building 200 condominiums on their private property? To answer briefly, possibly. However, the explanation is multi-faceted and the line between government’s reasonable regulation of private land use (called the “police power”) and government’s regulation effectively taking private property (“eminent domain”) is not always clear.

Because development of the Weddington’s private property requires development approvals, the City does have the ability to deny outright, or limit, the Weddingtons proposal for the condominiums. There is an established development process that the City and Weddington are following, including a public review and consideration of the proposed Project. This process allows the community to voice its concerns about the Project and its potential impacts. As long as the process is followed, the City’s ultimate determination – granting or denying development approvals – would probably be technically legally valid.

As a property owner, though, the Weddingtons are permitted to use their property in an economically viable manner– including potentially the right to change the use of their property. What are the incentives for the City to stop the Weddingtons from developing their property as proposed? The public’s dissatisfaction with the Project may influence City officials to side for open space and preserve access to the LA River.  The Weddingtons, however, would probably be entitled to develop their property to some extent – which would probably result in the elimination of some of the existing recreational facilities.

Studio City Residents Association and Save LA River Open Space have submitted their own development impact report to the City outlining impacts of the Project, one of which is the destruction of what they characterize as “rare, irreplaceable open space.” Their intentions are to keep the area open and convert it to the Los Angeles River Natural Park which would include the existing tennis courts and golf course.

The Property Owner’s Point of View 

The Weddington’s have the right to use their private property in an economically viable way. The fact that they have opened their property to the public for many years, and provided an important recreational facility to the community, does not negate their rights as private property owners. One of the most important elements of American society is the concept of strong private property rights and a mechanism for upholding those rights.

Economist Armen A. Alchian does not differentiate between property rights and human rights stating “property rights are human rights.” Private property rights are protected under the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” and Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution, “Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use only when just compensation … has first been paid to … the owner.”

Private property rights are often described as a bundle of rights – including the right to exclude others from your property. Another aspect of property rights is the “exclusive authority” to determine how to use that property. However, the phrase “exclusive authority” is subject to the “police powers” of the government. This means that the government can reasonably regulate such things as one’s use of their private property in the interest of the public health and safety. In this situation, the City’s has some discretion regarding the use of the Weddington property under its “police power.”

Many residents say they relied on the open space and recreational facilities of the area – including Weddington Golf & Tennis – when purchasing their homes in the Studio City neighborhood.

Is a homeowner’s reliance enough to trump private property rights? Generally, the answer is no. Should it matter that the Weddington’s property is privately owned and is not permanently committed as open space like a public park? Of course it should. The City must also consider the potential public benefits of development of the property as proposed – including significant property tax revenues.

Is There A Possible Compromise

Absent some form of compromise, or the City’s outright acquisition of the property, only one perspective is likely to win out. Or, is there a win-win solution in which both the interests of the public and the property owner are served? If so, both sides would need to compromise – with some open space being preserved, and some development allowed. This may not be palatable to either side – but often the best compromise is one in which both sides are equally unhappy.

 

By: Glenn L. Block, Esq.
To learn more about Glenn L. Block, partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit

 http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutGB.php

Tug-of-War for Martins Beach Access: Possible Eminent Domain Case

martinConflict between Simi Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla and those seeking public access to Martins Beach will make its way to Gov. Jerry Brown. Last week the state Senate approved Senate Bill 968 which, in essence, requires the State Land Commission to negotiate with Khosla to acquire public access to his private property.

Khosla purchased the 87 acre coastal property in 2008 and, like prior owners of the property, he allowed public access to the road which leads to Martins Beach until 2010. Since then, Khosla has advised his property manager to block the gate which leads to Martins Beach Road.
If signed by Gov. Brown, the bill, written by Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, requires that the State Land Commission negotiate with Khosla in an attempt to purchase an easement on his property. If negotiations fail and a compromise is not reached by January 1, 2016, the bill will authorize the power of the State Land Commission to use eminent domain to acquire the easement by providing just compensation for the property.

Earlier this month the bill passed the full Assembly, then was returned to the Senate where it was passed and is now awaiting Gov. Brown’s signature. Even if signed by Governor Brown, the decision of whether to exercise eminent domain would still need to be made by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, State Controller John Chiang and State Finance Director Michael Cohen.

