Ms. Curtis: "...It's obvious that we need some education at this Committee. Your analysis is quite biased. It's almost a parrot of the report from the Redevelopment Association...The facts are supported by your own state documents in the Controller's office of the State of California" and proceeded to pass them out "so you might have another viewpoint besides just the standard Redevelopment Association."...

Assemblyman Mullin: And that [legislative] analysis was independently conducted by my staff, not the Redevelopment Agency and...

Ms. Curits: I understand, but the language is pretty similar

Assemblyman Mullin: That analysis came after a result of hearings on this issue throughout the state, multiple hearings and so, I respect the fact that you have an opinion, one that I have to tell you I don't share.

Ms. Curtis: I understand.

Assemblyman Mullin: Thank you.

Ms. Curtis: It's quite obvious this Committee doesn't share anything to reform Redevelopment.

Assemblyman Mullin: I will treat you with respect, Ma'am. I would hope that you would do the same...

Ms. Curtis: We're trying

Assemblyman Mullin: This is a state agency that is entertaining a variety of bills, and try to maintain decorum, and so I don't think that personal remarks are necessary to advance that and I would appreciate that.

Ms. Curtis: A different opinion over the facts of the situation, such as when you merge projects and why they're being merged, what was told to you today, one has more tax increment than another project, but what they didn't tell you was the fact that one project has more outstanding debt and is in danger of defaulting, and all of this can be found in the State Controller's reports of financial transactions each year...The fact is, Redevelopment Agencies have threatened and destroyed more private property than any agency in the state's history. Not for housing, not for the poor, not for anything but to create an investor's and a developer's goal of taking one piece of property away from somebody else's investment for their own investment. What this bill does is return to the public that you guys, I'm praying that you will listen to what we're trying to say to you, and it's not just Republicans against Democrats. We have [Congresswoman] Maxine Walters (D., L.A.) with us on the issue because she understands where the properties are really going and who's losing...And what we're asking you to do is to return it to normal government, to protect the constitution of California, which you swore to do...[testimony continues for about two minutes more]

[Unidentified Assembly committee member]: ...Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, can we move on to the next witness? We know that you have a flight to catch and I wanted to talk about the topic at hand which is Assemblywoman Walters' bill on eminent domain.

Assemblywoman Mullin: If you could summarize in a sentence or two...

Ms. Curtis: Alright, part of the excuses on this analysis here that says we need to keep Redevelopment...is to get rid of these problems [nuisances]. Basically, I just want to say there are laws right now on the books to do that and it's not necessary...

This bill>

AB 1990 provides that no local government entity may take property by eminent domain and transfer it to a private party, in effect this is the same proposal suggested by others limiting eminent domain to only government owned and operated public works projects.

The author states that following the Kelo [5-4 U.S. Supreme Court] decision [2005], local governments now have the power to condemn private land for private economic development projects. That statement is not accurate. The U.S. Supreme Court holding only addresses the Connecticut case. As noted several times in this analysis, the Supreme Court suggested that states may wish to look to states like California that have specific limitations on the use of redevelopment and eminent domain.

Staff Comments

It is important to emphasize that California is not Connecticut. The California Legislature has long recognized the controversial nature of eminent domain and has over the years added statutory restrictions on its use, particularly with respect to redevelopment.

The author has provided the committee a summary of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Kelo but did not include the majority opinion which in great detail explains the legal rationale for its holding. It is significant to note that the majority opinion points to California as an example of a state which has ". . . expressed, in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised."

It is also interesting to note that after analysis of the facts of the Connecticut case and thorough discussion of the law, Justice Kennedy concludes in a separate concurring opinion: "In sum, while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case."

Despite the analysis by the Supreme Court, as well as a clear and accepted legal determination that what happened under Connecticut law could not happen under California law, media and citizens erupted in a hysterical furor over the issue of eminent domain. As members of the Legislature have come to realize, it has been difficult to have a reasoned discussion of public policy without the intrusion of inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric.

Media, electronic and print, seemed to suggest that the Supreme Court endorsed the arbitrary taking of homes and businesses; that, it is now "open season" on private property. The fact of the matter is no such thing happened. The day after the Supreme Court ruling, nothing changed in California. The rules that have been in place since the 1960s, which have been consistently made more stringent, have not changed.

In most instances the local legislative body is also the legislative body of the redevelopment agency. Redevelopment officials assert that the use of eminent domain is rarely used given the political unpopularity of such action. Given the extreme scrutiny over eminent domain following the Kelo decision, the frequency of its use has likely decreased further.

The committee may wish to consider the following with respect to limiting the use of eminent domain to only public works projects:

1)All public entities would be precluded from using eminent domain as a tool in acquiring parcels as part of its overall blight eradication strategy.

2) All public entities would be precluded from condemning and acquiring nuisance properties (e.g., meth labs and other drug activities, prostitution, criminal activity generally).

3)All public entities would be precluded from condemning and acquiring properties that have environmental contamination for the purposes of clean-up and development.

4)All public entities would be precluded from acquiring affordable housing properties where the landowner seeks to convert the property to another use.

The committee may wish to consider what California would look like if eminent domain could not be used to address gang havens, meth labs, or toxic sites. Many local communities struggle with absentee landlords who refuse to address hazardous conditions on their land. In many cases such landlords benefit from tax laws when properties become abandoned and fail to earn revenue.

The committee may wish to consider whether an extreme reaction to a decision by the Supreme Court, which had nothing to do with California law, that results in limiting the ability of local public safety officials to address dangerous conditions, is sound public policy.

As legislative proposals to reform eminent domain laws are being considered, proponents of a ballot initiative (financed by a group from New York) are gathering signatures in California for a measure which would not only prevent local government from protecting its citizens from crime and urban decay but also limit local ability to place use restrictions on land. That initiative would declare that any restriction placed on land use will be considered an unjust taking. If measures such as these are successful, the committee should consider what local communities would look like over time.

The committee may wish to consider if there is a "McCarthy-era" like crusade to eliminate the power of government to address land use. One only has to look to the third world to see what unrestricted land-use planning looks like.

The committee may wish to ask residents in crime ridden neighborhoods, after a project is complete where dilapidated housing and store fronts have been replaced by new buildings and affordable housing, whether they like it better before or after redevelopment.

The committee may wish to consider whether a vote in favor of such severe restrictions of eminent domain is a vote in favor of permanent hazardous conditions.

The right of a property owner to use his or her land for any purpose, without restrictions, works just fine until there are neighbors.