Public Power, Private Gain - The Castle Coalition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Public Power, Private GainOxnardIn June 2002, the Oxnard City Council began condemnation proceedings on 1.4 acres of vacant land wantedfor the proposed $750-million RiverPark, a privately owned residential/commercial development. The threeparcels comprising the targeted area lie within the bounds of the Historic Enhancement and Revitalization ofOxnard (HERO) redevelopment area, which allows Oxnard to use eminent domain to transfer land to developers.The City previously tried to negotiate with the owner of the three parcels, but talks were fruitless,although the City separately purchased an adjacent fourth parcel after reaching agreement with that parcel’sowner. The proposed RiverPark project, which is slated for completion by 2012, will supposedly somedayhave as many as 2,805 residential units, for which a total of 15 properties may eventually be condemned.Oxnard resident Ventura Fernandez, who is the chairman of the local Inter-Neighborhood Council Forum,attended the meeting at which the City Council passed its resolution allowing the condemnations to go forward.Ferndandez told City officials that eminent domain is a dangerous tool, whose only purpose in thiscase is “to make the developer rich.” He believes that RiverPark could be built without the City having tocondemn land for the project, but the City is so eager to serve the interests of the developer that it is willingto take other peoples’ land. 78San BernardinoThe City of San Bernardino used eminent domain in 2002 to acquire about 24.5 acres of land near the formerNorton Air Force Base for a Sam’s Club warehouse store. The targeted land consisted of 34 properties,mostly single-family homes and also a motel and several other small businesses. 79 The local redevelopmentagency came to terms with 11 of the 34 property owners, but many others rejected the City’soffers because they believed the City deliberately offered less than the land was worth. 80 Eventually, theCity approved the use of eminent domain to force out the remaining owners. 81San DiegoIn an effort to cash in on San Diego’s plan to build a new baseball stadium in the East Village area of thatcity’s downtown, Centre Development Corp., the local redevelopment authority, has undertaken a project todevelop the 26-square block area surrounding the new stadium. The East Village was once a warehousedistrict occupied by entrepreneurs and “urban pioneers,” until the City decided in 2000 to condemn all theproperties. In total, 67 East Village businesses and 20 residents are being displaced. According to LeslieWade, executive director of the East Village Association, a group that represented businesses in the ballpark/redevelopmentdistrict, the entire condemnation process was painful for area landowners. She saysthat “people got 60-day notices to pick up their businesses and part with their property.” While some businesseswere happy with the City’s buyout offers, many others have had trouble succeeding in their newlocations. A few have left San Diego altogether, in search of a more hospitable business climate. 82 Thesedisplaced property owners and entrepreneurs were instrumental in revitalizing the urban core of San Diego,California78 Raul Hernandez, “Oxnard to Use Eminent Domain to Get Land,” Ventura County Star, June 6, 2002, at B2.79 “IVDA Could Take Land to Make Way for Project,” The Business Press/California, Dec. 17, 2001, at 10.80 Adam Eventov, “Landowners Call City Offers Too Low; A Residential Area is Being Acquired for a Major Retail Center,”The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), Jan. 24, 2002, at B3.81 Adam Eventov, “Sam’s Club Up for Key Approval,” The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), June 25, 2002, at D6.82 Frank Green, “Fair or Foul? Many Former East Village Merchants Still Feeling Effects of Displacement by BallparkProject,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 10, 2002, at H1.33
Public Power, Private Gainonly to have the City reward them by taking theirproperty, destroying their businesses, and turningtheir land over to favored developers and chain retailstores.San JoseOne of San Jose’s many redevelopment projects is aplanned downtown 10.5-acre mixed-use retail and residentialdevelopment that will include 1 million squarefeet for residential use with 350,000 square feet forretail use. The project is expected to cost between$750 million and $1 billion to complete. 83 The development’sinitial phase called for the City to condemn a1.4-acre parking lot owned by Al Schlarmann and thengive the land to the project’s developer, the CIM Group.When the City first announced its plan to redevelop thelot, Schlarmann sued, claiming that he held the developmentrights to the parking lot under a 1997 legal settlementwith the San Jose Redevelopment Agency.The agency responded in April 2002 by filing a lawsuitto condemn the development rights. A Santa ClaraCounty Superior Court judge ruled in July 2002 thatthe agency may use eminent domain to takeSchlarmann’s parking lot. In other words, even a writtenpromise from the government won’t protect someonefrom eminent domain. The City’s redevelopmentplans call for it to condemn four additional downtownproperties. 84San JoseThe San Jose Redevelopment Agency also proposed inMay 2001 that approximately 40 parcels of land beconverted into high-density housing. While six of theparcels are vacant and nine are owned by the City, theothers contain privately owned houses, warehouses,83 “Developer Seeking ‘Critical’ Properties,” Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, Apr. 13, 2001, at 1.84 Rodney Foo, “Redevelopment Agency Wins Right to KeyProperty; Court Rules S.J. Can Use Eminent Domain,” SanJose Mercury News, July 23, 2002, at B1.Jose Mendoza, one of the Tropicana merchants,protests in San Jose, CA. Photo by Ben Garza.Design for renovation or Tropicana Shopping Center, approved andpermitted in 1995, at the sole cost and initiative of the owners.The redelopment agency staff called the above design “a Taco Belllook,” and insisted on a redesign. The redesign process includedcompletion of the “Story Road Revitalization Agreement” and amore Mediterranean look for the completed buildings.Total Time Elapsed—3 years.34