Acquisition of an easement on Khosla’s property would allow public access to Martins Beach just a few miles south of Half Moon Bay, a popular spot of surfers. So far, no comments have been made by Newsom and Cohen regarding their decision whether or not to implement the bill. A spokesman for Chiang stated that no decisions by Chiang have been made and he will take a position once all arguments are made and heard from the parties involved.

By: Glenn L. Block, Esq.
To learn more about Glenn L. Block, partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit
http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutGB.php

Claremont to Vote on Possible Eminent Domain Action Against Private Water Company, 7/15/14

The City of Claremont is turning to its citizens to ascertain whether or not the city should forcefully take possession of the local privately owned water company, Golden State Water Co. The City Council unanimously voted that a $55 million bond measure will be placed on the November ballot relating to acquisition.

As the water company’s rates and prices gradually increased, so did the backlash from the Claremont city residents. Since 2004, prices have increased 100%. Whether or not the city’s proposed acquisition is to benefit the residents with lower bills, however, is unclear. City officials believe so but Golden State Water Co. spokeswoman, Julie Hooper, believes that the city is trying to convince its residence that its appraised value of $55 million is all that the city will spend for the acquisition. She notes that the city is not disclosing the additional costs for borrowing the $55 million nor the interest it will incur.
Furthermore, there is a major discrepancy between the city’s appraised value and the value the water company claims. According to Hopper, Golden State believes that the company is worth close to $135 million. The city refuses to release its appraisal report to Golden State; its offer stands, as of October 2013, at $55 million.

Nevertheless, Hopper has made it clear that the company is willing to work with the city to try to reach a compromise in the hopes that eminent domain proceedings can be avoided. City officials say that they will not be filing the eminent domain lawsuit until after the November vote on the bond measure, so the City Council can get a better idea of the public’s perception towards the takeover.

Richmond, California Has Yet to Exercise Eminent Domain to Seize Underwater Mortgages, 6/30/14

While the city of Richmond is the first municipality to approve the concept of using eminent domain to acquire underwater mortgages, the city has yet to actually do so.

The City Council has been unable to get the needed 5 out of 7 votes to go through with eminent domain proceedings. Therefore, the city is looking to team up with another municipality in hopes that together a joint powers authority will help carry out the proceedings.

Other cities, however, are reluctant to join in. Reasons for the hesitation comes in two major forms; the first being fear of lawsuits and complex litigation from banks and trusts, and the other being the threat of losing support from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

Other cities take no comfort in the fact that Richmond recently won against the trustees for hundreds of residential mortgage-back securities trusts, mainly because the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice. This means that after Richmond begins the eminent domain process, the trustees will more than likely file more suits. The potential liability of such lawsuits can carry a very high price tag which deters most cities from joining Richmond’s plan.

Furthermore, the FHFA’s position on using eminent domain for such purpose is another deterrent. The FHFA has made it more than clear it is against the use of eminent domain, arguing that using eminent domain to modify the mortgages would eventually be shouldered by taxpayers. Also, the FHFA fears that it would create credit restrictions for home buyers in the future.

The FHFA is not the only organization against the idea of using eminent domain to seize mortgages. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the National Association of Realtors, and the American Bankers Association have voiced their opposition as well. The fear is mainly the same; an increase in borrowing costs and restrictions on credit availability.

Richmond says it wants to help its residents come out of the slump that has been affecting many U.S. homeowners since the 2008 housing crisis, but does the city truly have its residents interest at heart? Richmond has been working closely with Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP), a private investment firm that has been pitching the eminent domain route to numerous cities. The assumption is that if the city does acquire the mortgages, it will turn around and offer the mortgages for a lower price and pocket the interest. Only time will tell what the outcome will be; for now, it is still up in the air. And as the real estate market improves, the ostensible justification for using eminent domain to assist underwater homeowners becomes less and less compelling.

By: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, the managing partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutAJH.php

San Francisco Bay Commission Suing Feds to Stop Eminent Domain Attempts in Alameda County, 6/25/14

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is ready for a gruesome battle with the federal General Service Administration over McKay Avenue in the county of Alameda. The Commission’s decision to challenge GSA’s exercise of eminent domain to acquire McKay Avenue was reached during a closed session meeting held on June 5th.

