Prop 99, as passed by the voters in 2008, amended the California Constitution to protect private property owners against government takings of their homes by “eminent domain” police powers when they did not wish to sell. At least that is what the opposition stated in all of their rhetoric as they opposed our Prop 98 full property rights protection Initiative last year.
For all those who voted for Prop 99 may this be a warning of future “takings” of your owner occupied homes. Simply look at residents of Long Beach, California who retained the services of the Institute for Justice to fight to save their homes from their city’s redevelopment agency wrecking ball.
Explain Prop 99 to Victoria Ballesteros, Communications Officer for the Long Beach Redevelopment Services Department. That department also includes the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Ballesteros was quoted in the Press Telegram article written by Karen Robes where she said: “I’m sympathetic to someone who doesn’t want to sell their house but at the same time, they do get fair market value.”
She adds: “It is a process dictated by state law, and they do receive just compensation. They do receive relocation assistance. There’s a mechanism in place to assist, to ensure that property owners are treated fairly.”
Thank you very much Ms. Ballesteros. However, property owners were conned by a false sense of security by approving Prop 99 rather than Prop 98 where they would have been fully protected, including their businesses and other private property.
Perhaps we are not ready or willing to sell or doesn’t that count for anything in this country anymore?
Perhaps the home has been in your family for generations and you want to pass it down to your heirs.
Some have said that “This is not a question of money for us. We just want to be left alone with what is rightfully ours.”
Perhaps Ms. Ballesteros needs to read Section 19 parts (b) and (e3) of The Amended California Constitution which now reads:
Text of Section 19: (a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person.
(c) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.
(d) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a public work or improvement.
(e) For the purpose of this section:
1. “Conveyance” means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift, franchise, or otherwise. 2. “Local government” means any city, including a charter city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision within the State. 3. “Owner-occupied residence” means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners’ principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government’s initial written offer to purchase the property. Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or detached from such a single-family residence which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. 4. “Person” means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company. 5. “Public work or improvement” means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement. 6. “State” means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments.
Ms. Ballesteros. I have some news for you. The property owners of the “Long Beach Citizens Against Eminent Domain Abuse” are not looking for any or your “sympathy.” They only wish to be left alone. Is that too much to ask for?
For those newcomers reading my blog posts on property rights I need to be fully transparent.
I am a member of the Castle Coalition arm of the Institue for Justice, Orange County Co-director of Californians United for Redevelopment Education, CURE, and Board Member of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, CAPPPR
Larry,
This post grants you our Orange Juice Post of the Year Award, 2009.
I have stories about this issue.
Our family has lost half our fortune to eminent domain and AND as you mentioned—some property has been in the family for generations.
We even lost property to ?? won’t mention the gov. agency— with existing oil royalties!! Oh and the speculation over taking or not taking a property may take decades –all the while there may be hearings and letters/notices sent to property owners— the anxiety this creates can kill someone especially if there is strong emotional attachment when the property has been in a family for generations. Forget trying to plan for the future generations!
Thank you for the post.
It is all because there is never ending thirst to build HOAs, CIDs, CICs and PUDs.
The socialism is here and will stay because Larry and company are barking on the wrong tree.
Careful Stanley. Mayor Pulido is looking at your complext right now as part of the Santa Ana redevelopment project area urban renewal.
You did not identify the specific “taking’ that prompted “… residents of Long Beach, California who retained the services of the Institute for Justice to fight to save their homes from their city’s redevelopment agency wrecking ball.” Using your logic, the Indians would never have had their land taken, California would still be Mexico, no major city in America would have had a successful downtown revitalization, freeways, and many hospitals and colleges — Of course a Democratic government has the right to take land for public good. The use of eminent domain is a legitimate land-use and economic development policy and an American tradition.
ABUSES however, should not be acceptable. Was there abuse in this case?
