And argument for harm done by the passage of Prop 99. The short version is that in addition to creating the illusion that the problem is solved, it prevents courts from finding anti-Kelo protections in existing provisions of the state constitution, and it demonstrates a viable political strategy for defeating anti-Kelo initiatives in other states (pushing a toothless measure as a substitute amendment and criticizing measure you're trying to defeat as going too far).
As a side note, does anybody know if the Kelo abuse has actually been used here in California yet?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-somin19-2008may19,0,7467652.storyTwo San Gabriel Valley cities illustrate the dangers of unbridled condemnation authority. Baldwin Park plans to use eminent domain to demolish more than 500 homes and businesses and transfer the land to a politically influential developer who plans to build a mall. La Puente is trying to use eminent domain to take over a small shopping center, displacing 13 small businesses. The city claims that the area is "blighted" -- making it eligible for condemnation under state law -- even though there is no evidence of dilapidation. The La Puente condemnation is not protected against by Prop 99. The Baldwin Park condemnation might be unless the backers can get the local government to classify the area as blighted (which is very easy to do from a legal standpoint). Here's another article about Baldwin Park.
Santa Rosa has recently declared a large area to be blighted, and is preparing to use Kelo-style takings as part of the redevelopment project. Again, because of the blight exception, Prop 99 provides no protection against this.
Alright, I had somebody trying to debate with me, in another context, that all this worry about eminent domain was unfounded paranoia, and that it had never happened in California. I didn't believe this was the case, but some surface-level web searches didn't turn anything up, so I wasn't sure.
As a side note, does anybody know if the Kelo abuse has actually been used here in California yet?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-somin19-2008may19,0,7467652.storyTwo San Gabriel Valley cities illustrate the dangers of unbridled condemnation authority. Baldwin Park plans to use eminent domain to demolish more than 500 homes and businesses and transfer the land to a politically influential developer who plans to build a mall. La Puente is trying to use eminent domain to take over a small shopping center, displacing 13 small businesses. The city claims that the area is "blighted" -- making it eligible for condemnation under state law -- even though there is no evidence of dilapidation.
The La Puente condemnation is not protected against by Prop 99. The Baldwin Park condemnation might be unless the backers can get the local government to classify the area as blighted (which is very easy to do from a legal standpoint). Here's another article about Baldwin Park.
Santa Rosa has recently declared a large area to be blighted, and is preparing to use Kelo-style takings as part of the redevelopment project. Again, because of the blight exception, Prop 99 provides no protection against this.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment