The city of Laguna Woods will have to pay $6.43 million to acquire the property where City Hall sits.

The Orange County Register reported in their article, “Laguna Woods must pay $6.4 million to take City Hall,” that the amount was “$2.78 million more than [the city] had offered for the two-story facility, the parcel on which it sits and the space needed for parking.”

Eminent domain proceedings began in 2005 and an Orange County Superior Court jury made their decision this week.  Per the article, “the city argued there was no value to the right to use parking in the shopping center, and that the city acquiring the City Hall building did not affect the value of the property.”  Raintree Realty, the property owner, argued that the value of the property decreased once the city took over the commercial site, which was once home to a Citibank branch.

The city must pay Raintree Realty $6.43 million plus additional interest for the property.

This is a great example of the results that challenging the government’s valuation with proper representation can achieve in an eminent domain matter.  The owner was able to obtain compensation of approximately 75% more than the government’s offer.  Property owners facing eminent domain should take note: you can fight City Hall!

It looks like the city of Glendale will be using eminent domain to acquire the property currently occupied by the Museum of Neon Art at 212 S. Brand Blvd.

The Glendale News Press reported that the city council plans on extending their eminent domain authority “as officials remain locked in negotiations for a key piece of property on Brand Boulevard.”

Negotiations have been ongoing since November of 2009 and the city and property owner have yet to come to a resolution.

According to the article, “City sets to extend eminent domain,” the need for eminent domain has been rare, as agreements are usually reached with the owners prior to initiating court proceedings.

The article may be overstating its case.  While many cases do settle without going to litigation, eminent domain is hardly “rare.”  Hundreds of eminent domain cases are filed every year because property owners recognize that accepting the government’s offer may not be the best course of action in their particular situation.

Pacific Oaks Federal Credit Union will have more time to negotiate with the owner of Carriage Square shopping center in the city of Oxnard, in an attempt to prevent the city from having to proceed with eminent domain.

The Ventura County Star reported in their article, “Oxnard gives credit union time to avoid eminent domain,” that the property owner, Upside Oxnard LLC, and the credit union will spend this time trying to reach an agreement.

The problem involves the potential relocation of the credit union.  The property owner, who is also the developer, plans to bring a Lowe’s store to the center, which would require the credit union to move out.  Per the article, the credit union believes their customers will be inconvenienced and that a new location will mean higher rent for less space.

Pacific Oaks Federal Credit Union is hoping to stay in the center as part of the new development.  However, Upside Oxnard LLC plans to demolish most of the older buildings which includes the credit union’s space.

The two parties have less than a week to come up with a mutually agreeable solution, as the City Council is prepared to hold a special meeting Tuesday, August 3rd.

Residents in Barstow are looking for answers surrounding the topic of eminent domain and how it may affect their homes and local churches.

The Desert Dispatch reported Sunday that residents felt they did not get enough information at the April 28th public meeting and that Barstow “city staff will attempt another public meeting in the Riverside Drive area to inform residents about eminent domain…before they bring the issue back to the City Council for a vote.”

The article, “City to attempt second eminent domain meeting Wednesday,” discusses the residents’ fears of losing their homes to the city.  However, Richard Rowe, City Manager, assures residents their homes and churches will not be affected.

The Barstow Redevelopment Agency hopes to renew their eminent domain powers for “the area encompassing the outlet malls, the area south of Rimrock Road between Barstow Road and Montara Road and the area west of Avenue L on West Main Street,” as well as “the area between Interstate 15 and 40 near Walmart.”

Residents will have an opportunity to learn more about the city’s plans at the public meeting to be held at 6pm on July 28, 2010 at the Barstow Church of God in Christ.

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.

Glendale, CA – May 27,2010 – California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC is pleased to announce that Glenn Block will be presenting at this year’s IRWA Chapter 1 Right of Way and the Law Seminar, “Right of Way Legal Issues in a New Era.”

The seminar is held by the International Right of Way Association each year at Quiet Cannon in Montebello, CA.  This year’s seminar will be June 22, 2010.  Glenn will be presenting “Partial Takings – A Case Study of a Cooperative Resolution.”

Glenn Block has concentrated his law practice solely in eminent domain for more than 13 years.  A successful trial lawyer, he represents both business and property owners in direct and inverse condemnation litigation and has recovered over $100 million on their behalf.  He also represents public agencies in acquiring property for public use.

Mr. Block is licensed to practice law in California and New York and is a member of various bar associations.  He received his undergraduate degree in accounting from San Francisco State University and his law degree from Brooklyn Law School.

To learn more about Glenn Block, please visit http://caledlaw.com/html/aboutGB.html.

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 offices in the Los Angeles area.  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.

We posted an article in March about San Pablo and the city council’s hope to reinstate the power of eminent domain for 12 years.

