You might want to talk to her boss. Don is very helpful

Don Grebe, Chief
Office of Project Delivery
Division of Right of Way and Land Surveys
916.654.4456
800.464.4456
Cell: 916.716.7808

Sunny is in charge of Relocation Assistance.

Call Sunny Lofton at 916-654-3167 if you have questions or send comments via e-mail to: Sunny Lofton (Sunny_Lofton@dot.ca.gov)

The first step in the condemnation process is the securing of a Resolution of Necessity from the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The property owner is notified that the CTC will consider a Resolution at a future meeting. The Commission generally meets on a monthly basis. The only issues considered by the Commission in adopting a Resolution of Necessity are:

The public interest and necessity require the project.

The project is planned to provide the greatest public good with the least private injury.

This property is required for the proposed project.

An offer to purchase, in compliance with Government Code Section 7267.2, has been made to the owners of record.

Contact CTC

1120 N Street
Room 2221 (MS-52)
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 654-4245
FAX: (916) 653-2134

The fact is, the U.S. Supreme Court held the cities could use eminent domain for redevelopment of blighted properties over 50 years ago (in 1954 to be exact) in the landmark case Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26. What constitutes blight has been the subject of quite a bit of dispute over the last half century, and many cities have taken what many would argue is substantial liberty in defining blight – to the point where often perfectly serviceable, and even relatively recently constructed, buildings have been taken by eminent domain under the guise of blight.

In Kelo, the Court took the Berman decision a huge step further, holding that it is unnecessary for a City to even bother with finding blight before using eminent domain for redevelopment. Thus, the significance of Kelo is not that the Court held eminent domain could be used for redevelopment – that has already been the law for over a half century – but that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment without blight.’

The reality is, Kelo has little legal significance in California because California already has statutory law which requires a finding of blight before eminent domain may be used for redevelopment. The Kelo decision has had significant practical significance in California, however, for the mere fact that it has opened people’s eyes to the ever expanding use of eminent domain, which in turn has resulted in a public backlash which now threatens the government’s ability to use eminent domain even for legitimate public uses.