Scary Statement in California
Perhaps unclear on the concept of the public use:
The city now has the option of purchasing, on a judge’s terms, any business property the courts decide could be put to better use.
A City Council decision Tuesday night to restore the power of eminent domain means the city can take ownership of businesses in the redevelopment district – which includes the entire city – and a few apartment complexes as well, if they prove to be a public nuisance.
Councilwoman Jane Day said the city should expand the authority to include all apartment buildings in Suisun City. As it is, only three apartment complexes are vulnerable.
Day called eminent domain “a tool we definitely need on board so that if there are problems we can correct those problems.”
Correct what problems? The problem of private ownership?
Update: Thanks to HL, I corrected the terminology.
August 18th, 2004 at 1:09 pm
Don’t you mean “unclear on the concept of public use?” The phrase “public benefit/public good” is the orgin of a lot of this eminent domain abuse.
The Constitution says public use.
August 18th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
No, the problem of blighted units that have been declared a public nuisance. This becomes clear enough upon reading the paragraph immediately following the portion you quoted out of context:
Using eminent domain as a tool to enforce building codes does strike me as a bit odd, but unless the Suisun City ordinances are unusually onerous (which I doubt, given that Suisun City is basically a cow town), it’s hardly the Robinhood crusade you are making it out to be.
August 18th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
Actually, i dimissed the references to blighted properties because the abuse of that classification has become apparent in many cases of eminent domain in the past. I’ll have to take your word that it’s a cow town.
And i quoted nothing out of context. I was pointing out that classifying the entire city as a redevelopment district subject to eminent domain was pretty egregious, whether the city plans to take over anyone’s property or not. As it stands, that’s a bad precedent.
Unless, of course, every property in the city really is legitimately blighted, which I doubt.
August 18th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
>The city argues that it’s had
>difficulty getting business owners to
>fix up blighted properties and needed
>some method of enforcement.
Gee, I don’t know why business owners don’t want to spend their money to fix up properties the city says it may be taking from them at an momment. =P
August 18th, 2004 at 3:41 pm
Again, that should be a call for code enforcement.
August 19th, 2004 at 11:27 am
If a local government wants to use eminent domain to seize property that is declared blighted (ie, in violation of whatever building/useage codes the locality may have) there needs to be very strict and well defined procedures for doing so-a series of warning, escalating fines, sanctions, etc, with the more serious sanctions in the latter stages of the process requiring clear cut findings, preferrably by judge and/or jury, that said property is in violation of the codes.
Only once the government has jumped through each and every last onerous hoop should it be able to justify condemnation as ‘blighted.’