Page 2 and 3: Foreword by Douglas W. Kmiec“Gove
Page 4 and 5: Missouri 117Montana 124Nebraska 126
Page 6 and 7: Mississippi Supreme Court Strengthe
Page 8 and 9: Public Power,Private Gainby Dana Be
Page 10 and 11: A Few Examples of the Abuse ofEmine
Page 12 and 13: The Eminent Domain Process andthe O
Page 14 and 15: depends on a particular location. S
Page 16 and 17: Changes and AdditionsThe informatio
Page 18 and 19: Public Power, Private GainThe Alaba
Page 20 and 21: Public Power, Private GainLegislati
Page 24 and 25: Public Power, Private GainPhoenixIn
Page 26 and 27: Public Power, Private GainPrivate U
Page 28: Public Power, Private GainLegislati
Page 31 and 32: Public Power, Private Gainaccording
Page 33 and 34: Public Power, Private GainAt trial,
Page 35 and 36: Public Power, Private GainYasin’s
Page 37 and 38: Public Power, Private GainGarden Gr
Page 39: Public Power, Private GainIn the en
Page 43 and 44: Public Power, Private GainUnder the
Page 45 and 46: Public Power, Private GainKnown Con
Page 47 and 48: Public Power, Private Gainanother p
Page 49 and 50: Public Power, Private Gainrent hike
Page 53 and 54: Public Power, Private Gainfamilies
Page 55 and 56: Public Power, Private Gainbusinesse
Page 57 and 58: Public Power, Private GainAfter the
Page 62 and 63: Public Power, Private GainCoolidge-
Page 64 and 65: Public Power, Private GainThis Rivi
Page 66 and 67: Public Power, Private GainGeorgiaOv
Page 70 and 71: Public Power, Private GainWith grea
Page 74 and 75: Public Power, Private GainGateway c
Page 76 and 77: Public Power, Private GainGovernmen
Page 78 and 79: Public Power, Private GainIndianaKn
Page 80 and 81: Public Power, Private Gainaction, e
Page 84 and 85: Public Power, Private GainDemolitio
Page 86 and 87: Public Power, Private GainPrivate U
Page 90 and 91:
Public Power, Private Gain“excess
Page 92 and 93:
Public Power, Private GainNewportA
Page 94 and 95:
Public Power, Private GainPrivate U
Page 96 and 97:
Public Power, Private GainMaineKnow
Page 98 and 99:
Public Power, Private GainTown Lear
Page 100 and 101:
Public Power, Private GainBaltimore
Page 102 and 103:
Public Power, Private GainKnown Con
Page 104 and 105:
Public Power, Private GainPittsfiel
Page 106 and 107:
Public Power, Private GainSBC and M
Page 108 and 109:
Public Power, Private GainLegislati
Page 110 and 111:
Public Power, Private GainUnder the
Page 112 and 113:
Public Power, Private Gainprivate p
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Public Power, Private GainIn Septem
Page 118 and 119:
Public Power, Private GainThe prope
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Public Power, Private GainAfter the
Page 124 and 125:
Public Power, Private GainMissouriK
Page 126 and 127:
Public Power, Private GainVacate Yo
Page 128 and 129:
Public Power, Private GainThe Thoms
Page 130 and 131:
Public Power, Private Gaintoday onl
Page 132 and 133:
Public Power, Private GainThe Monta
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Public Power, Private GainOn March
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Public Power, Private GainLocal Opp
Page 146 and 147:
Public Power, Private GainAtlantic
Page 148 and 149:
Public Power, Private GainNeighbors
Page 150 and 151:
Public Power, Private GainNew Mexic
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Public Power, Private GainThe price
Page 156 and 157:
Public Power, Private GainAfter a h
Page 158 and 159:
Public Power, Private Gainproject.
Page 160 and 161:
Public Power, Private GainWilliam B
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Public Power, Private GainAfter two
Page 170 and 171:
Public Power, Private GainAround Ci
Page 172 and 173:
Public Power, Private Gainland, the
Page 174 and 175:
Public Power, Private GainEuclid Ci
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Public Power, Private GainOregonKno
Page 180 and 181:
Public Power, Private GainPennsylva
Page 182 and 183:
Public Power, Private Gainsion requ
Page 184 and 185:
Public Power, Private GainThe Mayor
Page 186 and 187:
Public Power, Private GainHome Depo
Page 188 and 189:
Public Power, Private Gain…only t
Page 190 and 191:
Public Power, Private GainRhode Isl
Page 192 and 193:
Public Power, Private GainOut With
Page 194 and 195:
Public Power, Private GainAlthough
Page 196 and 197:
Public Power, Private GainOverviewS
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Public Power, Private GainTexasKnow
Page 202 and 203:
Public Power, Private GainNo Good D
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Public Power, Private GainApparentl
Page 210 and 211:
Public Power, Private Gainback, but
Page 212 and 213:
Public Power, Private GainLafayette
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Public Power, Private Gainfamilies.
Page 218 and 219:
Public Power, Private GainWashingto
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Public Power, Private GainWisconsin
Page 224 and 225:
Public Power, Private GainWyoming l
Page 226 and 227:
landowner may also sell an easement
Page 228:
efore the person must leave, but bu
show all

Public Power, Private Gain - The Castle Coalition

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?