In yesterday’s Mercury News there was a new article discussing the results of a recent city council meeting, where the San Pablo city council voted against “a series of ordinances and resolutions to amend redevelopment plans covering more than 90 percent of the city.”  Among those ordinances was one to restore the city’s power of eminent domain for 12 years.  The article, “San Pablo dumps eminent domain plans,” recounts the four month long public debate where residents argued against everything from blight surveys to power point presentations glorifying the accomplishments of past redevelopment projects.

The residents would not budge, and even threatened a recall.  Per the article, residents were feeling betrayed by the city, calling eminent domain, “a cruel and brutal tool and accused the city of a secret agenda to kill working-class people’s American dream of homeownership to accommodate out-of-town developers’ vision of a gentrified San Pablo.”

At this point, residents can have some comfort in knowing that their efforts paid off (at least for now).

In November of last year, we posted an article about a land swap deal in Lake Forest.  This week, the Orange County Register is reporting that the, “eminent domain tug-of-war between a Rancho Santa Margarita family and the city of Lake Forest over a 6-acre parcel of land has been settled.”

The article, “Settlement sets stage for land swap, sports park,” explains that Vince Hernandez, the landowner, will receive $1.35 million for his property; about half of what he had wanted, yet almost double the city’s original offer.  This property will now be part of a land swap between the city of Lake Forest and the County of Orange.  As part of the deal, “the city will receive 38 acres northwest of Portola Parkway and El Toro Road where it plans to build a sports park and recreation center.”  The sports park played a role in the Hernandez family’s decision to settle.  Per the article, Vince Hernandez is a local Pop Warner and Little League coach and liked the idea of how the city would benefit from the park.

The $39 million park could have a construction start date as early as late 2010.

We came across an interesting column in the Los Angeles Times today regarding what appears to be the first case of eminent domain – sort of – in cyberspace.  How is that possible?  A San Francisco company called Linden Lab has created a virtual world known as Second Life.  Their website purports, “a free 3D virtual world where users can socialize, connect and create using free voice and text chat.”

The “world” may be free; however, property (including islands, or other virtual real property) is purchased by users using real-world dollars.  A user then becomes the property owner and may develop it as he or she wishes.  That is, until Linden Lab changed their terms.

Originally, per the Los Angeles Times column, “A real-world battle over virtual-property rights,” citing a lawsuit filed in Pittsburgh, PA this month, Linden Lab, “repeatedly emphasiz[ed] that users would have indefinite ownership of any property purchased online.”  Users paid hundreds of real-world dollars, or more, to own property in this virtual world, with the promise it would be theirs and theirs alone for life.  This was what Linden Lab had claimed until the company, “quietly changed its contract terms to remove the concept of ownership and has confiscated the property of some users without compensation.”

Is this the taking of private property without payment of just compensation?  In situations involving real property (pun intended), the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects private property rights.  The government can only take private property for a “public use” and only upon payment of “just compensation.”  But does the Fifth Amendment extend to the virtual world?

In the virtual world of Second Life, if Linden Lab is the “government” do they need a “public use” to take virtual property?  Not likely.  Even though Linden Lab may be the “government” of its virtual world, it is not the government in reality and therefore not bound by the federal or state Constitutions.  As we point out in our “California Eminent Domain Handbook,” traditional examples of “public uses” for which the government might exercise its power of eminent domain include such things as schools, roads, libraries, police stations, fire stations, etc.  How about payment of “just compensation”? Again, they are not bound by the constitutional requirement of “just compensation.”  They may however, have a contractual obligation to pay compensation or damages.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “[t]he lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages for what it says was fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws,” as well as, “a judge’s determination that Second Life users do indeed own the property they purchase online, and as such they enjoy the same right as real-world property owners.”

Second Life property owners may want to consider hiring virtual eminent domain attorneys.

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District received a favorable verdict in a case involving a right to take action.  Property owner, John O’Doherty was challenging the water district’s right to take a portion of Third Street for a water pumping station.

The verdict was discussed in a recent Press-Enterprise article, “Judge rules in favor of Elsinore Valley water district in eminent domain case.” It appears that the water district did not actually acquire Mr. O’Doherty’s property; rather, the property they did acquire would, according to O’Doherty, “[limit] access to [the] property he owns near Third and Collier, [diminish] the value of the property and [increase] the potential for flooding on the land.”  Mr. O’Doherty sought $768,000 in damages from the water district and challenged their right to use the property.

The result: Riverside County Superior Court Judge Peter L. Spinetta ruled “that the water district had the right to take and use a portion of Third Street near Collier Avenue for the station and that the project was more necessary than the road being used as a footpath or for vehicle traffic.”

As we discuss in our “California Eminent Domain Handbook,” successful challenges to the government’s right to take a particular property are the exception, not the rule, and usually result only in a delay, rather than outright prevention of the government’s right to take.  Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and experienced eminent domain counsel should be consulted.

]]> http://blog.eminentdomainlaw.net/?feed=rss2&p=347 0