After the state refused to grant GSA utility easement rights for McKay Ave, GSA filed suit against East Bay Regional Park District back in April. A number of citizens as well as state and local organizations raised enough signatures to get an initiative on the November ballot to rezone as open space the area where developer Tim Lewis Communities is planning to build luxury homes.

The Committee’s reasoning in regards to filing suit is to compel the GSA to show that it’s eminent domain lawsuit against the Park District is allowed under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This Act requires federal coastline projects to be consistent with state law.

The advocates for open space are also suing the city of Alameda for allowing rezoning of the area for residential development without complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. Back in 2008, Alameda citizens voted to use the surplus land to expand Crown beach; however, their bid was trumped by the developer’s near $3 million bid.

If successful, the Commission’s efforts will stop the eminent domain proceedings; though, only temporarily.

Updates on the McKay Avenue takeover will be posted on our blog, Facebook and Twitter. For other eminent domain and inverse condemnation issues and projects, please follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.

By: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, the managing partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutAJH.php

Feds Use Eminent Domain to Acquire Public Street for Supposed “Public Use,” 6/3/14

On April 17, the federal government filed a lawsuit against the state of California and the East Bay Regional Park District to acquire McKay Ave in the city of Alameda through the process of eminent domain.

Back in 2008, voters of Alameda passed Measure WW which gave the East Bay Regional Park District authorization to purchase a federally owned parcel of land to expand Crown Memorial State Park. McKay Ave falls within the parcel now owned by East Bay Regional Park District. The street leads up to the Crab Cove Visitor Center and connects with Central Ave.

The DOJ office leading the lawsuit is the Environmental & Natural Resources Division. The federal government’s claimed reason for pursuing acquisition of McKay Ave is to secure continuing operation of the federal building complex which is located on Central Ave. The federal government also stated, however, that acquiring McKay Ave will facilitate the sale of federally owned “surplus land,” to a private housing developer. Currently, McKay Ave is used by the federal government to access the 3.89 acre federally owned parcels and recently a bid was accepted for the sale of that land to a housing developer, Tim Lewis Communities.

The opposition to the sale of the land for residential development and the acquisition of McKay Ave is substantial not only in the Alameda community but by numerous organizations all over California and the nation. State Attorney General Kamala Harris has stepped up to speak for those in opposition to the taking. Her November 7, 2013 letter to the Department of Justice expressed her rebuttals against claims made by the federal government regarding the need for McKay Ave in order to operate the federal complex. She also addressed the State’s willingness to discuss the issues of access or security for the federal complex and her failure to see how a public street and sidewalk could be acquired for “public use,” particularly given that the State is willing to discuss any upgrades to the street that the Feds might desire. However, the federal government is confident it will be able to practice eminent domain over the street.

Recently, a group of 10 organizations opposed to the acquisition posted an open letter to the U.S. Attorney General urging the Department of Justice and the General Service Administration to not proceed with any and all eminent domain cases against California Parkland. The letter described the taking as “not defensible” and a “misuse “of state park property. The opponents to the taking want the land to be left as “open space.” Allowing a developer to build houses on the currently owned federal parcels is “a contrary notion that parklands are trivial…and can be easily undone.”

(The letter is available to view on Alameda Sun Time’s website.)

The elephant in the room is this: Is the federal government using their nearby federal complex as an excuse to proceed with an eminent domain case in order to make money? It seems a bit fishy that the federal government secured a bid for the sale of the 3.89 acre surplus property at the end of the street for a price that was double the parcel’s appraised value, and then went after McKay Ave. Although the federal government is not hiding the sale to the housing developer, it seems quite a coincidence that things have played out as they have.

Now the State of California must file a response to the lawsuit. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds. One can’t help but to recall the infamous Kelo case and how its decision has influenced governmental acquisition of private properties for sale to private developers.

By: A.J. Hazarabedian
To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, the managing partner at California Eminent Domain Law Group, visit http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/aboutAJH.php

Next Page »

COPYRIGHT © 2010 Arthur J. Hazarabedian, Esq.