PLF on Eminent Domain

Oh, No! Prop. 207 Works! (The Sequel)

by Timothy Sandefur

Diana Balazs of the Arizona Republic has this article complaining that Prop. 207, which was desgined to prevent the government from infringing on property rights is actually preventing the government from infringing on property rights. "the Private Property Rights Protection Act is severely limiting what government can do to restrict new development to preserve neighborhoods' existing views, local officials and activists say." That's right--because those property owners have the right to develop their properties. That's what ownership means. So when government wants to "preserve" a "view" by barring people from doing what they want with their property, it's infringing on their property rights and owes them just compensation. And that's all it does: requires just compensation. Prop. 207 does not prohibit government from "preserving views": if the taxpayers think the view is worth it, then they'll happily pay for it. What Ms. Balazs is complaining about is that the government is no longer able to simply take the property rights away without compensation.

It's a shame that the Republic so consistently fails to explain this issue in fair terms.

Pacific Legal Foundation Will Fight Important Missouri Eminent Domain Case

by Timothy Sandefur

The Pacific Legal Foundation has agreed to represent Missouri dentist Homer Tourkakis and his wife Julie, whose land has been condemned by the city of Arnold. The case will be heard by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The City of Arnold, about 20 minutes south of St. Louis, is trying to seize the property to construct the Arnold Commons, a shopping center that will include a Lowe's hardware store, and Office Depot, and other retailers. The Tourkakises, whose land overlooks Interstate 55, have owned their building for almost 20 years, but city officials have bigger plans for that property. And they believe that private property is really just a government privilege that can be revoked whenever bureaucrats have a "better" idea.

The Missouri Constitution, unfortunately, allows certain cities to condemn private property to eliminate "blight." But it gives that power only to charter cities, and Arnold is not a charter city. That fact didn't deter Arnold's bureaucracy, which claims that state law allows them to take the land anyway. State judge M. Edward Williams rejected the city's argument in May, and the city has now appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is very proud to represent the Tourkakises, and we have high hopes that the Missouri Supreme Court will adhere to the clear language of the state Constitution, and prohibit this unauthorized condemnation.

For more information on this case, consult PLF's Media Backgrounder.

Land Use Regulation in L.A.

On a similar note, Prof. Somin has some comments at Volokh Conspiracy.

Beware Deceptive Initiatives

Larry Gilbert at Orange Juice warns about deceptive eminent domain ballot initiatives in California.

California High Prices Caused by Land Use Regulation

The Orange County Register had a nice article here about how government's restrictions of our right to use private property increase the cost of housing. Not surprising, really: many California communitiees make it practically illegal to build new homes, so we shouldn't be surprised that the prices of homes go through the roof. More at California Housing Forecast.

ACA 8 Defeated

by Timothy Sandefur

A.C.A. 8, a legislative proposal here in California which would have provided virtually no real protection against the abuse of eminent domain, has failed to get the votes necessary to be placed on the California ballot. This is important because, as Dan Walters pointed out some time ago, A.C.A. 8 was really just a cynical attempt on the part of the legislature to confuse voters and thereby prevent serious eminent domain reform.

Downtown Fixtures Not in Need of Fixing...Or Replacing

by Timothy Sandefur

Fresno Bee columnist Bill McEwen has this article about the Pacific Legal Foundation's lawsuit against the city of Fresno, which last week ended in a settlement allowing Gary Lanfranco to keep his property. Excerpt:

Lanfranco is the third-generation owner of "Cosmo," a century-old landmark that the Redevelopment Agency declared blighted and subject to eminent domain in its push to spruce up Chinatown.

The Cosmo is to Chinatown what Susan Sarandon is to the silver screen.

Yes, it's been around the block, but it's still beautiful -- and RDA officials could've seen that for themselves if they'd done more than a drive-by inspection.

Or weren't dangling like marionettes from the fingers of master developers.

Instead of rolling over, Lanfranco rolled up his sleeves and called Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based group that believes eminent domain is worse than typhoid fever.

(Read the rest...)

Fresno Promises To Respect Business Owner's Property Rights

The Pacific Legal Foundation today announced a legal settlement with the city of Fresno, in which the city acknowledged that it had failed to re-establish the existence of "blight" in the Chinatown area as required when amending redevelopment plans. More importantly, the city promised not to condemn the Cosmopolitan Tavern, the restaurant owned by city resident Gary Lanfranco's family for over a century. You can read the press release here.

Real Steal Posing As The Real Deal

by Timothy Sandefur

The Orange County Register has this editorial on the recent attempt by the California League of Cities to attack the genuine eminent domain reform initiative in California.

The same organizations supporting ACA8 are claiming that the CPOFPA would forbid the use of eminent domain to create water-storage facilities. This is a cheap scare tactic, designed in part to convince Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – who is committed to rebuilding the state's water infrastructure – to oppose it.

"The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act preserves existing legitimate uses of eminent domain, including the provision of public utilities such as water," explains Timothy Sandefur, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento. "What the Act would prohibit is the seizure of private water rights, or the mere expropriation of private water companies. Such seizures have become unfortunately common, thanks to government's manipulation of virtually every aspect of the economy in California."

Here's Sacramento deception at its worst – the promotion of an initiative designed to accomplish the very opposite of what its supporters claim, and phony claims about another initiative designed to muddy the waters and scare people into opposing it.

(Read the rest...)