HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111985 - 1.25 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa
DATE: June 4, 1985 @ County
SUBJECT: Legislation: AB 1576 (Lewis)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt a position of opposition to AB 1576 by Assemblyman John
Lewis of Orange County, which would allow the original owner to
re-purchase property acquired by eminent domain when the public
agency determines it no longer needs the property.
BACKGROUND:
Current law provides no mechanism for a person whose property has
been acquired under the eminent domain law to re-acquire the
property for the amount paid by the public agency when that
agency determines it no longer needs the property.
AB 1576 would impose a State-mandated local program by requiring
public agencies which acquire property by eminent domain after
January 1, 1986 to offer the property to the person from whom the
property was acquired before selling, exchanging, or otherwise
disposing of the property as surplus or excess property.
Current law on eminent domain (Title VII, Part 3, Code of Civil
Procedure) provides extensive protections for an individual
before his or her property can be acquired through eminent
domain. Portions of the law provide as follows:
"The power of eminent domain may be exercised to
acquire property only for a public use. . . .The power
of eminent domain may be exercised to acquire
property for a proposed project only if all of the
following are established:
A. The public interest and necessity require the
project.
B. The project is planned or located in the manner
that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and the least private injury.
C. The property sought to be acquired is necessary
for the project. " /f
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
X_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIST TOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_X APPROVE OTHER 1
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON __ June 11, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ,X_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator
CC: Public Works Director ATTESTED
Assemblyman John Lewis JJ//
Assemblyman Elihu Harris, Chair PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Assembly Judiciary
M382/7-83 BY �� DEPUTY
Page 2
In relation to whether or not the property is going to be needed
for a future project, the law also provides specific criteria
which must be met before a public agency can acquire property
through eminent domain for a future use. The law also provides
extensive opportunities for a defendant to prove to the
satisfaction of a court that such future use has not been.
documented. For instance:
A. "Any person authorized to acquire property for a
particular use by eminent domain may exercise the power
of eminent domain to acquire property to be used in the
future for that use, but property may be taken for
future use only if there is a reasonable probability
that its dated use will be within seven years from the
date the complaint is filed, or within such longer
period as is reasonable. "
If an individual proves that there is no reasonable probability
that the property will be used within seven years, it then
becomes the local agency' s burden to prove that their taking the
property through eminent domain otherwise satisfies the
requirements of the law.
The law also provides extensive grounds for an individual to
object to a local agency's right to acquire his property through
eminent domain, including proving that the local agency does not
intend to devote the property to the stated purpose, or that
there is no reasonable probability that the local agency will
devote the described property to the stated purpose within seven
years. It appears that there are extensive and sufficient
protections built into the law which should prevent any local
agency from acquiring property by eminent domain when it does not
intend to use the property for a legitimate public purpose within
the period of time specified.
The entire 'focus of the existing procedures are designed to
resolve the matter, if necessary, in court once and for all
before the public agency takes possession of the property. To
then leave the loophole which would permit the original owner to
re-acquire the property at some time in the future, seems to
contradict -the whole focus of the eminent domain law.
The PublicWorks Director strongly recommends that the Board
oppose AB 1576, and this office concurs with that recommendation.
AB 1576 ispresently pending a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
1