1. Was there a legal finding of blight?
2. Was the homeowner offered fair market value and relocation costs as required by law?
3. Did the Agency negotiate in good faith and make the legally required reasonable offers?
4. Has a finding been made and validated that the property could be redeveloped into better performing uses and for greater public good?
I am always weary of blighted homeowners and absentee landowners perpetuating blight and as a result supporting the crime, concentrated poverty and other social ills that result from their investment in blight and then cry foul when those in public service seek to improve conditions and take corrective action.
There is a whole new breed of ambulance-chasing type lawyers, blight investors and wack-job political types aligned to strong-arm localities into big money for worthless properties and to win political points for ‘protecting the little guy’. Individual rights and property rights are a cornerstone of American society, but when demagogues, RDA-chasing (ambulance- chasing type) lawyers and political operatives use the ‘little guy’ as pawns to enrich themselves monetarily or politically, it is a much bigger crime than it is for a public agency seeking to revitalize blighted communities and improve public good, through redevelopment.
“Mayor Pulido is looking at your complext right now as part of the Santa Ana redevelopment project area urban renewal.”…… you silly Larry;
In fact, I have advised Pulido (my opponent in 2004, 2006 and 2008) to bulldoze this Woodside Village HOA gulag.
Advocate.
Prop 99, which changed the CA Constitution to protect homeowners, trumps any of your arguments on findings of blight or just compensation which, by the way, are in the eye of the beholder who has an obvious Agenda
Offers of “fair market” value etc was the RDA fallback prior to passage of Prop 99. Stop living in the past and honor the CA Constitution.
While there are flaws in Prop 99, your side won. Don’t look for wiggle room unless you are willing to tighten the Constitution by adding protection for those who own business properties and farms.
Ambulance chasing lawyers? Call me when some agency takes your home when you have no desire to sell. By and large the victims of eminent domain takings are the poor and minorities in this country who cannot afford legal representation.
You are so blinded by the standard rhetoric you reference freeways and hospitals. Hello. Anyone at home. This taking is not for a valid public use. Owner occupied homes are now protected if the taking is to give that property to another private individual such as a developer. Please read Section 19b before inserting foot in mouth.
As to the American Indians. Yes, they surely were abused by our government before laws were passed to protect them as we moved them off their lands to reservations against their will. That my friend was before my time or yours.
Stanley.
Don’t wait for the mayor to bulldoze your complex. Come to the “CA Promise.” Well,the area of Mission Viejo that does not have an HOA called Aegean Hills where you can purchase a single family home or move into an apartment and avoid big brother telling you how to live.
Come to the “CA Promise.”….. Hmmm
Wouldn’t you like to go with me?… to avoid big brother telling you how to live?
Or are you Mr. Conservative too comfy in your socialistic gulag?
Larry,
As I am sure you aware, Proposition 99 protects “owner-occupied residence[s]” from being acquired by eminent domain and subsequently transferred to a private party for private development. “Owner-occupied residence” specifically excludes all small business owners, all renters and even all new homeowners if they have lived in their residences for less than a year. In addition, Prop 99 ONLY applies to owner-occupied residences when the government’s “PURPOSE” is to convey property to another private party. In other words, eminent domain is constitutional when done for another “purpose.” Finally, as I am sure you are also aware, the City of Long Beach has NEVER taken private property under eminent domain.
Advocate. Thank you for copying what I already posted from the Amended CA Constitution.
And even with Prop 98 we did not oppose valid public uses connected to eminent domain.
As you are so well informed and well connected, can you guarantee Marilyn and Lupe Arvizo that the redevelopment agency of the city of Long Beach has no plans to take their property under eminent domain powers?
City officials will each tell you that they “only” use their police powers as a “last resort.”
Last resort after putting a gun to our heads whenever we say no.
Well Prop 99 was to remove that tool from their tool box whenever Agencies were dealing with an owner occupied residence.
We shall see what the courts have to say as this story unfolds.
This is what happened to Java lanes.